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.

Assisted suicide laws are the most egregious form of discrimination against disabled and "terminally ill" people.

Published in the New Hampshire Union Leader on February 14, 2020

By Mike Reynolds, Not Dead Yet

For over two decades the independent people of New Hampshire have been solidly against assisted suicide. Since 1996, the New Hampshire legislature has studied or voted down this proposed law so many times it takes two hands to count them all.

Assisted suicide laws are the most egregious form of discrimination against severely disabled and “terminally ill” people. How can we call suicide a public health crisis for most people while facilitating the suicides of older, ill and disabled people? Should we not be doing everything we can to support such persons in having the best possible health care and home care so they have quality of life for however long they have?

With the experience of the laws in Oregon as a guide, the question of assisted suicide becomes, quite frankly, incompatible with New Hampshire values. [The] state motto, “Live Free or Die,” means we reject government interference in our daily lives. Oregon state government’s promotion of an assisted suicide program administered by the health care system means pushing people towards assisted suicide through denials of coverage for treatment and in-home care, covering up abuses, and ignoring incorrect prognoses that lead people to think they are dying when they are not.

The numerous flaws in HB 1659, the “Death with Dignity Act,” are so obvious that New Hampshire should reject this absurd legislation again. With HB 1659, the government would be promoting suicide for what in the preamble it calls “mental anguish over the prospect of losing control and independence, and/or embarrassing indignities.” This is a direct attack on the thousands of disabled Granite Staters who maintain their independence and dignity by directing aides to perform their care.

While assisted suicide proponents depict assisted suicide as only a last resort for people with advanced cancer, Oregon’s doctors have written lethal prescriptions for individuals whose qualifying medical diagnosis for assisted suicide was reported as chronic conditions like diabetes, gastrointestinal disease, arthritis, arteritis, sclerosis, stenosis, kidney failure, and musculoskeletal systems disorders.

As in Oregon, under bill HB1659 a person can be considered “terminal” and therefore eligible for assisted suicide simply by refusing medication they need. By that definition, people who have epilepsy, ongoing infections and other illnesses that can be managed with medication can qualify. This legislation is not limited in scope and is actually far more dangerous than the proponents want to admit.

A report released in May 2018 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals that from 1999-2010, suicide among those aged 35-64 increased 49% in Oregon as compared to a 28% increase nationally. In Oregon, the rate of suicide is 21 percent above the national average and their rates of teen suicide have even been higher. There is a clear problem of suicide contagion.

While the bill proponents claim there are safeguards, there is absolutely no oversight once the medication is picked up from the pharmacy. Under the Oregon law and the proposed legislation, a “friend” can encourage an elder to make the assisted suicide request (“just in case”), sign the forms as a witness, pick up the prescription, and even administer the drug (since no independent witness is required). To be perfectly clear, the current bill being debated only discusses “self-administration” of the lethal drugs in the bill’s preamble; nowhere in the substantive provisions is the word mentioned.

This law is also vague about who can access it, but it would be far easier for an eighteen year old with a serious medical condition that could be controlled with medication to access this law than it would for the same eighteen-year-old to access cigarettes or alcohol.

There is nothing compassionate or caring in this bill. Instead it could serve as a template to encourage and even pressure the most vulnerable in our society, our older and critically ill populations, to hasten their deaths. And by giving legal immunity to everyone involved, it creates a legal framework where elder abuse (up to and including homicide), which nationally impacts about 10% of elders, gets a free pass. Please contact your legislators and have them oppose this very dangerous legislation.

Mike Reynolds is a member of Not Dead Yet, a disability rights group opposed to assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide goes against our values

This opinion article was published by the Concord Monitor on February 11, 2020

By Steven Wade
Executive Director of the Brain Injury Association

House Bill 1659 effectively gives physicians permission to prescribe drugs that result in patient suicide. We have serious concerns about the potential impact on New Hampshire’s at-risk population if this bill passes. It normalizes suicide as medical care and corrupts the doctor/patient relationship.

New Hampshire suicide rates are up nearly 50% over the past 10 years. New laws have been passed recently to beef up suicide prevention efforts because there are populations, including veterans, teens, people with disabilities, brain injury survivors and the elderly “pre-disposed” to suicide for reasons including depression, lack of autonomy and inability to engage in activities that make life enjoyable.

