Assisted suicide has hidden harms.

Dr Kion Hoffman wrote this opinion article for the Duluth News Tribune who published it on September 7, 2024.

Dr Kion Hoffman

As a family practice physician with 35 years of experience, I’ve had many conversations with patients about their fears as they approach the ends of their lives. A common concern is they don't want to be a burden to their families. This is a natural fear, but it is one that should be met with compassion, not with the option of physician-assisted suicide.

The legalization of physician-assisted suicide in Minnesota would be a dangerous step. It would quickly move from being an option to an obligation for many vulnerable individuals. The pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide could come from the fear of being a burden, the desire to avoid the high costs of long-term care, or the perceived expectation from others that physician-assisted suicide is the right thing to do. This could create a dangerous environment where those who are most vulnerable are given the impression their lives are no longer worth living.

Families, in my experience, rarely see their loved ones as burdens. On the contrary, caring for a family member at the end of life often becomes a deeply meaningful experience. It is a time for expressing love, for forgiveness, and for reconciling relationships that may have been strained. These moments of care and connection are precious and irreplaceable, and they should not be cut short by a premature decision to end life.

I can speak to this from personal experience. My father, a man who lived an active life well into his 80s, struggled deeply when he lost his physical abilities. In his frustration, he asked several doctors to help him end his life. If physician-assisted suicide had been legal, I fear someone might have complied with his request. Instead, we had three more years with him. During that time, my youngest brother and my father had some time together that they needed. My father continued to bring joy to those around him, even while living in a nursing home. His life was still valuable and still full of moments that mattered. His pain was managed, and he died naturally at the age of 92, with me holding his hand.

Legalizing physician-assisted suicide would rob families of these precious, final moments. It would send a message to those who are suffering that their lives are not worth living.

There are many ways to make the end of life more comfortable and even meaningful. Physician-assisted suicide is not the answer. For the sake of our elders, our families, and our community, when this issue comes up again at the Minnesota Legislature, please let your representative and state senator know how you feel.

Dr. Kion Hoffman is a family-practice physician in Cohasset. He wrote this for the News Tribune.

Do No Harm and say No to Assisted Suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Amy Smith

While cleaning up my emails I came across this excellent commentary by Amy Smith, who is a physician-assistant in Minnesota titled: Pledge to 'do no harm' and say No to physician-assisted suicide. Smith's commentary was published in the Minnesota Reformer on April 13, 2024. Smith begins her article by explaining why she opposes assisted suicide.

I’ve spent the past 20 years of my career as a physician assistant saving lives in the emergency department. On a daily basis, I pledge to “do no harm” to my patients as I care for them and render lifesaving aid.

As a medical provider, the greatest harm I can imagine is being responsible for ending my patient’s life. That is why I am deeply troubled by ongoing conversations at the Minnesota Legislature to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

This proposed legislation goes against the fact that a health care providers’ obligation is to care for their patients — not to assist in killing them — no matter the circumstance.

Smith is also concerned with the inevitable future extensions to the legislation.

It is also evident that limits on assisted suicide erode over time. These laws often begin with eligibility limited to terminal illness and a six-month life expectancy; however, countries like Belgium, Netherlands and Canada have gradually expanded criteria to offer assisted suicide to people with depression, disability and chronic pain, as well as people with limited income. Patients often seek assisted suicide out of fear of becoming a burden. Legalizing it reinforces harmful misconceptions that people experiencing chronic illness are a burden and encourages people to end their lives prematurely. And euphemisms like “medical aid in dying” make it more palatable for people to accept this as okay, masking the fact that medical professionals are prescribing medication that results in suicide.

Smith continues by sharing personal experience with death and dying:

Like many Minnesotans, suicide is also a deeply personal subject for me. My dad ended his own life when I was 12 years old. Most people would say that my dad’s death at age 35 was a tragedy. They’d say we should try our best to prevent suicide. I agree.

I also lost my mom to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis when she was only 62. This proposed legislation tells us that it would not have been a tragedy for my mom, with the assistance of her medical provider, to end her own life prematurely. Instead, this legislation says it would have been the caring thing to do. I disagree.

Both situations are absolute tragedies. In both scenarios, a person should have access to supportive, person-centered care — not a legal path to suicide.

Smith concludes by repeating why she opposes assisted suicide.

Is physician-assisted suicide really how we want to care for patients in Minnesota? As a physician assistant, wife, mother — and as an orphan daughter — my answer is a resounding ‘No’.

Thank you Amy Smith for your personal and professional opposition to killing your patients.

Minnesota Assisted Suicide Bill is on a paved road to euthanasia.

Testimony in strong opposition to Minnesota Bill HF 1930 End of Life Option Act
March 12, 2024

Stephen Mendelsohn

By Stephen Mendelsohn

Rep. Jamie Becker Finn and members of the House Judiciary and Civil Law Committee:

I am an autistic adult and one of the leaders of Second Thoughts Connecticut, a coalition of disabled people opposed to the legalization of assisted suicide. I also serve on the board of directors of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition-USA.

