Nevada Governor says he will veto assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Governor Joe Lombardo

I have great news.

Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo said that he will veto assisted suicide Bill AB346 and he told the legislature to disregard the assisted suicide bill. Lombardo stated on April 4, 2025 that:

Expansions in palliative care services and continued improvements in advanced pain management make the end-of-life provisions in AB346 unnecessary, and I would encourage you the 2025 Legislature to disregard AB346 because I will not sign it.

Based on Lombardo's comment, The Nevada Globe wrote on April 4 that:

However, the ethical and practical ramifications of legalizing physician-assisted suicide cannot be overlooked. Critics contend that such legislation may lead to hasty decisions, undermine the sanctity of life, and pose risks to vulnerable populations, including the elderly and disabled. Furthermore, there is apprehension about the potential erosion of trust in the medical profession, whose primary mandate is to heal and preserve life.

As this debate unfolds, Nevadans are encouraged to reflect on the profound moral, ethical, and societal implications of AB 346. Should the state endorse a practice that fundamentally alters the physician’s role and the value placed on human life? Or should the focus remain on enhancing palliative care and supporting patients through their natural end-of-life journey? The answers to these questions will shape the future of healthcare and the ethical landscape of Nevada.

In June 2023, Governor Lomardo also vetoed assisted suicide Bill SB 239 that had passed in the Nevada Senate by a vote of 11 - 10 and in the Nevada House by a vote of 23 - 19. 

On June 5, 2023; Jessica Hill and Taylor R. Avery reported for the Las Vegas Review-Journal that Governor Lombardo stated, when he vetoed assisted suicide bill SB 239 that:

“End of life decisions are never easy,” Lombardo wrote in his veto message. “Individuals and family members must often come together to face many challenges — including deciding what is the best course of treatment for a loved one.”

Lombardo said the provisions in the bill “unnecessary” due to expansions and improvements in palliative care services, or care for people living with serious illnesses, and pain management.

*Please thank Governor Lombardo for rejecting assisted suicide Bill AB346 through (this link) or call him at: (775) 684-5670 or post a message through X (Twitter) at: @JosephMLombardo

Nevada's dangerous assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nevada state legislature.

In May 2023, EPC sent out an alert urging Americans to contact Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo to veto assisted suicide Bill SB 239 after it passed in the Nevada Senate by a vote of 11 to 10 and in the Nevada House by a vote of 23 to 19. 

In June 2023, EPC sent out a Thank You email after Governor Lombardo vetoed assisted suicide Bill SB 239. Lombardo stated in his veto that legalizing assisted suicide was not necessary based on modern improvements in pain management.

Recently three Nevada legislators introduced assisted suicide Bill AB 346. Most assisted suicide legalization bills are more moderate. The goal of the assisted suicide lobby is to get the bill passed and then expand it later. But AB 346 has several dangerous elements to it. For instance AB 346:

• Allows the "practitioner" to be either a physician or an advanced practise registered nurse to approve and prescribe the lethal poison drug cocktail.
• Requires a 15-day reflection period, but it allows the practitioner to waive the 15 day reflection period.
  
• Defines assisted suicide as a form of palliative care. The assisted suicide lobby is trying to change the definition of palliative care to include killing people. If assisted suicide is a form of palliative care, then assisted suicide is also a form of medical treatment.
• Requires the death certificate to name the cause of death as the disease or the sequence of causes resulting in death, but must not list lethal poison drug cocktail (assisted suicide) as the cause of death.
• Requires the "practitioner" to self-report the assisted suicide death but only requires the report to include the name and date of birth of the patient (person who died), the date on which the patient died and a statement of whether the patient was receiving hospice care at the time of death. This level of reporting is incredibly minimal.
• States that deaths by assisted suicide do not constitute mercy killing, euthanasia, assisted suicide, suicide or homicide. Therefore, if the person who died but did not self-administer (it was done to them, as in euthanasia) it would not be considered a euthanasia or a homicide. In other words, this bill allows for euthanasia/homicide through the back door.
• The bill defines assisted suicide as medical treatment by including in the definition of medical treatment: Dispensing a medication that is designed to end the life of a patient pursuant to the provisions of sections 5 to 33, inclusive, of this act. Once assisted suicide is defined as a medical treatment then it becomes the right of a person to be informed of the "option".
  
• The bill not only deems advance requests for assisted suicide as unenforceable and void, but it also deems advance requests prohibiting assisted suicide to be unenforceable and void.

So why are these concerns important? Nevada assisted suicide proponents claim that Bill AB 346 has effective safeguards. But when one reads the language of the bill you notice that AB 346 is a dangerous assisted suicide bill.

In fact, AB 346 is the perfect cover for homicide.