New Hampshire has a suicide crisis and has set an ambitious goal of zero suicides. This bill works against that goal. What sort of a message does it send to at-risk people if New Hampshire passes a law that says suicide is an easily achieved option?

The exploitation of the elderly is another significant problem in New Hampshire. This bill could enable exploiters to misuse the law to the detriment of those dependent on others for their care. Anyone with ulterior motives like convenience and cost will have the power to steer vulnerable members of our society – who are not necessarily dying – in the direction of death instead of care. Instead the state should be investing in greatly expanded access to palliative care and mental health services for those at-risk populations relying on the state for their care.

This bill calls into question the state’s power to set standards for quality of life. If it’s a terminal illness predicted to last six months now, what might it become in the future? Laws like this inevitably expand over time. If New Hampshire opens the door to assisted suicide, we will have to face whatever might be on the other side of that door.

HB 1659 goes against the very essence of who we are as citizens of New Hampshire. If we want to show that we value the lives of at-risk teens, the elderly, people with disabilities and veterans who have fought for our country, we should be focusing our energy on providing them with care, not with death.

(Steven Wade is the executive director of the Brain Injury Association of New Hampshire in Concord and a member of the N.H. Coalition Against Assisted Suicide.)

Nancy Elliott: Speech to the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee

Nancy Elliott
Chair: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA 
 

Nancy Elliott

HB 1659 begins by talking about reasons why a person should take their life. It talks about emotional stress, the prospect of losing control and independence and embarrassing indignities. This sounds like a disability. Before I lost my husband, this was the description of him. He had lost his independence and needed to rely on me. He also dealt with embarrassing indignities. That is no reason to kill a person. At that point, he learned that life has value at all stages. It is cruel for the State to say that someone, like my husband, should not want to live and be pushed toward Suicide.
 
Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia seek to eliminate the weak, sick and elderly among us, while promoting what they call autonomy, which is only valuing individuals who are healthy and productive. They seek to morph Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” into only the fittest are allowed to survive. While some may choose this, how many were actually steered? I was at a hearing in Massachusetts for Assisted Suicide where a doctor stated that Assisted Suicide laws were something he was in favor of. He continued with his points and ended by saying that he felt it was the responsibility for a good doctor “to guide people to make the right choice.” I do not think he intended to say that, but is there any doubt that this pro-suicide doctor would try to persuade his patients to follow his wishes, concerning their Assisted Suicide.

If a doctor or nurse had suggested to my husband that he should kill himself, it would have devastated him. It would be like saying you are worthless, a piece of junk and should get out of the way. Many would say this can’t happen yet, this did happen to a woman in Oregon, named Kathryn Judson. She took her husband to the doctors and sat down exhausted in a chair. Her ears perked up when she heard the doctor pitching Assisted Suicide to her husband, with the clincher, “Think of your wife.” They left and never came back. Her husband went on to live another five years. What they did to this man is heartless, allowed by an insensitive law. Fortunately Mr. Judson and my husband had someone to look out for them, however there are many in our state who do not.

New Hampshire Death With Dignity Act Will Create a Perfect Crime

Media Release: Concord, New Hampshire, USA

Dore: “Persons assisting a suicide or euthanasia can have an agenda to benefit themselves. More obvious reasons include inheritance money and life insurance.”

“The Act will apply to people with years or decades to live.”

Contact: Margaret Dore, Esq.
margaretdore@margaretdore.com
(206) 697-1217

Margaret Dore

Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought against assisted suicide and euthanasia legalization efforts in many states, made the following statement in connection with a bill seeking to legalize these practices in New Hampshire. (HB 1659). 

Wednesday, 02/12/20, 1:00 P.M., SH Rm Reps Hall, House Judiciary.

“The proposed Death With Dignity Act seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined,” said Dore. “If passed into law, the Act will apply to people with years or decades to live.”

Dore explained, 

“The Act is based on a similar law in Oregon, applying to people with a terminal disease expected to cause death within six months. In practice, such predictions are often wrong. This is due to actual mistakes and the fact that predicting life expectancy is not an exact science."