I submit this testimony in response and opposition to previous testimony from Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD on March 7, 2024 before the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee.1 Pope argues that there is no “slippery slope” leading to a radical euthanasia regime like that in Canada. I will demonstrate that this “slippery slope” is actually a paved road, in which proponents have openly boasted about using an incrementalist, bait-and-switch strategy to first pass less ambitious legislation and then later expand the law whether by legislation or through the courts.

Pope erroneously claims that the Minnesota Legislature has total control to regulate the parameters of assisted suicide (which he calls “medical aid in dying” or MAID). Not so: Compassion & Choices has successfully sued the states of Oregon and Vermont to get them to eliminate their residency requirements. They currently have a lawsuit against New Jersey on the same issue. This shows that states that have legalized assisted suicide do not have full control over regulating the parameters of the legislation they pass.

It is true that under Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court has ruled there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, and state courts have consistently rejected attempts to compel enactment of these laws. Nonetheless, challenges to laws legalizing assisted suicide based on equal protection and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from both sides remains largely an untested issue.

While one case (Shavelson et al. v. Bonta et al.) seeking to force California to allow for lethal injections for persons who may not be capable or may lose the ability was denied, it is easily conceivable that another court in another jurisdiction would rule otherwise. The core “safeguards” of six months terminal illness, mental competence, and self-administration all make distinctions on the basis of disability, granting some people suicide prevention and others suicide assistance. I would also note there is currently a disability-rights lawsuit, United Spinal Association et al. v. State of California et al., seeking to overturn the End of Life Option Act on ADA and 14th Amendment equal protection grounds.2

Pope claims that “… no U.S. legislature has ever even considered removing the terminal illness requirement. No U.S. legislature has ever even considered removing the self-ingestion requirement.” His testimony was rendered utterly false a mere one day after it was submitted. On March 8, 2024, California State Senator Catherine Blakespear submitted a press release on SB 1196, explaining the provisions of her bill to radically expand that state’s End of Life Options Act.3 This legislation would eliminate the terminal illness requirement, replacing it with “a grievous and irremediable medical condition” similar to what was originally enacted in Canada. It would allow people with early to mid-stage dementia to access the law, and would also allow for lethal injection, moving from assisted suicide to active euthanasia. In addition, it would eliminate the meager 48 hour waiting period, allowing for a same-day death.

Pope himself is a zealous advocate of expansion in this direction.4 He posted to his Medical Futility Blog, “California Makes Big Move on Medical Aid in Dying,” approvingly.5 Even under current law, he has advocated using voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (VSED) as a bridge to enable non-terminal patients to qualify for assisted suicide in states such as Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Hawai‘i which have either significantly shortened the waiting period or allowed it to be waived. Pope published an article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society approvingly citing the case of Cody Sontag, an Oregon woman with early-stage dementia who used VSED to qualify for lethal drugs under that state’s law.6 He notes that “if anyone can access VSED, then anyone can qualify for MAID,” thereby doing an end-run around the law’s terminal illness requirement.

The American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying (ACAMAID) has an “Ethics Consultation Service” report on “Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking and Medical Aid in Dying” noting that:

Legally, there is nothing in the letter of the law of any of the U.S. states’ aid in dying bills that explicitly prohibits accepting voluntary stopping of eating and drinking as a terminal diagnosis to qualify for aid in dying. This remains a legal gray zone.7
ACAMAID confirms that allowing VSED to qualify for lethal prescriptions would “essentially eliminate the criteria of terminal illness to qualify.”

Most significantly, if passed, HF 1930 would be the most expansive and permissive assisted suicide law in the nation to date. Similar to the extreme euthanasia bill in California, it has no waiting period at all, thus allowing anyone—theoretically even otherwise healthy people who may be depressed—to instantly qualify for the lethal dose and die on the same day. It would thereby enact two principal elements of Canada’s radical death regime—widespread eligibility for non-terminal conditions and same day deaths.

Passage of HF 1930 would also shift the Overton window toward more radical legislation. Over the past two years, while no new states have enacted laws to legalize assisted suicide, several states have moved to expand their laws. It is far easier to pass an expansion bill after a state accepts the principle that it is acceptable for doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients than it is to pass legislation to legalize the practice in the first place.

Proponents of assisted suicide bills across the United States have not been shy about their incrementalist bait-and-switch strategy and desire for future expansion. In my home state of Connecticut, Rep. Josh Elliott openly admitted he wanted to get anything on the books even if it was unusable so it could be later expanded. Paul Bass reports in the New Haven Independent:

Elliott has been sponsoring bills for years to allow terminally ill people to take their lives (aka “aid in dying”). The bill finally passed the legislature’s Public Health committee; it got stuck in Judiciary.

The version he plans to resubmit this year has been narrowed to cover terminally ill people with prognoses of less than six months to live, with sign-offs from two doctors and a mental health professional, monthly check-ins, and at least a year of state residence.

