Massachusetts Court case seeks to legalize assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Masslive published a report by Shira Schoenberg concerning the court case that has been launched to overturn the Massachusetts assisted suicide law. According to Schoenberg, Roger Kligler, who is living with cancer, and Dr. Alan Steinbach launched a lawsuit to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Massachusetts.

This is not the first time similar lawsuits have been filed. There have been several lawsuits that were simply dismissed by the court, while others were heard with the finding that there is no right to assisted suicide.

The Baxter case in Montana didn't legalize assisted suicide but the Montana Supreme Court created a "defense of consent" for Montana physicians and an activist judge in New Mexico found a right to assisted suicide in that state, but her decision was overturned by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Schoenberg reported that Kligler and Steinbach asked the court to overturn the Massachusetts assisted suicide law:

Kligler and Alan Steinbach, a doctor who wants to write lethal prescriptions for terminally ill patients, have sued Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, arguing that criminal prosecution of a doctor for prescribing a lethal dose of medication to a competent, terminally ill patient is illegal under the state constitution. Today, a Massachusetts doctor who prescribes a lethal dose of medication could be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Schoenberg reported that the Massachusetts Attorney General believes that the issue of assisted suicide is properly a legislative decision. The article reported:

Assistant Attorney General Robert Quinan said Healey has not taken a position on whether physician-assisted suicide is good or bad policy. But, he said, it is not for Healey — or the court — to decide. The plaintiffs, he said, want “to resolve through litigation a policy dispute that’s properly reserved for the Legislature.”

Nancy Houghton and John Kelly

Disability rights activists, John Kelly from the disability right group Second Thoughts and Nancy Houghton from the disability rights group ADAPT told Schoenberg in the interview:

“There’s no safeguard in place or possible that could prevent the loss of lives due to misdiagnosis, insurer treatment denial, depression and coercion and other forms of abuse,” said John Kelly, director of Second Thoughts Massachusetts, a group of disability rights advocates who oppose assisted suicide. 

Nancy Houghton, who is on the board of the Massachusetts chapter of the disability rights group ADAPT, said she was told she had three to five years to live when she was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis, a lung disease. That was 15 years ago.

“If I had listened to the doctors back then, I could be dead now,” she said.

There is no right to assisted suicide in the US or Massachusetts. Legalizing assisted suicide gives doctors the right in law to be involved with killing their patients.

Montana Bill prohibiting assisted suicide passes in the House

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Great news: Montana House Bill 284 (HB 284) passed in the Judiciary House ensuring that it will be debated and voted in the Montana Senate. The debate on the bill may happen later this week.

It is interesting that the media have been silent on the success of HB 284.

Montanans have faced a confusing situation concerning assisted suicide. In 2009, the Baxter court decision declared that Montana citizens had a right to assisted suicide. The Baxter decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court where it was decided that Montana citizens do not have a right to assisted suicide but even but the Court granted a tightly worded defense of consent, if a physician was prosecuted for assisted suicide.

* Physician-Assisted Suicide is not legal in Montana.

Since the Montana Supreme Court decision, the assisted suicide lobby has claimed that assisted suicide is legal in Montana, while in fact assisted suicide is technically prohibited.

HB 284 reverses the Montana Supreme Court Baxter decision by clarifying that consent is not a defense for homicide or assisted suicide.

The assisted suicide lobby sent out an emergency appeal today calling HB 284 the physician imprisonment act. The assisted suicide lobby is confirming that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.

Assisted suicide abandons people at their time of greatest human need.

Montana bill (HB 284) would prohibit assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

For the past few years Montanans have faced a confusing situation concerning assisted suicide. In 2009, the Baxter court decision declared that Montana citizens had a right to assisted suicide. The Baxter decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court where it was decided that Montana citizens do not have a right to assisted suicide but even but the Court granted a tightly worded defense of consent, if a physician was prosecuted for assisted suicide.

Physician-Assisted Suicide is not legal in Montana.

Since the Montana Supreme Court decision, the assisted suicide lobby has claimed that assisted suicide is legal in Montana, while in fact assisted suicide is technically prohibited.

This year House Bill 284 was introduced to reverse the effect of the Montana Supreme Court decision by clarifying that consent is ineffective for homicide or assisted suicide. HB 284 states:

Section 1. Section 45-2-211, MCA, is amended to read: "45-2-211. Consent as defense. 

(1) The consent of the victim to conduct charged to constitute an offense or to the result thereof is a defense. 