“Perhaps more importantly," said Dore, "the six months to live is determined without treatment. Consider Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2000. She made a settled decision to use Oregon’s law, but her doctor convinced her to be treated for cancer instead. Today, nineteen years later, she is thrilled to be alive.”

Dore said, 

“Persons assisting a suicide or euthanasia can have an agenda to benefit themselves. More obvious reasons include inheritance money and life insurance.”

“Medical professionals too can have an agenda,” said Dore. “Michael Swango, MD, now incarcerated, got a thrill from killing his patients. Consider also Harold Shipman, a doctor in the UK, who not only killed his patients, but stole from them and in one case made himself a beneficiary of the patient’s will.”

Dore said, 

“People who sign up for the lethal dose do not necessarily intend to take it. Sometimes they make the request at the suggestion of a doctor or family member, ‘just in case' they want to use it.’”

“Once the lethal dose is in the home, there is a complete lack of oversight,” said Dore. “No witness, not even a doctor, is required to be present at the death. If the patient objected or even struggled against administration, who would know?”

Dore said, 

“The death certificate will report a natural death, which will create a legal cover up and also allow a perpetrator to inherit. More to the point, the Act will create a perfect crime.”

“Consider also a 2005 article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper regarding a public inquiry of Dr. Shipman’s conduct,” said Dore. “The inquiry determined that he ‘killed at least 250 of his patients over 23 years.’ The inquiry also found ‘that by issuing death certificates stating natural causes, the serial killer [Shipman] was able to evade investigation by coroners.’”

Dore continued, 

“According to a subsequent article in 2015, proposed reforms included having a medical examiner review death certificates to improve patient safety. Instead, the proposed Act moves in the opposite direction to require a legal cover up as a matter of law.”

Dore concluded, 

“If the New Hampshire Act becomes law, there will be new paths of lethal abuse and exploitation, especially for older people with money, meaning the middle class and above. They will be sitting ducks to their heirs and other predators. Even if you like the concept of assisted suicide and euthanasia, the proposed Act is a recipe for abuse, exploitation and legal murder.”

-00-

New Hampshire "assisted suicide" bill appears to permit euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

New Hampshire Legislature.

The deceptive language in most assisted suicide bills allow f0r different interpretations, such as the Indiana assisted suicide bill that may permit euthanasia.

Assisted suicide is an act whereby one person, usually a physician, assists the suicide of another person, usually by writing a prescription for lethal drugs.

Euthanasia is an act whereby one person, usually a physician, intentionally causes the death of another person, to "end suffering."

New Hampshire Bill HB 1659 is designed as an application process for obtaining a lethal dose. Most assisted suicide bills state that the person must self-administer the lethal dose (assisted suicide) and some bills say that the person may self-administer the lethal dose (may can be interpreted to permit euthanasia).

In its Statement of Purpose, HB 1659 states:

...to provide such patient with a prescription for lethal medication which will allow the patient, if the patient chooses to do so, to self-administer and thus control the time, place, and manner of death.

The term "self-administer" does not appear anywhere else in bill HB 1659. 

The assisted suicide lobby will suggest that the phrase, if the patient chooses to do so means that the person may choose not to take the lethal drugs but this phrase can also mean that the patient is not required to self-administer but can administer the lethal drugs in another manner, such as euthanasia.

For more than a year, the assisted suicide lobby has focused on eliminating "safeguards" in assisted suicide legislation. 

The Washington State legislature is debating Bill 2419, a "study bill" to consider eliminating "safeguards" in assisted suicide laws.

Bill 2419 Section f - questions the requirement that lethal drugs be self-administered. If lethal drugs are not self-administered then someone else can administer. Can you say euthanasia / homicide.

New Hampshire House Bill HB 1659 uses different terminology than most assisted suicide bills and it appears to intentionally permit euthanasia.

New Hampshire man found guilty of assisting his friends suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Parker Hogan (left) Michael Buskey (right)

Jurors in New Hampshire, after a three hour deliberation, found Parker Hogan (20) guilty of assisting the suicide of his friend, Michael Buskey (19).