“Almost no one” would qualify under that restricted version of the law, Elliott said. But passing it would open the door to evaluation and expansion.8

Here is the full on-air quote from Rep. Elliott on Dateline New Haven:

The bill would be, um, exceptionally narrow in scope, it would be the most narrow in scope bill of this kind were we to pass it. It would be, uh, six months left to live, you have to get sign-offs from multiple doctors—two doctors and one mental health physician—uh, and then you need to go for frequent check ins—I think it's like once a month—and you have, there is a one year residency requirement, so there are so many ways we limit who could actually use this bill, to the point I believe if we were actually to implement the way that we are talking about it, almost nobody would use it. But the important thing for me is to get this bill on the books, and then see how it's working, and if it's not and people aren't using it, than make those corrections to actually allow people to use it. So that is what we've been discussing.9

Similarly, J.M. Sorrell, Executive Director of Massachusetts Death with Dignity, was quoted on a similar bill in his state, saying “Once you get something passed, you can always work on amendments later.”10 And Compassion & Choices past president, Barbara Coombs Lee said almost ten years ago regarding assisted suicide for people with dementia unable to consent, ““It is an issue for another day but is no less compelling.”11

There is much here that I have not covered. To cite a couple of examples, there is an explicit requirement in HF 1930 Section 12 to falsify the death certificate as to the cause and manner of death, thereby covering up foul play. There is also widespread evidence, most recently from ACAMAID, that the laws in other states are not being followed, and with no consequences to the prescribing medical practitioners.12 You will hear plenty of testimony on other problems with this legislation, particularly from others in the disability rights community.

I conclude by emphasizing that HF 1930 is not merely a “slippery slope,” but a paved road north to Canada’s radical euthanasia regime where disabled people are routinely denied services needed to survive but offered “medical aid in dying” instead. Please do not put Minnesota—and the rest of the nation—on this path. 

Please reject HF 1930. Thank you.

1 Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, Written Testimony in Support of H.F. 1930 , Before the Minnesota House of Representatives Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy: https://www.house.mn.gov/comm/docs/peqp-qSyH0aRdWY7Tn41Bw.pdf, pp. 95-98
2 United Spinal Association et al. v. State of California et al. https://endassistedsuicide.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Complaint_Accessible.pdf; for more detail, see https://endassistedsuicide.org
3 Senator Catherine Blakespear, Factsheet on SB 1196: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/cd607dce-3325-492b-b030-b0a22331af65/downloads/SB%201196%20(Blakespear)%20Factsheet.pdf?ver=1709911469736
4 Thaddeus Mason Pope (2023) Top Ten New and Needed Expansions of U.S. Medical Aid in Dying Laws, The American Journal of Bioethics, 23:11, 89-91, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2256244 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2023.2256244
5 https://medicalfutility.blogspot.com/2024/03/california-makes-big-move-on-medical.html
6 Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, Lisa Brodoff, JD, Medical Aid in Dying to Avoid Late-Stage Dementia, “ https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jgs.18785?domain=author&token=VA68TTBJN9VDRCRMRPIP
7 American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying, Ethics Consultation Service, “Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking and Medical Aid in Dying, January 3, 2023: https://www.acamaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Voluntary-Stopping-Eating-and-Drinking-and-Medical-Aid-in-Dying.pdf Pope is part of ACAMAID’s Ethics Consultation Service’s team.

8 Paul Bass, Elliott Readies Next Legislative Steps Toward Freedom, New Haven Independent, January 4, 2004: https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/elliott_readies_next_legislative_steps_toward_freedom
9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0hWOjITspE at clip position 21:30

Minnesota assisted suicide bill (SF 1813/HF 1930) is lethally deceptive.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Minnesota assisted suicide companion bill (SF 1813/HF 1930), upon first reading, appears to be similar to the Oregon assisted suicide law but in fact it is more expansive than the Oregon law.

For instance, unlike Oregon, the Minnesota assisted suicide bill permits non-physicians to be the "provider" of assisted suicide. Also, the Minnesota assisted suicide bill does not have a "waiting period" therefore if passed it will permit a same day death. A person's bad day can be their last day.

The Minnesota Alliance for Ethical Healthcare point out that Minnesota's Assisted Suicide Bill doesn't require a mental health evaluation. They state:

Patients are not required to receive a psychological evaluation before the life-ending prescription is written. In some states, less than two percent of patients who die by assisted suicide receive a mental health referral.*

The Minnesota Alliance for Ethical Healthcare also point out that No witness is required at the death. They state:

The current bill has removed a previous safeguard which required two witnesses be present when the patient requests assisted suicide. Even more alarming, no witness is required when the patient takes the suicide drugs. Without supervision, patients can easily be coerced into ingesting the drug, or another person may administer the drug, leaving open the possibility for euthanasia.

Among other issues, The Minnesota Alliance for Ethical Healthcare point out that the bill does not provide conscience rights. They state:

Doctors who do not wish to provide assisted suicide face discharge or suspension if they do not refer patients to a doctor who will write the lethal prescription. Medical institutions that do not want to participate in assisted suicide are still required to refer patients to another provider.