(2) Consent is ineffective if:
(a) it is given by a person who is legally incompetent to authorize the conduct charged to constitute the offense;
(b) it is given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or disorder, or intoxication is unable to make a reasonable judgment as to the nature or harmfulness of the conduct charged to constitute the offense;
(c) it is induced by force, duress, or deception; or
(d) it is against public policy to permit the conduct or the resulting harm, even though consented to.

(3) (a) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), physician aid in dying is against public policy, and a patient's consent to physician aid in dying is not a defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection (3), "physician aid in dying" means an act by a physician of prescribing a lethal dose of medication to a patient that the patient may self-administer to end the patient's life. The term does not include an act of withholding or withdrawing a life-sustaining treatment or procedure authorized pursuant to Title 50, chapter 9 or 10."

Two years ago, a similar bill lost on a tie vote.

Montana assisted suicide vote defeated in error.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

For the past few years Montana has faced a confusing situation with respect to assisted suicide. In 2009, the Baxter court decision declared that Montana citizens had a right to assisted suicide. The Baxter decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court that decided that Montana citizens do not have a right to assisted suicide but even though the Court did not overturn the statute protecting Montana citizens from assisted suicide the Court did grant a tightly worded defense of consent, if a physician was prosecuted for assisted suicide.

• Physician-Assisted Suicide is not legal in Montana.

Since the Montana Supreme Court decision, the assisted suicide lobby has claimed that assisting a suicide is legal in Montana, but in fact assisted suicide is technically prohibited.

This year Rep Brad Tschida introduced House Bill 365 that stated consent is not a defense in assisting a suicide. HB 365 would have clarified that assisting a suicide is prohibited in Montana.

Last Wednesday, HB 365 failed on the final vote in a 50 to 50 tie vote, and yet HB 365 had the votes to pass. According to the Missoulian Rep Peggy Webb accidentally voted against HB 365 on the final vote.

“It was a mistake,” said Rep. Peggy Webb, R-Billings, who changed from a vote for the bill Tuesday to a vote against Wednesday. “I hit yes and then thought, ‘No, I don’t want assisted suicide,’ and changed the vote. It was too late to change it back.” Her vote went from yes to no. 

Votes can’t be changed if they would alter the outcome of the vote, which was the case with Webb's vote. House Bill 365 was carried by Rep. Brad Tschida, R-Missoula.

Considering the fact that the media is constantly brainwashing the public with the message that Americans want assisted suicide, it is a sad reality that HB 365 died on a failed vote.

Thank you to the Montanans Against Assisted Suicide for all of their work.

Montana death: Murder or Assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Independent Record in Helena Montana reported today on a case of a woman who killed a man, by strangulation, because he had asked to die.

The woman accused of killing a man in Billings on Tuesday night says she strangled the man because he told her he wanted to die and she had wanted to try killing someone with her "bare hands."

Penelope Strong, Haugen's defense attorney was reported to state:

"We're likely looking at an assisted suicide defense for Ms. Haugen,"

Lindsay Haugan

The Independent Record reported:

(Lindsay) Haugen ... and (Robert) Mast had been dating since August, and they were traveling from Olympia, Washington, to North Dakota, but had stopped at a Billings Wal-Mart to eat some pizza and drink some wine. 

The pair were sitting in the parking lot in Haugen's car when Mast told her he wanted to die. 

Haugen said if he was serious, she could make it happen. Mast told Haugen he was serious. 

Haugen climbed into the back of the car and put her arm around Mast's neck as he sat in the passenger seat. She described in detail the process of Mast's death to officers and said at one point he began to foam at the mouth. According to charging documents, she said she held his mouth and nose shut for at least 20 minutes.

If the content in this article is causing you to have suicidal thoughts contact Your Life Counts.

I am interested in this story because Mast's lawyer says that she will use assisted suicide as a defense for murder. Assisted suicide is not legal in Montana, but the Montana Supreme Court, in its Baxter decision, gave physicians a defense of consent. When assisted suicide is legalized, defense lawyer's can defend a murder charge by arguing it was an assisted suicide.

I will continue to follow this case.

Pushing the Courts to Impose Assisted Suicide

This article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on August 12, 2015.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

The suicide pushers want to win by any means possible. 

Hence, Kathryn Tucker, the lawyer who brought the Glucksberg case, wants judges to impose assisted suicide legalization on us all. From, the California Lawyer story on the so far unsuccessful fight here to pass an Oregon-style assisted suicide law: 

Director Tucker of the Disability Rights Legal Center called SB 128 an “outdated approach, seeking to replicate a measure adopted 21 years ago in Oregon.” In her view, litigation would be more effective than legislation. For example, if the plaintiffs prevail in Brody, Tucker says, “the same open practice of aid in dying will emerge in California … [without] burdensome requirements for collecting and reporting data.” 