Buskey shot himself in a wooded area in the middle of the night on May 7/8, 2018.

John Koziol, reporting for The New Hampshire Union Leader wrote that the prosecutor stated that Hogan provided a stick and helped him aim the gun and pull the trigger. Prosecutors told the jury that Hogan stated, in a police interview, that he had even offered to pull the trigger. Koziol reported that the defense argued that Hogan reluctantly carried out the wishes of Buskey after trying repeatedly trying to talk him out of suicide.

Koziol reported today that Hogan was convicted of assisted suicide and falsifying physical evidence. The conviction is likely to carry a term of 3.5 to 7 years.

According to the suicide plan, Hogan assisted Buskey with the suicide, then wiped the gun for evidence and contacted the police claiming he had found the body.

This case is very sad. It is possible that Hogan thought he was helping his friend, but really, what's the difference between a doctor thinking he's helping a patient and this case?

Suicide is always a preventable tradgedy. This case emphasizes the importance of not assisting the suicide of a person who is at the most vulnerable time of his life.

The assisted suicide bill was aimed at people like my husband.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nancy Elliott is a former three-term elected representative from New Hampshire. As an elected representative she fought against the assisted suicide bills in her state. Nancy is now actively opposing assisted suicide bills throughout the USA.

Nancy explains why she opposes assisted suicide:

This is about state sanctioned suicide. This is about giving the government the right to decide who is deserving of death and who isn't.

 It was at the same time this bill came that my husband was very critically ill. He had heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, kidney disease, numerous diseases.

One of the reps had put in this bill the reasons why you might want to do this (assisted suicide). They had loss of autonomy, loss of dignity, loss of bodily control. And so I asked him, "What are you talking about?"

It was really pretty clear that they were aimed at people like my husband, who, in their opinion, shouldn't be living.

He would have been so hurt. It would be like saying:

"Your a piece of junk, you need to get out of the way, your taking up space, go kill yourself."

Join EPC USA and help Nancy defeat assisted suicide in your state.

This film clip was taken from the film - Fatal Flaws. Order Fatal Flaws today.

Fatal Flaws - Successful Ottawa Screening

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The Premiere Screening on May 8 in Ottawa of the film - Fatal Flaws was a tremendous success. More than 100 people attended the screening and most of the attendees stayed for the Round Table discussion that followed the film.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition urges all of our supporters to organize a screening of Fatal Flaws in their community. Simply order a copy of the film Fatal Flaws and the Fatal Flaws pamphlets and promote the event. Speakers may be available upon request.

• Fatal Flaws: A film that chronicles the march of euthanasia.
• Order the film - Fatal Flaws or the Fatal Flaws pamphlets (Link).

Many attendees had seen the youtube video's promoting Fatal Flaws featuring the stories of Candice Lewis, a woman with disabilities in Newfoundland, who was pressured by doctors to ask for euthanasia, and Margreet from the Netherlands, whose mother died by euthanasia without consent.

The audience were also moved by Helen's story, in the Netherlands, who saved her mom from euthanasia by pushing for a second opinion. People asked Helen why are you bothering, she's 94, Helen replied: 

It's my mom, don't take her away from me.

Nancy Elliott

The audience were also affected by the stories of love from Nancy Elliott and Dr Bill Toffler. 

Nancy began to oppose assisted suicide as a three-term New Hampshire representative. The legislature of debating the legalization of assisted suicide while Nancy was also caring for her very ill husband. Nancy said:

It was pretty clear that the legislation was clearly aimed at people like my husband, who, in their opinion, shouldn't be living.

Nancy Elliott is the Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - USA.

Dr Toffler spoke about the death of his wife. He states:

If taking a massive overdose of medication to kill yourself is dignified, then what does it say for the majority of people who die naturally, like my wife, at home, peacefully with family surrounding her. She didn't take an overdose so that's not dignified?

All prices for the DVD and pamphlets include taxes and shipping: All orders can be made online (Link).

• DVD: $40 each, 3 for $100, or Pamphlets: $40 for 100, 300 for $100.

Further Discounts: All orders can be made online (Link).

• 1 DVD + 100 pamphlets for $75,
• With any Fatal Flaws order, get The Euthanasia Deception documentary for $20.