What you need to know about the Oregon assisted suicide law

The 2022 Oregon assisted suicide report indicated that there were 278 reported assisted suicide deaths up from 255 in 2021. There were 431 lethal death prescriptions up from 383 in 2021.

The 2022 report indicates that even though there were 278 reported assisted suicide deaths, there were an additional 101 deaths where the ingestion status was unknown. When the ingestion status is unknown, the person received the lethal drugs and died but there is no information as to whether the person died by assisted suicide or by a natural death.

As with previous years, the report implies that the deaths were voluntary (self-administered), but the information in the report does not address that subject.

The assisted suicide lobby, for political reasons, the assisted suicide lobby in Minnesota has introduced a bill that is very similar to the Oregon law because their goal is to get it passed and then further expand it later.

Expansion of assisted suicide

Oregon Governor Kate Brown, in July 2019, signed Bill SB 0579 into law which essentially eliminated the 15 day assisted suicide waiting period by allowing the physician to waive the waiting period. If the patient is depressed, the patient loses the opportunity to change their mind.

The physician waived the 15 day waiting period in 109 assisted suicide deaths in 2022. In some cases the lethal drug cocktail was ingested the day after the first request.

 

The Minnesota assisted suicide bill already lacks a "waiting period."

Oregon has removed the assisted suicide residency requirement

A story published in the Daily Mail stated that an assisted suicide clinic in Oregon has started doing assisted suicide for out-of-state residents (suicide tourism). The Daily Mail reports:

Oregon has become America’s first ‘death tourism’ destination, where terminally ill people from Texas and other states that have outlawed assisted suicide have started travelling to get their hands on a deadly cocktail of drugs to end their lives, DailyMail.com can reveal.

In the liberal bastion Portland, at least one clinic has started receiving out-of-staters who have less than six months to live and meet the other strict requirements of the state’s Death with Dignity (DWD) law.

Dr. Nicholas Gideonse, the director of End of Life Choices Oregon, recently told a panel that he was advising terminally ill non-residents on travelling to Oregon to end their lives.

The assisted suicide lobby, over the past few years, has expanded existing assisted suicide laws. Oregon has eliminated their reflection period and their residency requirement. Vermont is permitting assisted suicide by telehealth and have eliminated their residency requirement, Washington state, California and Hawaii also expanded their assisted suicide laws. New Mexico has the most extreme assisted suicide law in America.

Assisted suicide drug experimentation

Assisted suicide activists have been experimenting with lethal drug cocktails on people approved for assisted suicide. An article by Lisa Krieger published by the Medical Xpress on September 8, 2020 uncovers information about the lethal drug experiments:

A little-known secret, not publicized by advocates of aid-in-dying, was that while most deaths were speedy, others were very slow. Some patients lingered for six or nine hours; a few, more than three days. No one knew why, or what needed to change.

"The public thinks that you take a pill and you're done," said Dr. Gary Pasternak, chief medical officer of Mission Hospice in San Mateo. "But it's more complicated than that."

Assisted suicide is sold to the public as offering a peaceful death. Assisted suicide is far more complicated than that.

The 2021 Oregon report emphasizes that the use of the fourth generation of lethal drug cocktails showing that the length of time to die has reduced but the problems with the lethal drug cocktail experiments continue.

The yearly Oregon reports are based on data from the physicians who prescribe and carry-out the assisted suicide deaths. The data is not independently verified. 

 

Data concerning complications and length of time for death, etc., can only be reported when a healthcare provider is present at the death. Information from Oregon concerning complications is only available for 150 of the 278 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2022. For the other 128 assisted suicide deaths, no information is known about the death.

The assisted suicide lobby claims that Oregon has a "safe" assisted suicide regime but in fact the Oregon law lacks effective oversight.

Once assisted suicide is legal, the assisted suicide lobby will lobby or launch court cases to expand the law. The original assisted suicide bill is designed to pass in the legislature, once passed incremental extensions will follow.

Combating the plague of euthanasia

By Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Gordon Friesen

We who oppose all forms of assisted death rely on a large basin of dependable votes from people who believe that such practices are wrong: categorically, universally, absolutely. Many people, however, do not think that way. They believe that the very same act might be bad in one circumstance, but good in another.

This is extremely important from a political point of view because simple moral arguments do not sway such people. Instead, we must follow their logical path to its conclusion, and if possible, reveal conflicts with their own most cherished ideals, which might lead them to reconsider.

This is not easy work, but our friends in Connecticut have succeeded in respectfully reaching a common understanding with progressive voters, on the basis of disability rights. I believe that the same outreach can be undertaken towards those more conservative voters, whose support of assisted death is libertarian. For upon examination, current assisted death propositions are anything but libertarian.

To do this, of course, we must understand exactly what we are dealing with.

Freedom and Medicine

Jurisdictions legalizing assisted death can be roughly divided into two distinct groups, which I will refer to as "Freedom laws" and "Medical laws."