Nevada Governor Lombardo protects citizens by vetoing assisted suicide bill

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Thank you to the many people who contacted Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo and asked him to veto assisted suicide bill SB 239.

On May 25, EPC asked our supporters to contact Governor Lombardo urging him to veto SB 239 with (this link) or to call him at: (775) 684-5670 or post a message by Twitter at: @JosephMLombardo

The death lobby was also lobbying Governor Lombardo to sign the bill.

Greg Haas from 8newsnow.com reported that Governor Lomardo received 262 comments supporting Bill SB 239 and 632 comments against the assisted suicide bill.

On June 5, Jessica Hill and Taylor R. Avery reporting for the Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote that Governor Lombardo vetoed assisted suicide bill SB 239. They reported:

Lombardo also vetoed the controversial assisted suicide bill Monday evening, arguing that it was “unnecessary” due to improvements in pain management.

“End of life decisions are never easy,” Lombardo wrote in his veto message. “Individuals and family members must often come together to face many challenges — including deciding what is the best course of treatment for a loved one.”

Lombardo said the provisions in the bill “unnecessary” due to expansions and improvements in palliative care services, or care for people living with serious illnesses, and pain management.

*Please thank Governor Lombardo for vetoing SB 239 through (this link) or call him at: (775) 684-5670 or post a message by Twitter at: @JosephMLombardo

Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo must veto assisted suicide bill SB 239

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Governor Joe Lombardo

Please help us send the message to Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo to veto assisted suicide Bill SB 239 that passed yesterday. Governor Lombardo only has five days to veto the bill.

Send a message to Governor Lombardo urging him to veto SB 239 through (this link) or call hin at: (775) 684-5670 and ask him to veto SB 239 or send your message by Twitter at: @JosephMLombardo

Remember when you are filling out the form to refer to Bill SB 239.

Bill SB 239 passed in the Nevada Senate by a vote of 11 to 10. Yesterday it passed in the House by a vote of 23 to 19.

Tell Governor Lombardo that legalizing assisted suicide gives doctors the right in law to be involved with causing the death of their patients at the most vulnerable time of their lives. Assisted suicide is not about freedom or choice but it is actually a form of cultural and medical abandonment. A caring culture supports good end of life care and it opposes assisting suicides. 

If you have a personal story, share it with Governor Lombardo. It is important to remind the Governor that the disability community opposes assisted suicide because it leads to a further devaluation of their lives.

The assisted suicide lobby, over the past few years, has expanded existing assisted suicide legislation. Oregon eliminated their reflection period and has eliminated their residency requirement. Vermont is permitting assisted suicide by telehealth, they are forcing medical practitioners who oppose assisted suicide to refer patients to death and they have eliminated their residency requirement. Washington state and Hawaii have also expanded their assisted suicide laws.

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 extentions will follow.

Send your message to Governor Joe Lombardo urging him to veto SB 239 through (this link) or you can send your message by Twitter at: @JosephMLombardo

Nevada suicide prevention advocate comments on assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Richard Davis, who is a senior and a suicide prevention advocate commented on the Nevada assisted suicide bill in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on April 13, 2021. Davis comments on the Nevada suicide rate by stating:

Currently, Nevada has the highest national rate of senior suicides in the nation. One of the top reasons many seniors give for desiring assisted suicide is not untreatable pain or lack of dignity in dying, but the feeling that they are a burden.

Assembly Bill 351 which would legalize assisted suicide in Nevada, sends the message to seniors who are living with chronic conditions that they are an unnecessary burden to their families and communities.

Davis then comments on the fact that the bill requires the doctor to lie on the death certificate

I think it is particularly pernicious that the bill requires the cause of death be listed as the chronic condition of the patient rather than suicide. Is this a backdoor way for Nevada to artificially lower our highest-in-the-nation suicide rates?

Davis comments on the problem of depression among seniors:

Depression among seniors is a major risk for suicide, and this bill does not require that a person seeking assisted suicide be evaluated for treatable and manageable clinical depression.

Davis then points out that funding for a suicide prevention hotline is being considered alongside the assisted suicide bill:

It is ironic that in the same legislative session in which AB351 is being advanced the life-saving Senate Bill 390 — to establish and fund the 9-8-8 statewide suicide prevention hotline — is also being advocated. The contrast between the two bills shows the moral confusion of our state lawmakers.

More articles on this topic:

• Nevada assisted suicide bill denies equal protection under the law (Link). 
• Push for assisted suicide means more suicide (Link).
  

Nevada assisted suicide bill denies equal protection under the law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When legislators vote on assisted suicide bills they often vote based on the theory of legalizing assisted suicide and not the reality of the bill that they are considering. A prime example is the recent passing of the New Mexico assisted suicide bill that was one of the most extreme and dangerous assisted suicide bills.