Ah, the cat is out of the bag! These were the very “guidelines” that Tucker once said was so important to protect against abuses. 

DO YOU NOT SEE NOW that the suicide fanatics are running a con about “guidelines?” They are merely an expedient to be ignored or discarded as soon as society swallows their hemlock. 

Hopefully, that might not be so easy. 

Way back in 1997, in Glucksberg v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court found–9-0!–that there is not a constitutional right to assisted suicide. 

Florida State Supreme Court agreed with regard to state law. So did Alaska’s. Connecticut trial court agreed. Ditto a recent California trial court, among others. 

Heck, even Montana’s Supreme Court, which issued one of the most muddled confusing decisions I have ever read, did not find a constitutional right to assisted suicide. 

Then, a New Mexico trial judge wanted to make history. But she was overturned in the New Mexico Court of Appeals, in a long decision that hearkens quite a bit to the Glucksberg case. From the Washington Times story: 

The New Mexico Court of Appeals handed a defeat to the right-to-die movement Tuesday by striking down a lower-court ruling establishing physician-assisted suicide.  

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that the district court had erred when it determined that “aid in dying is a fundamental liberty interest.” “We conclude that aid in dying is not a fundamental liberty interest under the New Mexico Constitution,” said Judge Timothy L. Garcia in the majority opinion.; 

Good. IF this horrible idea is to become law, it should be done through democratic processes. 

Next time an assisted suicide promises guidelines to protect against abuse, remember Tucker’s disdain for the very concept.

• Great News: The New Mexico Court of Appeals struck down an activist assisted suicide decision, upholding protections in law from assisted suicide.

Subversive Strategies to Sell Assisted Suicide.

Dr Jacqueline Harvey

By Dr Jacqueline Harvey

The numbers don’t lie. In spite of masterful public relations campaigns to suggest otherwise, the assisted suicide movement has an abysmal record trying to legalize assisted self-destruction over the last 21 years. The suicide lobby has few victories to claim. Rather, they consistently fail at each of the strategies they employ to push their agenda. Lawmakers fail to pass assisted suicide bills 99% of the time, after lawmakers are educated of the dangers at public hearings. Ballot initiatives fail in nearly three-quarters of cases to win enough votes, even after propaganda campaigns with no public hearings. Even attempts to subvert lawmakers and voters altogether by courting judges to legislate from the bench have yielded few returns. 

Bolstered by deep pockets and a sympathetic media, we are led to believe that the assisted suicide movement is winning, when the track record shows overwhelming political failure spanning three decades.

Nowhere is it more clear how lethal education and scientific evidence are to the suicide lobby than by examining how many assisted suicide bills withstand the scrutiny of witness testimony. Since 1994, 175 bills have been introduced in 35 states and the District of Columbia and thus far, only one has prevailed. Vermont is the anomaly, the lone bill, passed in 2013 after 19 years of failed attempts to convince legislators, a success rate of .057%. Assisted suicide is an established loser with lawmakers, failing more than 99% of the time in statehouses in over 20 years. Death making does not fare well when subjected to public debate. Thus far in 2015, 25 states and the District of Columbia have introduced legislation and most bills met their demise, by either lacking support to advance, devastated by testimony and withdrawn to address concerns or simply to spare a humiliating death. A few a late-filed bills still linger after failing to launch, but are unlikely to persevere through the process or manifest as an amendment to still-viable legislation. 

A team of assisted suicide lobbyists are attempting to resurrect California’s Senate Bill SB128 through a procedural ploy that subverts the committee that rejected it and placing it on the floor for a vote, in an affront to the legislative process but in keeping with the suicide lobby’s inability to legitimately pass bills and blatant overall lack of regard for law-making and public will. They routinely circumvent lawmakers to exploit voters, and even disregard both lawmakers and voters to forcibly impose their will through the courts due to an inability to pass assisted suicide through legitimate means. Only one bill has yet prevailed at all through the legislature. A record of 1 in 175 is evidence that assisted suicide is too illegitimate an act to obtain legitimate support.

Attempts to comfort lawmakers ill-at-ease after hearing testimony about the abuses and dangers of assisted suicide are not persuasive. Rather than address the evidence from testimony which gives lawmakers reservations, the suicide lobby have decided to create lawmakers out of the uniformed voter through ballot initiatives that do not require public hearings. Assisted suicide advocates have frequently appealed to the voters who are not informed by testimony and could be swayed by emotion and deceived by sanitized language designed to manipulate their vote. 