Like its name implies, a Freedom law simply holds that people should have the right to choose a self-determined death. A Medical law, on the other hand, holds that it is the special condition of being ill or disabled which justifies the killing of these individuals. One is therefore characterized by an unconditional embrace of arbitrary personal liberty, while the other, in an attempt to protect the majority from perceived harms of precisely such freedom, and is bound by definitions, limitations and "safeguards".

It would be natural to assume (and most people do so assume) that the wide open policies of a Freedom law would produce correspondingly greater numbers of assisted deaths; that there is a continuum between the two camps; that the farther we move along this imaginary line -- from medicine to freedom -- the more assisted death we will encounter. Surprisingly, however, this is not at all true. In fact, the philosophical rupture is complete; there is no continuum; and as we shall see, it is the Medical law which racks up, by far, the greater number of deaths.

To illustrate this fact, let us compare Switzerland for Freedom, and Canada for Medicine.

Switzerland and Canada

For cultural reasons, the Swiss have informally permitted assisted suicide since time out of mind (although they only got around to legislating on the subject in 1937). According to that law, assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland --for anyone -- as long as it does not proceed from "selfish motives". If the goal can be considered "altruistic", the act is permitted. No particular medical condition is required, nor is the involvement of a physician. Furthermore, it is not the Swiss alone who benefit from these liberties, since a suicide-tourism industry has also grown up, for citizens of less permissive countries who travel to Switzerland, to die.

Canada, on the other hand, has always officially condemned assisted death. Permission has only recently been allowed. Access to euthanasia (the medically preferred method of assisted death) is restricted to defined medical circumstances, which, even though in constant "evolution" are nonetheless intended to limit this practice.

I believe that anyone first hearing that description, and asked to bet upon which country has a higher rate of assisted death, would unfailingly choose Switzerland. But that person would be wrong. And not wrong by a little. In actual fact, the Canadian ratio of euthanasia-to-total-deaths (as recorded in the Province of Quebec), is possibly five times1 that of assisted suicide among the Swiss; even when we include the numerous foreigners who are only briefly in Switzerland, and only for that purpose.

So how can we explain this seeming impossibility? In one word: mandates.

Canada has mandated that euthanasia be provided (as a medical benefit) to all of those who are eligible for it, including those who are incapable of consent. This mandate flows directly from the central principle, of medically justified euthanasia, that it is bad to kill people (generally speaking) but that it is good to kill people who are sick or disabled. This formulation might sound crass, but I believe there is no more polite way to express it.

Switzerland, on the other hand, enables assisted suicide as an arbitrary personal liberty. No judgment is made on the morality of the act. Anyone can seek assisted suicide, but no one can claim entitlement. Most importantly, the State does not pick sides and such a system can create no mandates. Hence the wall-to-wall penetration of euthanasia-think, euthanasia-speak, and State-mandated euthanasia practice, now familiar in Canada, has no equivalent in Switzerland.

What about the USA?

To place these facts in context, a large majority of Americans who support current legislation, enabling assisted death, believe that they are defending the cause of autonomous self-determination. In fact, it is widely assumed that to debate assisted death, at all, is to debate the limits of personal freedom.

And yet nothing could be farther from the truth! None of the different State Bills, recently passed or under consideration, has anything to do with freedom, and none would ever find favor as a Freedom law. Quite the opposite.

All of the legislation which must be dealt with, right now, clearly proceeds from the philosophical principles as a Medical law, Canada in the lead, which is not merely indifferent, but is positively hostile to personal freedom!

For these bills all begin with a restriction of liberty to particular medical conditions; that discriminatory "kiss of death" which allows (and promotes) the killing of the sick and disabled, but nobody else. Such legislation offers no support at all for the true autonomy of the vast majority --either for those who wish to die (but do not fit the criteria), or for those who are qualified, but do not. The real effect is only to validate choices and behaviors which coincide with the opinions, and prejudices, of the legislators themselves.

Moreover, all of these Bills seek to impose their desired outcomes through the use of sweeping and invasive medical mandates.

Such, for instance, is the New York requirement that all public health facilities allow assisted death, or the Minnesota claim that all doctors should "inform" eligible patients. These authoritarian directives do not advance patient autonomy! On the contrary. They serve to further restrict the autonomous liberty of the non-suicidal majority! For should such mandates be enacted, as in Canada, it would no longer be possible for non-suicidal patients to find public hospitals where they might properly be cared for, by professionals who are not actively conniving at their accelerated (cost-effective) death.

Opposing authoritarian mandates and defending personal liberty

There are many good people who uphold ideal notions of autonomous self-determination. And such people instinctively believe it is their duty to support any sort of legislation enabling assisted death. However (to state the obvious), sincere libertarians are not natural partisans of discriminatory and authoritarian mandates! They are not the people to quietly accept the monstrous sort of misrepresentation, and Bait-and-Switch, of which I maintain we are now the victims of with Canada's euthanasia law.

If even a few of these can be brought to coolly reconsider the evidence, as presented here, I believe we may finally achieve a tipping point, in arresting that gruesome utilitarian death-agenda, which we presently see spreading like a rash across the civilized world.

