Assisted suicide bills are not what they appear to be.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The assisted suicide lobby has introduced assisted suicide bills in at least 18 States in 2020. All of these bills include "safeguards" that appear to provide oversight of the law.

Recently I published an article explaining how the "safeguards" are written with loosely defined language to permit the laws to be redefined over time. I also explained that the "safeguards" are designed to convince legislators to legalize assisted suicide, while the assisted suicide lobby intends to remove them overtime. 

For instance, the Hawaii legislature passed an assisted suicide bill in 2018 that came into effect on Jan 1, 2019. There were 27 assisted suicide deaths in 2019.

The assisted suicide lobby is proposing to expand the assisted suicide law after only one year. The Hawaii legislature is debating bills SB 2582 and HB 2451 to expand the assisted suicide law by:

• permitting nurses to prescribe the lethal drugs,
• shortening the waiting period in general, and 
• waiving the waiting period when someone is "nearing death."

The Hawaii legislature also debated bill SB 3047 that would have allowed:

• assisted suicide for incompetent people who requested death in an advanced directive,
• physicians to waive the counseling requirement, 
• assisted suicide to be approved by "telehealth" and 
• require insurance companies to pay for assisted suicide.

Its hard to believe that the assisted suicide lobby wants death by "Telehealth."

The Washington State legislature is debating Bill 2419, a bill to study the "safeguards" in their assisted suicide law. One of the issues to be studied is allowing euthanasia (lethal injection) rather than limiting it to assisted suicide.

Last year the Oregon legislature expanded their assisted suicide law by waiving the 15 day waiting period.

Assisted suicide may not be a peaceful death.

The assisted suicide lobby has been using experimental lethal drug cocktails as they attempt to find a cheaper way to kill. The current assisted suicide drug cocktails have caused painful deaths that may take many hours to die. A recent article stated:

The (first drug mix) turned out to be too harsh, burning patients’ mouths and throats, causing some to scream in pain. The second drug mix, used 67 times, has led to deaths that stretched out hours in some patients — and up to 31 hours in one case.

The assisted suicide lobby is working on their third experimental lethal cocktail. Assisted suicide is not guaranteed to cause a "peaceful or painless death."

Our greatest concern is the New York assisted suicide bill. Governor Cuomo stated that he will sign an assisted suicide bill into law.

New York Assembly Bill A2694 and Senate Bill S3947 where introduced as the Medical Aid in Dying Act.

As Margaret Dore, the President of Choice is an Illusion stated in her article: New York: Reject Medical Aid in Dying Act:

“Aid in Dying” is a euphemism for euthanasia.[3] The Act, however, purports to prohibit euthanasia. On close examination, this prohibition will be unenforceable.

If enacted, the Act will apply to people with years or decades to live. It will also facilitate financial exploitation, especially in the inheritance context. Don’t render yourself or someone you care about a sitting duck to heirs and other predators. I urge you to reject the proposed Act.

Assisted suicide is an act whereby one person (usually a physician) provides a prescription for a lethal drug cocktail knowing that the other person intends to use it for suicide.

Euthanasia is an act whereby one person (usually a physician) lethally injects another person, usually after a request.

Several of the assisted suicide bills have language that can be interpreted to permit euthanasia.

Assisted suicide bills are usually designed as an application process for obtaining a lethal dose.

For instance the Maryland assisted suicide bill HB 0643 may permit euthanasia (homicide) because it doesn't require the person to self-administer. The Maryland bill doesn't protect the conscience rights of medical professionals either.

The Massachusetts assisted suicide bill can also be interpreted to permit euthanasia.

The New Hampshire assisted suicide bill gives physicians the right to write a lethal prescription but the term self ingest is not found in the main text of the bill. Only within the life insurance section is there a statement that may be construed as limiting the act to assisted suicide where it states:

Neither shall a qualified patient’s act of ingesting medication to end such patient’s life in a humane and dignified manner have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy.

Even this statement does not refer to self-ingestion.