The Nevada State Legislature is debating assisted suicide Bill AB 351. AB 351 is similar to the Oregon and Washington State assisted suicide laws.

There are several hidden factors within this and other assisted suicide bills that lead me to wonder what the assisted suicide lobby is trying to cover-up. For instance, AB 351 forbids a coroner from investigating an assisted suicide death. AB 351 states:

Section 1: Chapter 440 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:

1. A coroner, coroner’s deputy or local health officer:
(a) Is not required to certify the cause of death of a patient who dies after self-administering a medication that is designed to end the life of the patient in accordance with the provisions of sections 5 to 30, inclusive, of this act; and

(b) Must not investigate the death of a patient who dies after self-administering a medication that is designed to end the life of the patient in accordance with the provisions of sections 5 to 30, inclusive, of this act if the coroner or coroner’s deputy confirms the circumstances of the death with a physician responsible for overseeing the care of the patient or the physician who prescribed the medication.

This bill provision denies equal protection under the law for people who are prescribed lethal assisted suicide drugs. 

AB 351 requires doctors to lie on the death certificate. AB 351 states:

3.The medical certificate of death of a patient who dies after self-administering a medication that is designed to end the life of the patient in accordance with sections 5 to 30, inclusive, of this act:

(a) May be signed by the physician who prescribed the medication or the operator of a facility for hospice care, as defined in NRS 449.0033, at which the patient dies;

(b) Must specify the terminal condition with which the patient was diagnosed as the cause of death; and

(c) Must not mention that the patient self-administered a medication that is designed to end the life of the patient.

Changing death certificates, for political purposes, has long-term consequences on future research concerning life-expectancy for certain medical conditions but it also affects the ability of law enforcement from investigating potential murder.

Similar to other bills, the proposed assisted suicide request letter uses the term may self-administer. I am fully aware that the assisted suicide lobby says that may self-administer means that a person may decide not to take the lethal drugs, but it also means that someone else may administer the lethal drugs (homicide). The term may self-administer protects physicians or others from being charged with homicide, if they administer the lethal drugs.

Assisted suicide laws are designed to protect medical professionals who are willing to be involved with killing their patients by prescribing lethal drugs. Assisted suicide bills are not designed to protect the person who has asked for death, even though the person asking for death may be experiencing depression, feelings of hopelessness, social isolation and fear, all conditions that are properly dealt with by caring interventions and not killing. 

• Article: Oregon 2020 assisted suicide report - 28% increase in asisted suicide deaths (Link).
  

Euthanasia activists want to force caregivers to starve dementia patients to death

This article was published by National Review online on March 6, 2021

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

As I have warned here before, euthanasia activists are pushing for laws that permit people to write advance directives ordering themselves starved to death if they become mentally incapacitated. That effort is apparently gaining steam.

The assisted suicide supporting organization Final Exit Network published a poll that supposedly found only 15 percent of respondents would oppose. Here’s how the question was worded as quoted in the pro-euthanasia crusading bioethicist Thaddeus Mason Pope’s blog:

Some people also propose that individuals with early stage dementia, who are still competent, should be able to stipulate for their future incompetent selves, that they want food and drink withdrawn and for doctors to keep them comfortable so they can die peacefully.

Notice the passive language. If I threw you in a room and locked the door until you starved and dehydrated to death, would you consider that dying “peacefully?” Would you consider it “peaceful” if a doctor drugged you so deeply that you could not ask for food?

But Wesley, you may say, that’s what they want!

No! It’s what they may have wanted in the past out of understandable fear. But we are talking about starving people who willingly eat and drink. We are saying that people can become incompetent to ask for the basics of life. We are pondering a circumstance in which vulnerable patients may ask for food only to have it refused because of something they may have written years previously. (That awfulness happened at least once in a feeding tube case.)

And these are people who may not be suffering or whose symptoms can be palliated effectively. In a sense, we are making dementia patients slaves to the thoughts and fears of their younger selves.

We are also talking about forcing caregivers to starve their patients to death at risk of lawsuits for “wrongful life” or other legal sanction.

Moreover, advance directives are supposed to be about accepting or refusing medical treatment. Oral sustenance is not medical treatment, but humane care akin to keeping warm or turning to prevent bed sores. I mean, if someone directed that they be left without a blanket in front of an open window so they die of hypothermia–which can be a ‘peaceful’ death–would we ever say that should be done? Of course not!

There are some things that no one should have the right to force others to do. Killing them — by whatever means — is one of them.

Pope says these advance directives are legal in several states. He is very knowledgeable about these issues — he really keeps track — but I know of only one where the permission is somewhat explicit: Nevada. If I find out otherwise, I will add an update to this post.

Editor’s note. Wesley’s columns appear at National Review Online and are reposted with his permission.

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.