Gordon Friesen
President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
June 21, 2023

1) Note on Swiss and Canadian (Quebec) assisted death rates:

Assisted suicides may represent 1.5% of all deaths in Switzerland.
(Article link) -- accessed June 20, 2023

Euthanasia accounts for up to 7% of all deaths in Quebec
(Article link) -- accessed June 20, 2023

7/1.5 = 4.66; therefore the Quebec euthanasia rate is roughly five times that of assisted suicide in Switzerland

Minnesota Assisted Suicide bills are likely dead.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have great news. The Minnesota Alliance for Ethical Healthcare reported that companion assisted suicide bills HF 1930 and SF 1813 did not receive a hearing before the first legislative deadline (March 10). This is great news as these bills are likely dead in 2023.

In my article concerning the Minnesota companion assisted suicide bills I explained that these bills were far more permissive than the Oregon assisted suicide law and the bills used language, such as creating a "standard of care" to define assisted suicide as medical treatment in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Alliance refered to these bills as the most aggressive in America while thanking their supporters for the nearly 1,000 messages that were sent to state legislators who are heard from constituents that Minnesota needs to support real healthcare throughout life's journey that doesn't target those who are vulnerable and at-risk.

To learn more about the Minnesota Alliance for Ethical Healthcare and what they are doing to prevent assisted suicide, visit www.ethicalcaremn.org.

Connecticut assisted suicide bill 1076 must be defeated.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Cathy Ludlum, Second Thoughts Connecticut

Last year I celebrated the defeat of the Connecticut assisted suicide bill by one vote in the judiciary committee. That bill was the 10th consecutive assisted suicide bill in Connecticut to fail. But I also told my supporters that the battle in Connecticut may return for an eleventh straight year in 2023.

This year's Connecticut Assembly Bill 1076 has been amended to appear specifically tighter in its wording, than previous bills because the assisted suicide lobby has failed to legalize assisted suicide for 10 consequtive years. The New York assisted suicide bill is also written in a tighter manner, based on the fact that the assisted suicide lobby has failed to legalize assisted suicide in New York.

The assisted suicide lobby has no intention of leaving the bill restrictions in place. The assisted suicide lobby has two strategies, the first is to do what is necessary to legalize assisted suicide and the second is to expand those bills once legal.

A few years ago, Hawaii was a state that had rejected assisted suicide bills over consequtive years. The Hawaii legislature legalized assisted suicide in 2018. The very next year the assisted suicide lobby was pressuring the Hawaii legislature to expand their law. Hawaii is currently debating House Bill 650 to expand their assisted suicide law.

Members of the Connecticut legislature must reject the current bill, because assisted suicide is always wrong and they assisted suicide lobby are trying to legalize assisted suicide and, if passed, they will amend it in the coming years.

The bills to legalize assisted suicide in Minnesota, a state that has not debated assisted suicide every year, is a wider bill than Connecticut.

The Minnesota bill:

• Allows non physicians to assess, approve and prescribe lethal assisted suicide drugs. Minnesota defines a "Provider" as: a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, and an advanced practice registered nurse. 
• Allows lesser trained mental health professionals to assess competency. "Licensed mental health provider" is defined as a psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker, psychiatric nurse practitioner, or clinical professional counselor. 
• There is no waiting period for being approved for assisted suicide. It is possible that a person request assisted suicide and die the same day.
  
• Allows the lethal drug cocktail to be delivered by mail or messenger service. 
• Allows a healthcare facility to prohibit assisted suicide but the facility cannot prohibit information about assisted suicide or referrals for assisted suicide.
• Does not require the person requesting death by lethal drugs to be a resident of Minnesota. Oregon withdrew their residency requirement in 2022. There is now an assisted suicide clinic and suicide tourists in Oregon. 
• Creates a "standard of care" for assisted suicide, Medical care that complies with the requirements of this section meets the medical standard of care. Assisted suicide is not medical care.
  

By reading the articles by the assisted suicide lobby and assisted suicide bills that are being promoted by the assisted suicide lobby, they are clearly moving to allowing an easier approval process and to enable more people to qualify for assisted suicide.

Recently Oregon withdrew their residency requirement for assisted suicide and Vermont has a bill to also remove their residency requirement. Oregon, Vermont and California lessened their waiting periods for assisted suicide and Hawaii and Washington state currently have bills that will lessen their waiting periods.

So lets call a spade a spade. Connecticut has rejected assisted suicide for 10 consecutive years and in response the assisted suicide lobby has presented a tighter bill. If Connecticut passes Assembly Bill 1076, within a year or two, the assisted suicide lobby will be expanding it.

The only way to protect vulnerable people is to reject assisted suicide completely.

Minnesota assisted suicide bills provide legal immunity to kill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The Minnesota legislature will be debating companion assisted suicide bills HF 1930 and SF 1813.