Further bulk orders are available upon request.

Order the Fatal Flaws DVD with companion pamphlets online, email: info@epcc.ca or call EPC at: 1-877-439-3348.

The Fatal Flaws Film will change the way the culture views assisted death.

• Fatal Flaws - Premiere Screening May 8 in Ottawa.
• Fatal Flaws - She was euthanized without consent in the Netherlands.
• Fatal Flaws - Lessons from Canada. Don't legalize assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide push gains little ground in state legislatures

Alex Schadenberg

This article was published by OneNewsNow on April 5, 2018.

Supporters of assisted suicide are having little luck this year in convincing lawmakers to pass bills to legalize helping others die.

Bills failed in 26 states in 2017 and this year they have been introduced in 25 states.

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition says so far Connecticut, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and New Hampshire have said no to the assisted suicide lobby.

"Utah actually passed a bill this year which criminalizes assisted suicide," he notes. "So opponents are leading in the effort to educate the public and lawmakers on the dangers of doctors helping people take their lives."

But the "success rate" for defeating pro-killing bills is not a complete victory this year, he adds, pointing out that Hawaii has passed an assisted suicide bill.

"Nonetheless," Schadenberg says, "the other side will want you to think that it's this massive victory in the U.S. in 2018."

Nancy Elliott testimony to the Connecticut Public Health Committee. "Assisted suicide is bad public policy."

Nancy Elliott's testimony to the Connecticut Public Health Committee.

Dear Committee Member,

Nancy Elliott

This is my testimony opposing the intent of assisted suicide bill HB 5417. 

I am Nancy Elliott. I am a former 3 term New Hampshire State Representative and the Chair of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA
 
The three groups that are the target for assisted suicide are the sick, the elderly and the disabled. While there are many other problems with this kind of law, I am going to focus in on these three today.
 
It is said this is only for the sick and dying. One of the biggest problems is people who qualify for assisted suicide are not necessarily dying. Think of a 21-year-old otherwise healthy insulin dependent diabetic. He qualifies if he rejects his insulin. This would be the same for many other people with serious conditions, who take prescription medications. What about all the curable cancers? They qualify. What about the 5% of incorrect medical diagnosis? With Assisted Suicide on the table these mistakes can be deadly.
 
I was at an oral submission on assisted suicide in Massachusetts a few years back when a gentleman named John Norton gave evidence, that as a young man he was diagnosed with ALS. He stated that had assisted suicide been legal at that time he would have used it. A few years in, the disease’s progression just stopped. Now in his late 70’s he stated he has had a great life with children and a grandchild. With assisted suicide on the table he would have lost all of that.
 
Steering is a big deal with all three of the groups that I mentioned. At that same Massachusetts proceeding, a doctor stated that assisted suicide laws were something he was in favor of. He continued with his points and ended by saying that he felt it was the responsibility for a good doctor “to guide people to make the right choice”. I do not think he intended to say that, but is there any doubt that this pro suicide doctor would try to persuade his patients to follow his wishes concerning their assisted suicide.
 
These laws are abusive in their very nature. To suggest to someone that they should kill themselves is abuse. My husband was terminally ill and I went to a lot of doctor appointments with him. If medical personnel were to suggest assisted suicide to him, he would have been devastated. While he never would have done that, it would be like saying to him, "You are worthless and should die." That is abuse! The proponents say that would never happen, but that did happen to an Oregon woman named Kathryn Judson. She had gone to a doctor’s appointment with her seriously ill husband and feeling exhausted she sunk into a chair where she overheard the doctor pitching assisted suicide to her husband with the clincher, “Think of your wife.” They left and never went back. The husband went on to live another five years.

Next seniors are at risk and very easily fall victim to coercion as the process is very open to that. In most states, heirs can be there for the request and even speak. Anyone can pick up the lethal dose. Once in the house all oversight is gone, there is no witness required at the death. Even if they struggled who would know. If that is not enough, the death certificate is falsified to reflect a natural death. All the information is sealed and unavailable to the public. Even if someone suspected foul play, the death certificate says no crime here. Taking advantage of seniors is epidemic in the States. Look at the case of Thomas Middleton. He made Tami Sawyer his trustee and moved into her home. Within a month he was dead by Oregon’s assisted suicide law. Two days after his death Ms. Sawyer listed his house and sold it and deposited the money into three companies she owned with her husband. We will never know if or how much coercion or foul play took place in that case.