The New Hampshire bill permits euthanasia by giving a physician the right in law to write a lethal drug prescription, but it does not limit how the lethal drugs can be used.

New Hampshire assisted suicide bill will create a perfect crime (Link).

Assisted suicide bills are intentionally written in a deceptive manner, so that if legalized, the legislation can be interpreted in a wider manner. Further to that, the assisted suicide lobby has no intention of maintaining the "safeguards" in the bills. These "safeguards" are simply mean't to sell assisted suicide to the legislators.

Hawaii is debating the expansion of its assisted suicide law only one year after it came into effect, and Washington State is examining all of the safeguards, while Oregon expanded its assisted suicide law last year.

Clearly assisted suicide bills are not what they appear to be.

Nevada Legalizes Starving and Dehydrating Incapacitated Patients

This article was published by National Review online on October 7, 2019

Wesley J Smith

By Wesley J Smith

This is stunning. Nevada has passed a law allowing competent persons to sign an advance directive instructing that all food and water be withheld if they become incapacitated by dementia. In other words, the law allows people to order their future care givers to starve and dehydrate them to death.

From the “End of Life Decisions Addendum Statement of Desires” portion of the advance directive form established in law by SB 121 (my emphasis).

(Insert name of agent) might have to decide, if you get very sick, whether to continue with your medicine or to stop your medicine, even if it means you might not live, (Insert name of agent) will talk to you to find out what you want to do, and will follow your wishes.

If you are not able to talk to (insert name of agent), you can help him or her make these decisions for you by letting your agent know what you want.

Here are your choices. Please circle yes or no to each of the following statements and sign your name below:

1. I want to take all the medicine and receive any treatment I can to keep me alive regardless of how the medicine or treatment makes me feel.
YES
NO
…
4. I want to get food and water even if I do not want to take medicine or receive treatment.
YES
NO

The highlighted question does not involve feeding tubes, which is a medical treatment. It isn’t about not providing nourishment when someone stops eating and drinking naturally as part of the dying process. Nor does it involve force feeding the patient. No, this provision requires withholding oral or spoon feeding.

Realize that this form could force caregivers to starve patients even when they willingly eat and drink — perhaps even if they ask for food or water. (This has happened before in a feeding tube case in Florida.) Don’t take my word for it. From an article on the Nevada law by bioethicist Thaddeus Mason Pope:

Even after we stop offering food and fluids, other problems may arise. Most problematically, the patient may make gestures or utterances that seem to contradict her prior instructions [to be starved].

Does such communication revoke the advance directive? A recent court case from the Netherlands suggests the answer is “no.” Once the patient reaches late-stage dementia, she is unable to knowingly and voluntarily revoke decisions she made with capacity. But the answer remains uncertain in the United States.

We certainly know the answer that bioethicists like Pope would urge on the courts. Besides, there is nothing in the law requiring that the provision quoted above only apply to “late stage” dementia.
 
Note also that the law does not require the signer to receive detailed information about the agony that starving and dehydrating entails. Symptoms can include extreme drying, seizures, mottling, and intense pain.

This law doesn’t just impact helpless patients, but also the emotional wellbeing of their caregivers. What kind of a person would presume to force anyone to do such a thing? Imagine the emotional impact! No one should have that right.

And what if doctors or nurses object? Could they be forced at the threat of being sued or professionally disciplined to starve a patient to death?

The Nevada law is silent, but medical professionals have been sued frequently for refusing to comply with advance directives. Besides, bioethicists and the medical establishment are hell-bent on destroying medical conscience by forcing healthcare professionals to engage in actions that violate their religious and/or moral beliefs as the price of licensure. Talk about a prescription for a brain drain!

One last point: The ultimate purpose behind laws such as this isn’t starvation, but rather, to gull us into allowing the aged, disabled, mentally incapacitated, and dying to be killed by lethal injection. After all, the ghouls will say, if we are going to end people’s lives, at least let’s do it humanely. 

No! Let’s not do it.

Our cultural death obsession is really getting out of hand. Those with eyes to see, let them see.