Word choice is critical. Polls can drop 20 points against assisted suicide by using the word suicide, so the assisted suicide movement crafted terms like “aid-in-dying” to present suicide as a helpful act, rather than what is: assisted self-destruction. Suicide lobbyists fared a bit better when trying to exploit the uninformed this way but still have an overall losing record. While the success rate is a bit higher than with the traditional route that forces legislators who vote to actually understand the issue, the lobby still has only two of seven wins to its credit since 1994. Two wins in Oregon and Washington out of seven attempts is only 28.57% success rate, 71.23% of these campaigns still failed. Even without the benefit of testimony decrying the dangers of assisted suicide, people simply do not like suicide. Regardless of how assisted suicide has been rebranded for the sole purpose of overcoming this aversion, nonetheless voters have seen right through it nearly three-quarters of the time.

When lawmakers can not be convinced nor the voting public, assisted suicide lobbyists turn to activist judges to overturn laws against their will. This is why the only other two states with assisted suicide bypassed both lawmakers and voters and imposed it by judicial decree in New Mexico and Montana. The Montana court didn't actually legalize assisted suicide, but gave doctors a "defense of consent." The New Mexico court decision is currently under appeal. (The New Mexico Court of Appeal overturned the assisted suicide decision on August 11).

Attempts to subvert all voters and legislatures through the United States Supreme Court failed twice in 1997 but still allowed for lower court activism to usurp the will of the people. This strategy has prevailed just twice. In fact, such an attempt just failed in California when the judge showed disdain for such an attempt to usurp the will of the people saying that assisted suicide is “best left to the legislature, not the courts” saying that this issue requires a “legislative fix, not a judicial nix.”  Clearly judicial activism like this failed attempt is yet another hit-or-miss strategy, as well as the fact that the assisted suicide movement still puts resources into introducing and lobbying for bills in spite of having failed 174 out of 175 times in 21 years. 

The longstanding failure of the assisted suicide lobby to sell their agenda to informed lawmakers, the inability to gain enough support with the average voter or find sympathetic judges or to supplant the law points simply to the inherent problems with assisted suicide. The persistence and market research to brand suicide as something different may have deceived some into believing they support assisted suicide, yet this has not translated into political success. Furthermore, attempts to quell public debate by bypassing the legislature has not stopped educational efforts, shown in Massachusetts in 2012 to change polling from 65% in favor and 19% opposed to the ballot measure being defeated on election night. 

With three distinct strategies and three decades and only five state laws affected (two of which were are affront to the will of the people) the assisted suicide lobby simply does not reflect the political climate of the United States, in spite of efforts to manipulate public opinion. They may be relentless in their attempts to impose suicide on society but equally relentless attempts to stop them tend to always succeed.

Jacqueline C. Harvey is a public-policy scholar with Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International. She has a Ph.D. in public administration and policy and focuses on end-of-life legislation at the state level.

"Big Business" and Assisted Suicide

This article was published on the California Against Assisted Suicide website.

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore Esq., MBA*

Assemblyman Roger Hernandez was recently quoted as concerned that big business would use California's assisted suicide proposal, SB 128, to "guide people in that direction," meaning early death via a lethal overdose.

This is a valid concern.

I am an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. Our law is based on a similar law in Oregon. Both laws are similar to SB 128, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in California.

In Oregon, it is well documented that Oregon's Medicaid program uses coverage incentives to steer people to suicide. See: Affidavit of Oregon doctor, Ken Stevens, pp 3-4. With legal assisted suicide, private health plans have this same ability. Dr. Stevens states:

If assisted suicide is legalized in [your state], your government health plan could follow a similar pattern. Private health plans could also follow this pattern. If so, these plans would pay for you and/or your family to die, but not to live. (Emphasis added). Id, ¶16.

Dr. Stevens also notes that the mere presence of legal assisted suicide steers people to suicide, which was the case with his patient Jeanette Hall. Her cancer treatment was fully covered, but with the existence of Oregon's law, she nonetheless became adamant that she would kill herself. Dr. Stevens convinced her to be treated instead. (Affidavit, ¶¶ 5-9). She is alive today, fifteen years later.

As for Assemblyman Hernandez's specific "big business concern," in 2013, a Montana State Senator made a similar observation:

I found myself wondering, Where does all the lobby money come from? If it really is about a few terminally ill people who might seek help ending their suffering, why was more money spent on promoting assisted suicide than any other issue in Montana? 