Finally those with a disability are at risk. Most people that “qualify” for assisted suicide at that point in their life have a disability. Many with long term disabilities and have been labeled as terminal all their lives. Without meds, treatments, and assistance they would not survive. This is about disability. If you have a disability you are encouraged to give up and commit suicide. If, on the other hand, you are young and healthy, you are given suicide prevention counseling. This is discrimination against people with disabilities. Why should they trust that they will not be coerced into assisted suicide, when they are already discouraged to seek treatments and are not treated fairly? When you think about it this is a law that is written just for them. It is a “special” carve out, for the sick, elderly and disabled.

In closing, I just want to add that assisted suicide has been rejected in over 100 legislative, ballot initiative and judicial attempts in the USA, including my state New Hampshire. The more it is studied the more uncomfortable people become with it.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this bill. Please reject HB 5417. It is bad public policy.

Nancy Elliott
Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - USA

Oppose New Hampshire assisted suicide study bill SB 490

Opposition to SB490 establishing a commission to study end-of-life choices.

I

Nancy Elliott
Chair of EPC - USA

am opposed to SB490 because it is a thinly veiled effort to study Assisted Suicide, also known as death with dignity, medical aid in dying, euthanasia and mercy killing, with the intent to legalize it in New Hampshire. Our state has a long standing bipartisan opposition to Assisted Suicide. This practice is discriminatory to the disabled and elderly, sending them the message that they are not as valuable as able bodied people. While young and healthy individuals receive suicide counseling, the elderly, sick and disabled are steered to take their lives.

I know this bill is for a STUDY, but studying things that would be harmful if passed is a waste of taxpayer money and runs the risk of giving legitimacy and momentum to this practice. If we look down the road where legal we see people's lives being ended who are not necessarily dying, such as an individual with diabetes, who refuses to take his insulin, using this on people with psychological problems and forcing this on people who object as in the Dutch woman who was held down by her family while her doctor forcibly euthanized her.

This particular study seems biased as to its makeup. Instead of having legislators who would be able to weigh the input from different points of view, this committee is made up of "stakeholders". I find it interesting that there are no grassroots organizations representing the disability or elderly communities, who this topic most affects. Why is there no representative from Not Dead Yet? And why is the elderly representative a lawyer, which tend to be more interested in wealth preservation for the estate. And the two religious members are coming out of a grouping of churches in which many support Assisted Suicide. By designating this organization the state is eliminating influence from churches that are not members and may be more in the best interest of our citizens.

I believe that this commission is dangerous to our citizens because the report that will come out, will indicate an imaginary mandate for Assisted Suicide. We all know that these reports are taken very seriously. This report could very well replace the scrutiny that typically takes place on a bill in committee. As legislators, do not replace your position as protectors of society with "Stakeholders". 

Please vote SB490 Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you. 

Sincerely,
Nancy Elliott
Former NH State Representative
Chair of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - USA

Assisted Suicide Is a Prescription for Abuse

Nancy Elliott

I am a former three-term State Representative in the state of New Hampshire USA. I was alarmed to see that Victoria may be close to passing a bill to legalize assisted suicide.

Four years ago, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted down a similar bill in a bipartisan vote. The vote was an overwhelming 3 to 1 defeat, 219 to 66.*

Many representatives who initially thought that they were for the law, became uncomfortable when they studied it further. Contrary to promoting “choice” for older people, assisted suicide laws are a prescription for abuse. They empower heirs and others to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives. This is especially an issue when the older person has money. There is NO assisted-suicide bill that you can write to correct this huge problem.

Do not be deceived.

Nancy Elliott
Amherst, New Hampshire USA

Military Veterans Threatened by Assisted Suicide.

This article was published by True Dignity Vermont on May 14, 2016.