Assisted suicide goes down in another two states

This article was published by OneNewsNow on April 25, 2019

The fight is well under way over allowing doctor-assisted suicide but two states have pushed back on the push to kill fellow human beings.

Nevada is the latest to turn down assisted suicide over a lack of support for passage, and a push in liberal Connecticut was defeated despite fewer euthanasia opponents in the state legislature due to last year’s elections.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition says euthanasia opponents assured Nevada lawmakers they were being fed faulty claims, such as a prognosis of six months to live. Those predictions are often wrong, he says.

“In fact, a study of people in hospice care found that of 486 predictions of a prognosis of how long they were going to have to live, only 20 percent of them are correct,” he tells OneNewsNow.

Another factor in the Nevada political fight was the story of Reno doctor, Robert Rand. He was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison for overprescribing opioids. Several patients died, including a cancer patient who overdosed.

“if Robert Rand had done this,” Schadenberg explains, “and had done this to many patients, and was able to get away with this for so long, how are you going to control assisted suicide?”

In the state of Connecticut, there was concern the measure might pass because several legislators who vocally opposed assisted suicide were defeated last year.

“So we were very concerned,” Schadenberg recalls. “Nonetheless they defeated the bill again.”

But the issue is not going away and new bills will likely be introduced again, he says.

• Good news: Nevada assisted suicide bill died a natural death.
• Good news: Connecticut defeats assisted suicide bill again.

Good news: The Nevada assisted suicide bill died a natural death. Dr Kirk Bronander wrote an excellent article explaining why assisted suicide should not be legal.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Congratulations to the many groups and individuals who worked to defeat Nevada's assisted suicide bill SB 165. SB 165 passed in the Nevada Senate Health and Human Services Committee (3 - 2) on March 25.

A few days ago, a well researched article by Dr Kirk Bronander, a professor of medicine at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine and director of academic hospitalists for UNR Med., titled: Physician assisted suicide a flawed process was published in the Reno Gazette.

Dr Kirk Bronander

In his article Dr. Bronander first challenged the concept of a six month prognosis. He wrote:

The fact is that physicians frequently make errors with diagnosis and predicting timing of death in terminal conditions. My family has personal experience with this: My father was diagnosed with a malignant brain cancer (glioblastoma) and given a prognosis of less than six months to live. He survived for almost four years after his diagnosis. This is also well-documented in the medical literature: A study of hospice patients in the Chicago area showed that of 468 predictions of timing of death, only 20 percent were accurate. Inaccurate diagnoses or prognoses coupled with PAS will result in patients dying that may have years of life remaining.

Dr. Bronander then questioned the ability to regulate the lethal assisted suicide prescriptions. He wrote:

I trust many of my colleagues but there are always going to be some physicians that are unscrupulous, incompetent or unethical. That means this type of law can easily be abused. In Reno, Dr. Robert Rand contributed to the death at least one patient by overprescribing opioids. He did this for years even though opioids are the most highly regulated medications we can prescribe. The lethal drugs used for suicide will be much less scrutinized since there is no requirement for the federal government to monitor them. The law itself will protect the identity of the prescribing doctor, so no one will ever be able to determine if abuse is occurring. Do you trust every physician in Nevada?

Dr. Bronander then examines the effect legalizing assisted suicide has on the elderly and people who become depressed. He wrote:

Unfortunately, many elderly and terminal patients feel they are a burden to loved ones and this law will encourage suicide as an answer. The statistics from Oregon in 2017 (which has a similar law to the one proposed in Nevada) are clear that the reasons stated for obtaining the lethal prescription are for reasons other than pain. “Losing autonomy” is No. 1 and “burden on family, friends/caregivers” is a more frequent reason than “inadequate pain control,” which is sixth on the list. 

Many patients diagnosed with a terminal condition are depressed and there is no requirement to refer to psychiatry or counseling in the law. The Oregon statistics show that only 3.8 percent of patients receiving lethal drugs were referred for psychiatric evaluation while a 2008 study conducted in Oregon found 25 percent of patients requesting assisted suicide were clinically depressed. Depression is a treatable condition; obviously a completed suicide is not treatable.