Could it be that convincing an ill person to end their life early will help health insurance companies save a bundle on what would have been ongoing medical treatment? How much would the government gain if it stopped paying social security, Medicare, or Medicaid a few months early? [it could actually be years earlier]. How much financial relief would pension systems see? Why was the proposed law to legalize assisted suicide [SB 220] written so loosely? Would vulnerable old people be encouraged to end their life unnecessarily early by those seeking financial gain?

Finally, there is the expansion issue. In Washington State, we have had informal "trial balloon" proposals to expand our law to non-terminal people. For me, the most disturbing one was in the Seattle Times, which is our largest paper. A column suggested euthanasia as a solution for people without funds in their old age, which could be any of us, say if the company pension plan went broke.**

Assemblyman Hernandez is right to be concerned about what could happen to his constituents if SB 128 is passed.

Don't let California make Washington and Oregon's mistake. Urge your legislators to vote "NO" on SB 128.

* Margaret Dore is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and the Washington State Court of Appeals. She is a former Chair of the Elder Law Section of the ABA Family Law Committee. She also worked for a year with the United States Department of Justice. She is president of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. To learn more, see: www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org.

** Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," The Seattle Times, March 8, 2012 ("After Monday's column, . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.") (Emphasis added).

Great News: Montana House passes bill to prohibit assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Montana has taken a big step forward in passing a bill that would protect Montanan's from assisted suicide.

Today the Montana House passed bill HB 477, by a 51 to 48 vote. HB 477 would include physician-assisted suicide within the current state law that prohibits "aiding or soliciting suicide."

On Friday, HB 477 had a tie vote (50 to 50). On Saturday, the bill was brought back for reconsideration and today it passed.

HB 477 will now go to the Montana Senate.

For the last few years Montana has had confusion with respect to assisted suicide. In 2009, the Baxter lower court decision stated that Montana citizens had a right to assisted suicide. Baxter was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court that decided Montana citizens do not have a right to assisted suicide. The court did not overturn the assisted suicide statute, but the court did grant a tightly worded potential defense of consent, if a physician was prosecuted for assisted suicide.

Therefore physician-assisted suicide remained illegal in Montana, since prosecution for assisted suicide remained possible.

Senate Bill 202, a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide in Montana failed to pass in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Montana House debates bill to stop assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Montana House

Montana came one step closer to closing the door on assisted suicide. on Thursday March 12, when the Montana House passed House Bill 477, by a vote of 51 to 49. HB 477 would include physician-assisted suicide within the current state law that prohibits "aiding or soliciting suicide."

(Update: The vote to send the bill to the senate was tied 50 to 50  on Friday March 13. The bill may be dead.)

For the past few years Montana has faced a confusing situation with respect to assisted suicide. In 2009, the Baxter court decision declared that Montana citizens had a right to assisted suicide. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court in Montana that decided that Montana citizens do not have a right to assisted suicide. The Court did not overturn the statute protecting Montana citizens from assisted suicide, but the Court did grant a tightly worded defense of consent, if a physician was prosecuted for assisted suicide.

Therefore physician-assisted suicide remains illegal in Montana, if prosecuted, a physician could use a defense of consent.

According to the Revalli Republic news Rep. Jerry Bennett, the sponsor of the bill, stated that the bill faces a final vote on Friday before it can advance to the Montana Senate. Bennett stated:

Montana already has a high suicide rate, and that in Oregon, which allows assisted suicide, the suicide rate is much higher than the national average.

Senate Bill 202, a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide in Montana was defeated last month at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Former Montana legislator now opposes assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Jim Shockley, a former member of the Montana legislature, was published in the Revalli Republic newspaper in response to a pro-assisted suicide letter. Shockley explaining that, in the past, he had supported assisted suicide but he changed his mind after looking at the evidence.

Shockley, a lawyer and a former candidate for Attorney General in Montana first commented on the legality of assisted suicide in Montana. He wrote:

William Clarke is wrong about the legality of assisted suicide, and his definition of suicide, as described in his letter of Oct. 15, 2014. Physician assisted suicide is against the law in Montana and killing oneself is suicide regardless of your health. The present law is the Baxter case which says that under certain circumstances a physician who assisted someone to kill herself/himself has a defense to a charge of homicide. It is a defense if the doctor is charged with homicide, that does not make it legal. If the doctor is charged with homicide and can convince a jury of certain facts, he will not be convicted. If he fails to do so, he is convicted of a felony. Of course, there is the civil liability of the doctor, which is not addressed at all by Mr. Clarke.

Shockley then commented on why he now opposes assisted suicide. He wrote:

Greed, personal motives can influence 'choice' to assist suicide . . .

This article was written by Dr Annie Bukacek and published in the Revalli Republic on October 6.