Rep Al Baldasaro

Representative Al Baldasaro of the New Hampshire Legislature on gave an impassioned speech on May 11 against a proposed “study committee” to look at “end of life choices.” Speaking on behalf of Veterans’ PTSD/TBI Commission, he cited the fact that New Hampshire is facing an epidemic of suicides among Veterans, and said: 

“What message are you sending to the community out there and all the good work every one of us has done to protect people from killing themselves? Now we want to make it easy?”

He said that opening the door to such a practice would have grave consequences for veterans at risk for suicide, and that even studying such a bill would threaten efforts to help veterans. He clearly states that euphemisms such as “aid in dying” don’t change the fact that such laws promote suicide and threaten efforts to protect people from killing themselves.

Thank you to NH House of Representatives for Defeating SB426

Nancy Elliott

Nancy Elliott

Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) USA

The New Hampshire House of Representatives recently defeated SB426, a bill to study Assisted Suicide Euthanasia. It was a surprising defeat.

EPC USA had worked closely with advocates in New Hampshire since the bill was first filed in the Senate. EPC USA and our allies educated the public and legislators on the dangers of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, including discrimination against the disabled, elderly, and ill who are encouraged to commit suicide while the young and healthy get suicide prevention.

The bill's proponents had called for a Commission to Study End of Life Options, particularly "Aid in Dying," but bill sponsor Senator Kelly admitted at the Senate hearing that the real target was Assisted Suicide.

Not only, then, was this commission clearly a showcase for Assisted Suicide, the proposed commissioners were loaded with activists likely to support this radical measure. While the commission claimed it would listen to stakeholders, people who would be affected by the proposed legislation, the commission would not even have had a single representative from a disability community group or seniors group. These are the two communities in the crosshairs of this type of legislation.

Nonetheless, the bill had come out of the Judiciary Committee with the recommendation of Ought to Pass with Amendment.

In the House Judiciary Committee hearing, John Kelly, regional director of disability community group Not Dead Yet, advocated for the rights of the disabled and elderly. Dr. Richard Johnson of New Hampshire and Dr. Paul Saba of Physicians for Social Justice, based in Montreal, testified that doctors make mistakes, and with treatment many of these people could live for years to come.

EPC USA's coalition members worked in the Senate and the House to educate legislators on the dangers of SB426. And at the last minute, NH House members secured enough votes to soundly reject this idea on the House floor.

Passing this bill would not have implemented Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia, but it would have put us closer to it. And even the unbalanced commission would have created some appearance of legitimacy for any bill they pushed, no matter how radical. This is a great win for our New Hampshire advocates, EPC USA, and the citizens of New Hampshire.

For more information on this bill (Link).

Victory: New Hampshire assisted suicide study bill defeated.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Nancy Elliott, the Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA reported that the New Hampshire assisted suicide / euthanasia study bill SB426 was clearly defeated by a bi-partisan vote 174 - 123.

Elliott warned New Hampshire citizens that SB426 was a trojan horse designed to lead to the legalization of assisted suicide and possibly euthanasia in New Hampshire.

Elliott, who is a former three term New Hampshire representative stated in a recent article:

We have studied this topic extensively in New Hampshire. This bill [in its original form, without the proposed House amendment] talks about end of life choices, but singles out “Aid in Dying” – a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia. It is apparent that the “choice” that this bill wants to promote is suicide. By rolling this into a commission stacked with pro-euthanasia people, this idea can be foisted on the citizens of New Hampshire. It gives a platform for pro-assisted suicide / euthanasia advocates to have a platform to push this with. 

[I saw] in my time in the New Hampshire State House where these commissions used their power to bring in huge hybrid bills and push things on the state that are not necessarily vetted well by legislators, only [by] commissions. These commissions are stacked with what they call stakeholders, generally supporters of extensive changes to our laws. 

Nancy Elliott

Elliott has become a leader in the movement to protect people from assisted suicide. Elliott recently explained why assisted suicide is so dangerous:

Assisted suicide/euthanasia is abusive in its very nature. To suggest that someone kill themselves is abuse, and that is exactly what we do when we put these laws in place.

[Assisted suicide] laws are ripe for elder abuse. Generally, your heir can sign you up [for advance directives] and speak for you. There is no witness required at the death [caused by prescribed-suicide drugs], so if the lethal dose was given against the patient’s will, no one would know. And then the death certificate is falsified to say the person died of natural causes, leaving any prosecution for wrongdoing impossible. 