Thankfully, Nevada's assisted suicide bill is dead in 2019. Sadly, the assisted suicide lobby will likely introduce another bill in 2020. Hopefully Dr Bronander's research will help Nevada, and other states, defeat future assisted suicide bills.

The NCET named Dr Kirk Bronander educator of the year in 2018.

Euthanasia drug Execution drug controversy.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have always wondered why the same drug cocktail can be both controversial and promoted at the same time. We are shocked when a drug cocktail is used for capital punishment or suicide but promote the same drug cocktail when used for euthanasia.

The first story concerns a drug company that filed a lawsuit to stop the use of a drug that it produces being used for executions in Nevada.

The ACLU wrote, concerning this drug cocktail that Nevada was planning to use a risky and experimental drug cocktail to execute a prisoner. The article explains the side-effects of using this drug cocktail and it concludes:

A government that would risk torturing someone to death is not dispensing justice or serving the public good. It is deeply troubling that Nevada government officials are barreling ahead with execution when the chances of torturing Dozier are so high.

It is important to know that the same or similar drug cocktails are used for euthanasia and the ACLU supports euthanasia.

For clarity, I oppose capital punishment and I believe that the state should not have the right to kill, or be involved with killing its citizens. At the same time I believe that medical professionals should not have the right to kill or be involved with killing their patients.

Another article concerns a probe into euthanasia drugs that may have been illegally imported into the United States. The article states:

The solution in question, called "...," contains ..., which is used in lethal injection cocktails. The trade of ... is highly regulated by European Union anti-torture directives and is subject to strict export restrictions. 

(I omitted the name of the drug to prevent promotion of these drugs)

Don't get me wrong, it is very concerning that euthanasia drugs may have illegally entered the United States, but the concern from the drug company is that these drugs may be used for capital punishment. The fact is that this type of drug is being used for euthanasia.

Everyday I receive euthanasia related news stories. Tragically, stories about veterinarians who use euthanasia drugs to die by suicide are not uncommon. There have also been stories about euthanasia drugs being stolen from veterinary clinics. One euthanasia activist promotes buying euthanasia drugs from veterinary suppliers in the third world.

Suicide is always a tragedy. Sadly veterinary workers have one of the highest suicide rates. Some studies indicate that the euthanasia of animals is a contributing factor to the high suicide rate.

If you are experiencing suicidal thoughts please seek help. Contact Your Life Counts.

I ask the question, how can drugs be considered risky, experimental and a form of torture in one circumstance, and a human right when it is used for euthanasia?

Every human person deserves to be treated with dignity, care and respect, but the state should never have the right to kill its citizens. At the same time medical professionals should never have the right to kill their patients. 

Current attitudes toward euthanasia are delusional. Killing people or encouraging people to self-kill is wrong.

Nevada doctor: Insurance companies are denying treatment to patients and offering to pay for assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

According to an article by Bradford Richardson that was published in the Washington Times on May 31, 2017, a Nevada physician is reporting that in states where assisted suicide is legal, insurance companies are denying treatment for patients but offering to pay for assisted suicide. Youtube video of Brian Callister telling his story.

The Washington Times article stated:

Brian Callister, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Nevada, said he tried to transfer two patients to California and Oregon for procedures not performed at his hospital. Representatives from two different insurance companies denied those transfer requests by phone, he said. 

“And in both cases, the insurance medical director said to me, ‘Brian, we’re not going to cover that procedure or the transfer, but would you consider assisted suicide?’ ” Dr. Callister told The Washington Times. 

The phone calls took place last year within the span of a month, Dr. Callister said. He said he did nothing to prompt the suggestion in either case.
The patients were not terminal, but “would have become terminal without the procedures.” 

“It was estimated that their chance for cure — cure, not just adding time — of about 50 percent in one case and 70 percent in the other case,” Dr. Callister said.