I disagree with Barbara Coombs Lee, who implies that assisted suicide is legal in Montana (“Rebutting claims,” Sept. 16).

I am an internal medicine physician with over 20 years’ experience. In both 2011 and 2013, proposed bills to legalize assisted suicide failed to get through our legislature. In both years, these bills had sought to legalize assisted suicide for people with a prognosis of less than six months to live. A prognosis (prediction) does not mean dying. I have seen many cases where specialists have been wrong in predicting life span, sometimes by decades.

A Roundup man was recently charged with “aiding or soliciting suicide” of a 16-year-old girl here in Montana. His apparent motive was to prevent her testimony against him in another matter, i.e., by getting her to kill herself. According to an Associate Press article, he coerced her to actually take steps towards that goal, which fortunately did not result in her death.

Similarly, in Minnesota, a former nurse was recently convicted of assisting a young man to kill himself. Both the nurse and the Roundup man had used webcams to communicate with their victims. The nurse’s reported motive was the “thrill of the chase.”

These stories illustrates a fundamental problem with legalizing assisted suicide. The assisting person can have his or her own agenda to encourage a person to kill themselves. The “choice” will not necessarily be that of the victim/patient.

In my practice, where I have a high percentage of older patients, I have witnessed greed by family members over inheritances, including vicious battles over the death bed. This same motive of greed could lead to a coerced suicide, especially if assisted suicide were legalized in our state.

Let’s keep legal assisted suicide out of Montana.

Annie Bukacek,
Kalispell

Links to similar articles:

• Convicted Montana rapist charged with aiding or soliciting suicide.
• British family reacts to the appeal of the assisted suicide conviction by a Minnesota suicide predator.
• Assisted suicide is not legal in Montana, not the answer.

Convicted Montana rapist charged with aiding or soliciting suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Montana Billings Gazette reported on September 18 that a convicted rapist from Roundup Montana was charged with aiding or soliciting suicide. This is an important story since the assisted suicide lobby claims that assisted suicide is legal in Montana.

This is a very disturbing story.

The Billings Gazette reported:

A Roundup man in Montana State Prison for having sex with an underage girl is facing a new charge alleging he pressured the girl to kill herself during a live video chat in September 2013. 

Last week, the Musselshell County Attorney’s Office charged Michael John Morlan, 21, with aiding or soliciting suicide, and two other felonies — intimidation and tampering with witnesses and informants. 

...Charging documents say Morlan contacted the girl, who is now 16 years old, via Skype, an online video-chatting service, on Sept. 1, 2013, and told her to kill herself while he watched.

To summarize the story, Morlan, who was convicted of rape, contacted the underage girl he raped from the Montana State Prison, by Skype, to pressure and encourage her to kill herself.

The creep allegedly aided, encouraged and counseled the girl to commit suicide.

Assisted suicide is not legal in Montana, not the answer.

Link to the hand-out of this article that can be used in your community.

The following article was published by the Missoulian Newspaper on August 21, 2014.

Guest column by BRADLEY WILLIAMS

I take exception to the opinion by two members of the former Hemlock Society, now known as “Compassion & Choices.” The opinion of July 25 implies that assisted suicide is legal in Montana, which is not true.

I am the president of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide. We are in litigation against the Montana Medical Examiners Board. As part of that litigation, we got the board to remove a position paper from its website implying that assisted suicide is legal. Assisted suicide is not legal.

The “treatment” of suicide

As part of our litigation with the board, we also obtained an affidavit from Dr. Ken Stevens, of Oregon, which is one of the few states in which assisted suicide is legal. His affidavit describes how, in Oregon, that state’s Medicaid program uses legal assisted suicide to steer patients to suicide. This is through coverage incentives. The program will not necessarily cover a treatment to cure a disease or to extend a patient’s life. The program will cover the patient’s suicide. In other words, with legal assisted suicide, desired treatments are displaced with the “treatment” of suicide.

Backing the establishment

The former Hemlock Society, Compassion & Choices, touts itself as the great promoter of individual choice. But if you take a closer look, its actual mission is to back the medical-government establishment.

Barbara Wagner

Consider the well-publicized case of Oregon cancer patient Barbara Wagner. In 2008, Oregon’s Medicaid program declined to cover “Tarceva,” a cancer drug recommended by her doctor, and offered to cover her suicide instead, terming it “aid in dying.” Wagner was devastated.

“It was horrible,” Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

The drug’s manufacturer subsequently gave Tarceva to Wagner without charge. She, nonetheless, died a short time later.