For many years I have writen about assisted suicide and the language of the assisted suicide bills. In 2021, New Mexico passed the most extreme assisted suicide bill in America. Minnesota's assisted suicide bills contains some of the measures that are found in the New Mexico law. 

"To learn more about the status of this bill and what you can do to stop assisted suicide, visit www.ethicalcaremn.org and take action."

The Minnesota assisted suicide bill is more permissive than the Oregon assisted suicide law. The bills:

• Allows non physicians to assess, approve and prescribe lethal assisted suicide drugs. Minnesota defines a "Provider" as: a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, and an advanced practice registered nurse. 
• Allows lesser trained mental health professionals to assess competency. "Licensed mental health provider" is defined as a psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker, psychiatric nurse practitioner, or clinical professional counselor. 
• There is no waiting period for being approved for assisted suicide. It is possible that a person request assisted suicide and die the same day.
  
• Allows the lethal drug cocktail to be delivered by mail or messenger service. 
• Allows a healthcare facility to prohibit assisted suicide but the facility cannot prohibit information about assisted suicide or referrals for assisted suicide.
• Does not require the person requesting death by lethal drugs to be a resident of Minnesota. Oregon withdrew their residency requirement in 2022. There is now an assisted suicide clinic and suicide tourists in Oregon. 
• Creates a "standard of care" for assisted suicide, Medical care that complies with the requirements of this section meets the medical standard of care. Assisted suicide is not medical care.
  

The Minnesota bills requires that assisted suicide not be listed as the cause of death on the death certificate. The bills states:

When a death has occurred in accordance with section 145.871, the death shall be attributed to the underlying terminal disease.

Further to that, a death by assisted suicide cannot be designated as a suicide or homicide. The bills states:

Death in accordance with section 145.871 shall not be designated suicide or homicide.

This is significant because when a person dies by assisted suicide, sometimes the person was administered the lethal drug cocktail rather than it being "self administered." The bill states that it shall not be designated a homicide.

The Minnesota assisted suicide bills provides complete legal immunity for "Providers" who are willing to prescribe lethal drugs. The bills states:

• No person or health care facility shall be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action, including censure, suspension, loss of license, loss of privileges, loss of membership, or any other penalty for engaging in good faith compliance.

Good faith compliance is the lowest standard.

The bills end by providing more legal protection for those who participate in assisted suicide. The bills states:

(a) Nothing in sections 145.871 to 145.878 authorizes a provider or any other person, including the qualified individual, to end the qualified individual's life by lethal injection, lethal infusion, mercy killing, homicide, murder, manslaughter, euthanasia, or any other criminal act.

(b) Actions taken in accordance with sections 145.871 to 145.878 do not, for any purposes, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, mercy killing, homicide, murder, manslaughter, elder abuse or neglect, or any other civil or criminal violation under the law.

Section (a) states that the bill does not authorize a person to kill by lethal injection... but it doesn't prohibit it either. Section B states that actions in accordance with... do not, for any purposes, constitute... In other words, if the lethal drug cocktail was used to kill the person, the law states that it is not euthanasia, mercy killing, homicide, murder, manslaughter, elder abuse or neglect...

The immunity that these bills provide the "Providers" who assess, approve and prescribe lethal drug cocktails, should cause concern for every legislator and lead them to reject the bill.

The wording of the bills ensures that no one who participates in assisted suicide will ever be subject to any civil or criminal liability. Let's be clear, when the family of a person who dies by assisted suicide have a strong case that something very wrong occurred, the family will not achieve justice because the law grants complete immunity.

Minnesota End-of-Life Options Act would decriminalize assisted suicide and is a dangerous road-map for future medical practice

Gordon Friesen
EPC President

As has been demonstrated in Canada, the most virulent strain of assisted death is that which presents itself as standard medical care. Unfortunately, the so called End-of-Life Options Act, now under consideration in Minnesota draws deeply from that source. (Link to the End-of-Life Options Act).

First, the name itself "end-of-life option" is apparently chosen to create obligations and permissions based on the medical "Standard of Care" as laid out in the Minnesota Patients Bill of Rights. For according to the text of this Standard, informed patient consent requires that doctors make their patients aware of alternative "options".

It is therefore strongly suggested (were this bill passed), that all doctors would have an ethical obligation to mention the possibility of assisted suicide every time they prescribe any other treatment (for terminal patients).

Indeed, if the Minnesota legislator had chosen to proceed with a firm declaration of assisted death as "medical care" there is no question but that all doctors and facilities (as in Canada) would be obliged to provide it. It is, however, plainly stipulated in the bill that no one (and no facility) is obliged to provide fulfillment (or any information) regarding the "Option". Moreover, this exemption is not provided (again as in Canada) on the grounds of any particular "right of conscience". The presumption therefore exists that participation and information regarding assisted death may be simply ruled out by professionals and service providers on the grounds of their own medical judgment. And hence: that no true medical obligation is claimed.

A second stab at the establishment of an assumed medical status, lies in the term "medical aid in dying", itself, defined to mean the actualization of said "option" through evaluation of request, determination of eligibility, and prescription of a lethal potion. Apparently we are thus invited to assume that allowing doctors to employ their special knowledge and privileges (for any other purpose whatsoever) automatically justifies the addition of that crucial adjective "medical".