Several years ago Oregon residents Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup were denied medical treatment but offered assisted suicide.

Legalizing assisted suicide is not about patient choice or autonomy, but rather it gives physicians and others the right in law to be directly involved with causing your death.

Letter to Nevada Committee: Assisted Suicide Bill Protections Are Unenforceable

Link to the original letter.

Margaret Dore

May 29, 2017

Nevada Assembly 

Committee HHS 

Re: Vote “No” on SB 261 (Assisted Suicide)  

The bill merely requires that actions be done in “accordance” with its provisions. This renders ALL patient protections (safeguards) unenforceable. 

Dear Members of the Committee: 

I am a lawyer in Washington State, where assisted suicide is legal. Our law is based on a similar law in Oregon. Both laws are similar to SB 261. 

SB 261 sets forth patient protections in sections 3 through 26.1 The bill also repeatedly says that actions are to be done in “accordance” with sections 3 through 26.2 For example, the bill states:

Death resulting from a patient self-administering a controlled substance that is designed to end his or her life in accordance with the provisions of sections 3 to 26, inclusive, of this act does not constitute suicide or homicide. (Emphasis added).3

The bill does not define “accordance.”4 Dictionary definitions include “in the spirit of,” meaning in thought or intention.5 A mere thought to comply with patient protections is good enough. Actual compliance is not required. More to the point, this situation renders all bill protections (“safeguards”) unenforceable. For this reason alone, the bill must be rejected. 

Sincerely, /s/ 

Margaret K. Dore, Esq. 

Unpaid Volunteer Lobbyist

1 SB 261, § 10.5.4, attached hereto at A-1.
2 Id., §§ 1.3, 22.1, 23.2, 29.2, 30.4, 36, and 37 (all use in “accordance”), attached at A-3 to A-8
3 Id., § 22.1, attached hereto at A-4.
4 See the bill in its entirety. 

5 See “accordance” definition attached hereto at A-9, “in the spirit” definition attached hereto at A-10.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval opposes assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Governor Brian Sandoval

In 2017, the assisted suicide lobby has lost in every US state where they have introduced assisted suicide legislation. Recently, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval stated that he opposes Senate Bill 261, a bill that would legalize assisted suicide in Nevada ensuring that the bill will die.

Alison Noon, reporting for the Associated Press wrote:

The Senate Health and Human Services Committee took no immediate action on the (assisted suicide) measure, which faces an uphill battle. Gov. Brian Sandoval does not support the policy, spokeswoman Mari St. Martin said on Wednesday.

Several weeks ago, Maine Governor LePage said he would veto the Maine assisted suicide bill. Assisted suicide bills have been introduced in more than 20 US states this year.

Legalizing assisted suicide gives doctors the power to kill their patients.

Poll Shows Little Support for Assisted Suicide and Major Concerns

Link to the PR Newswire media release on April 16, 2015.

As assisted suicide failed to pass in state legislatures across the country this year, a new Marist Poll sponsored by the Knights of Columbus found that a majority of Americans do not support assisted suicide and that strong majorities harbor deep concerns over such proposals.

Assisted suicide proposals have stalled since the start of the year in a number of states, including Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado and Nevada.

More than 6 in 10 Americans (61 percent) do not support a doctor prescribing or administering a lethal drug dose, saying that a doctor should instead only manage an illness or remove life support.

Additionally, 57 percent of Americans say they are less likely to trust a doctor who engages in assisted suicide.

Strong majorities of Americans also have deep concerns about assisted suicide, including:

• 67 percent concerned that fewer life-saving options will be given at end of life.
• 65 percent concerned that the elderly will be at risk in nursing homes.
• 64 percent concerned that the depressed will be more likely to take their lives.
• 59 percent concerned about a wrong diagnosis.
• 55 percent concerned that the doctor could misjudge a patient's state of mind.
• 55 percent concerned that it will become a cost-saving measure for health care decisions.
• 54 percent concerned that patients will be pressured to take their life so as not to be a burden.