I recently asked Stevens about Tarceva. He told me that some of his patients had taken it and that for some of them it was beneficial. This was in terms of survival and better quality of life. He also told me that it can be difficult to know how a particular cancer patient will do on a particular cancer drug. He said that there are always some patients who live longer than expected, sometimes 10 or even 20 years longer, depending on the type of cancer. He said, “This is because there are always some people who beat the odds.” Barbara Wagner had wanted to be one of those people.

After Wagner’s death, Compassion & Choices stepped forward to show its true colors. Specifically, its president, Barbara Coombs Lee, published an opinion in Oregon’s largest paper taking issue with Wagner’s choice to try and live. Coombs Lee argued that Wagner should have instead given up hope and accepted her pending death. But, this was not Wagner’s choice.

In a KATU TV interview Wagner had said: 

“I’m not ready, I’m not ready to die ... I’ve got things I’d still like to do.”

A public policy to discourage cures

Coombs Lee’s opinion piece also argued for a public policy change to discourage people from seeking cures. This would presumably be through coverage incentives. For example, she said: “The burning public policy question is whether we inadvertently encourage patients to act against their own self-interest, chase an unattainable dream of cure, and foreclose the path of acceptance that curative care has been exhausted.”

Coombs Lee is a former “managed care executive.”

Your choice is not assured by their legislation. Don’t be fooled by their double-speak.

Assisted Suicide - No support from this quadriplegic

This letter was written by Lucinda Hardy and published August 7 by the Montana Missoulian.

I have read the guest column, “People living with disabilities support death with dignity” (July 25), which advocates for legalizing assisted suicide and/or euthanasia for the disabled. I could be described as such a person and this opinion does not speak for me. I am strongly against legalizing these practices.

When I was in high school, I was on track to get a basketball scholarship to college. And then, I was in a car accident. The accident left me in a wheelchair, a quadriplegic. In addition to my paralysis, I had other difficulties. Over the next two or three years, I gave serious thought to suicide. And I had the means to do it, but both times I got close, I stopped myself.

If instead, my doctor, an authority figure, had told me that ending my life was a rational course, there might have been a different result. If instead, he had given me a lethal dose to ingest or offered to euthanize me, I might have gone along with it. But assisted suicide and euthanasia were not legal in Montana. Such courses were off the table.

So, instead, I went to college to seek a degree in education. While in college, I participated in wheelchair racing at the state, national and international levels. I met my husband and 21 years later the honeymoon is not over. We have three beautiful daughters and a new baby granddaughter. I am also active in my community.

Montana’s law protected me and I hope it will stay in place to continue to protect me and others as we go through the sometimes hard times of life.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia should not be legal.

Lucinda Hardy, Columbia Falls

Mothers death provided painful example of need to stop assisted suicide.

The following letter was published online by the Montana Missoulian on August 5, 2014.

By Gail Bell - Bozeman Montana

The July 25 guest column by Sara Myers and Dustin Hankinson begins with a discussion of pain, “great pain,” specifically. The paragraph goes on to use the phrase “great pain” to justify “death with dignity,” meaning assisted suicide and euthanasia.

With their column, I couldn’t help but think of my mother’s last years and the decision of others that it was time for her to die. Pain was used as a justification for increases in her medication – to get the job done. This happened three times before she finally died in the hospital on Sept. 6, 2010. The coroner’s report, case No. 100906, lists the cause of death as congestive heart failure with oxygen deprivation and “fentanyl therapy.” The manner of death is listed as “accident.”

Fentanyl is reported “to be 80 to 200 times as potent as morphine.” It’s also well known that fentanyl patch problems cause overdoses, injuries and deaths (Link to article). A 100 mcg/hour fentanyl patch has a range within 24 hours of 1.9-3.8 ng/mL. Mom’s death result was 2.7 ng/mL on/or about 48 hours.

A complaint was filed by me with the Montana Board of Medical Examiners, No. 2012-069-MED. The screening panel dismissed the complaint with prejudice, which means that the board may not consider the complaint in the future.

Since then, I have talked with other people who have had similar experiences involving the death of a family member via a medical overdose. (Link to article).

The column by Myers and Hankinson states, “I believe one should have control of one’s life including its ending.“

I agree with that statement. However, my mother did not have that control. Others dictated for her. 

Please rethink legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia so that we do not give others even more power to kill.

Montana Judge dismisses appeal but addresses the Baxter assisted suicide decision

Link to the media release on the Choice is an Illusion website.