However, we would do well to remember that the most important of a doctor's tasks lies precisely in deciding what is (or is not) medically appropriate for the patient. And since the definition of "medical aid in dying" speaks only of determining "eligibility" (with regards to legal criteria provided by the legislator) there is no hint of any such medical judgment.

Therefore, while the prescribing doctor may indeed be acting as an expert medical technician, he is nonetheless effectively employed as a blunt instrument, in response to the suicidal wish of the qualified patient. He (or she) is decidedly not making any significant medical judgment or proposition of care. The appellation "medical" is therefore a misnomer.

Much more appropriate, I submit, would be the term "Para-medical aid in dying", chosen to indicate a status perhaps closely related to the medical art (through the use of a common technical expertise in the manipulation of dangerous substances) but at the same time fundamentally distinct. (see: para- Med terms 'P': suffixes/prefixes in medical terminology)

The other usual justification of assisted death --non-medical this time-- comes from a direct appeal to some sort of "right-to-die".

If for instance, it were directly proclaimed that the State of Minnesota supports and guarantees a right for all persons (or at least for all terminally ill persons) to have access to assisted death (as the Canadian Province of Quebec has so engaged its guarantee) then there would be a clear duty for doctors (or some other mandated group) to provide that access. However, once again, since any forced individual or collective mandate is explicitly ruled out in the Bill: that justification for imposing obligations (or according permissions) can not be sustained either.

In conclusion, the Minnesota "bill for an act relating to health; establishing an end-of-life option for terminally ill adults" is built like a spider's web of suggestion and inference. Far beyond its immediate scope, a great conceptual space is apparently occupied, and sweeping logical consequences for future policy are claimed. However, the persuasive power of this conceptual net depends upon the observer failing to notice that it is not actually anchored in either of its corners.

For the Minnesota bill does not actually define the "end-of-life option" as medical care, nor does it establish a true "right-to-die", even for those who are eligible.

Hopefully, those opposed to assisted death will find enough support to defeat this Bill. But if that be so, there must also logically be enough support to previously strip out the dangerously tendentious medical verbiage with which it is laden. For one can not assume that such a Bill will never pass. And in that perspective, it is now, and only now, that we have the leisure of clearly defining future limits to logic and intention.

Gordon Friesen, November 10, 2022

Assisted suicide is a disability rights issue.

This story was published by the Minnesota Alliance for Ethical Healthcare.

Kathy with her son Kylen

My name is Kathy Ware. I am first and foremost a mother to two sons, my twenty-one-year-old, Kylen, and Connor who is fourteen. Secondly, I am an MNA union dues paying nurse of seventeen years. I want you to know that assisted suicide is an attack on disability rights and that’s why I’m here.

Kylen Ware has incurable and irreversible medical conditions and lifelong chronic disabilities. He has a seizure disorder, quadriplegic cerebral palsy, and profound mental retardation. I have spent the past twenty-one years of my life as a disability advocate trying to get people to see the dignity and the value and the worth of his life.

Oregon Public Health lists the top five reasons for seeking physician-assisted suicide. Number one is “losing autonomy”; that is Kylen Ware, that is disability. Number two is being “less able to engage in activities;” that is Kylen Ware, that is disability. Number three, “loss of dignity”, which is what I am trying to maintain my son has to the world and to the state of Minnesota. “Losing control of bodily functions” is number four. This one just makes me angry. My son has been diapered for twenty-one years. I don’t think that should be a reason why we go to a doctor to seek physician-assisted suicide. Is that really a reason? Because a person is diapered therefore their lives are less dignified? I don’t think so. “Burden to family and caregivers,” that’s the last one on the list for Oregonians seeking physician-assisted suicide. People wouldn’t pursue physician-assisted suicide if they had the help and the care that they need to take care of their loved one. If this bill was passed, it would be telling people that if you don’t want to feel like a burden, you should go to the doctor to end your life. I don’t want people to look at my son and see a dollar sign, to see a burden and not my son who is inherently valuable to us.

As people from the disability community, we aren’t asking for pity. We want support and we want help and we want our lives to be recognized as valuable. Again, I have worked as a registered nurse for seventeen years. I know the medical bias in the community, I’ve experienced it. I have had nurses come out of patients’ rooms and say, “Jeez if I ever get like that, tattoo DNR/DNI on my chest.” (Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate.) And I have sat at the nurses’ station and thought, get like what? Like my son?

Recently, I took both my sons in for dental procedures. Same exact dental procedure. Why does the medical community want to know if Kylen Ware is DNR-DNI and do not resuscitate him? But nobody asks me that about my healthy, non-disabled fourteen-year-old? Why is that? What if I want to make Connor DNR/DNI? Are you all okay with that? Because if you’re not, why are you okay with making Kylen DNR/DNI? These are the issues of a population with disabilities. This is a disability rights issue.