Montana - On December 13, 2013, District Court Judge Mike Menehan dismissed MAAS's appeal with the Montana Medical Examiners Board. The order ruled that the appeal was moot due to the Board's having recently rescinded "Position Statement No. 20." (Order, pp. 5-8). The order also refers to Montana's assisted suicide case, Baxter v. State, as providing a defense to a homicide charge, as follows:

On December 31, 2009, the Montana Supreme Court issued its opinion in Baxter v. State, 2009 MT 449, 354 Mont. 234, 224 P.3d 1211, in which it held that under section 45-2-211 MCA, a terminally ill patient's consent to physician aid in dying constitutes a statutory defense to a physician charged with the criminal offense of homicide. (Order, page 2, lines 17-21).

This part of the order is consistent with Greg Jackson's and Matt Bowman's article, Baxter Case Analysis, Spring 2010 ("the Court's narrow decision didn't even "legalize" assisted suicide"). Available at: Baxter case analysis.

Since Baxter, there have been two bills proposed in the Montana Legislature to legalize assisted suicide. Both bills, SB 167 and SB 220, have failed. Assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.

MAAS is disappointed with the dismissal, but pleased with that the order addresses Baxter, over which there is ongoing controversy as to its meaning. MAAS will likely appeal.

For information about problems with assisted suicide and how it puts people at risk, see: Quick facts about assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide is being debated throughout the US

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director/International Chair, 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In the last few weeks the issue of assisted suicide has been debated in at least four US states.

A New Mexico court heard the case Morris v. New Mexico (December 12 - 13), a case that seeks to legalize assisted suicide in New Mexico based on a word game.

Similar to the 2010 Connecticut court case, that was dismissed by the Connecticut court, the New Mexico case claims that "aid in dying," which is also known as assisted suicide, is not prohibited by the New Mexico assisted suicide law because "aid in dying" is not assisted suicide. 

The case argues, that if "aid in dying" is assisted suicide, then the New Mexico assisted suicide law is unconstitutional because it undermines the right to privacy and autonomy.

"Aid in dying" is assisted suicide and assisted suicide does not constitute medical treatment. Therefore prohibiting assisted suicide does not undermine the right to privacy or autonomy.

Similar to the Connecticut case, Morris v. New Mexico should be dismissed.

Meanwhile a Montana court was asked in an appeal on December 11, by the Montanans Against Assisted Suicide (MAAS) to strike down a policy position of the Montana Board of Medical Examiners that implies that assisted suicide is legal in Montana.

The MAAS argue that the Montana Supreme Court did not legalize assisted suicide in its 2009 Baxter decision. The group also argues that the board implemented its new rule without sufficient public notice.

On December 13, District Court Judge Mike Menehan dismissed the appeal but he did address the Baxter assisted suicide decision.

In Massachusetts, hearings for a new assisted suicide bill (HB 1998) will be held on December 17.  HB 1998 is sponsored by state representative Louis Kafka (D). 

The issue of assisted suicide was on the Massachusetts ballot in November 2012 election. The Massachusetts voters rejected assisted suicide by a 51% to 49% margin.

HB 1998 should be defeated in committee. The people of Massachusetts voted and rejected assisted suicide.

In New Jersey assisted suicide Bills (A3328/S2259) are being debated.

Last week, New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie stated that he opposes the New Jersey assisted suicide bill that is being promoted by Assemblyman Burzichelli.

Christie's opposition to state sanctioned suicide will hopefully cause a natural death for Burzichelli's assisted suicide bill.

Americans need to be more aware of the threat that assisted suicide poses nation-wide. Even though polls indicate that more Americans oppose assisted suicide than support it, very few Americans are aware of the push being mounted by the assisted suicide lobby.

Let's hope that the assisted suicide bills in New Jersey and Massachusetts are defeated and the court in New Mexico makes a good decision.

Montana bill to legalize assisted suicide was a bait and switch.

Bradley Williams, the President of the Montanan's Against Assisted Suicide, wrote the following article that was published on November 10 in the Missoulian newspaper. Williams was responding to a letter that by Bonnie Kelley, published in the Missoulian on November 5.

Williams states in his letter that the bill to legalize assisted suicide in Montana in the previous legislative session was a "bait and switch" promotion.

Williams explains this by stating:

* A disabilities rights representative called Senate Bill 220 a “blunt instrument“ that offered even fewer safeguards than their Oregon model law.
* Choice was not assured since a designing heir or “new best friend” was allowed to help with the application for a lethal dose. The heir could also pick up the prescription, bring it into the home and administer it without oversight. If the patient struggled, who would know?
* “Self-administer” was redefined in the bill as “to ingest,“ so anything goes.
* Family notification was not required.
* There were no waiting periods.
* Two doctors were not really required since the first doctor could waive the second.