It is also aimed at people with disabilities. While young healthy people are counseled against suicide, people with disabilities are encouraged to commit suicide. Think about it: just having a doctor or nurse suggest that you might want to consider suicide is abusive.

Another huge problem is that doctor predictions [about life expectancy with terminal illness] can be wrong. Many people are alive years and decades after they were told there was no hope. With assisted suicide and euthanasia on the table, they could throw away their lives. In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, state-run Medicaid Insurance has denied coverage for medical treatment while offering to pay for a lethal dose of drugs. This should send a chill up all our spines. Oregon also seems to be showing signs of suicide contagion; rates have risen since legalization.

Assisted suicide /euthanasia are dangerous public policy and should be rejected. This proposed commission is just a Trojan Horse to bring these policies to New Hampshire.

EPC-USA is hosting a leaders meeting on Monday, May 23 in Washington DC. For more information email: info@epcc.ca

John Kelly: Assisted Suicide Laws and Bills are “Riddled with Falsehoods”

This article was published by Not Dead Yet on April 7, 2016.

John Kelly from Not Dead Yet.

On March 29, Not Dead Yet New England Regional Coordinator and Second Thoughts Massachusetts Director John Kelly testified against New Hampshire Bill SB426, which would establish an “end-of-life choices study commission.” Using the euphemisms of proponents like Compassion & Choices against the bill, John lists the ways in which the bill is “riddled with falsehoods.”

Excellent opposition testimony was also delivered by doctors Paul Saba and Richard Johnson, and former New Hampshire legislator Nancy Elliott. Below are excerpts from John’s testimony:

Chairman Rowe, Vice-Chairman Hagan, Members of the Committee:

. . . Please reject SB426 because it is riddled with falsehoods. From the words of the commission’s title to its enumerated duties, it’s clear that legalization proponents drafted the bill. It is a stalking horse for the legalization of assisted suicide.

The first falsehood is the phrase “end-of-life.” The committee should know that in current practice, the “end-of-life” is the six-month period following a physician’s terminal diagnosis. Yet of the millions of misdiagnoses every year, many are terminal misdiagnoses. We know this because of the thousands of people who “graduate” from hospice each year. …

Assisted suicide laws turn the best outcome under hospice – proving you weren’t terminal after all – into the worst possible end for people who might live months, years, or decades longer, but are instead persuaded (or coerced) under threat of agonizing death to commit suicide.

There are so many examples of people outliving terminal prognoses, from Ted Kennedy living a year longer than predicted to John Norton of Florence, Mass., who testified before the state legislature that when he was diagnosed with ALS, he would have definitely used assisted suicide were it available. Luckily for John, his family, and everyone who has come to know him, assisted suicide wasn’t state policy, his disease process stopped, and – 60 years later! – he’s urging people to reject these bills. . . .

The second falsehood is illusion of “choices,” the other word in the title of the proposed commission. When people cannot get accurate knowledge about their condition, we cannot speak of “choices.” We also cannot speak of “choices” –

• When one out of every 10 people over the age of 60 in New Hampshire is estimated to be abused every year, almost always by adult children and caregivers.
• When someone in line to inherit your estate can help sign you up, pick up the prescription, and then take action against you with no questions asked.
• When depressed people with a serious illness who mistakenly think that people will be better off without them get told that “feeling like a burden” is a rational reason to kill yourself.
• When there is no funded homecare, so families worried about the inheritance feel pressure to “choose” assisted suicide. . . .

I was once able-bodied and had an accident, and since then I’ve received many “better dead than disabled” messages, right to my face and through popular culture. My own father wished that I died in the accident. . . .

The third falsehood in this bill is the phrase “aid in dying,” one of Compassion & Choices’ favorite euphemisms for assisted suicide (“Death with Dignity” is the other). It’s not clear exactly what “aid” means. …

“Dying” reflects the fiercely maintained belief of proponents that when people are “reasonably expected” to die within six months, they are in the process of actively dying. …The problem is that this is so often and so clearly untrue. …

[Fourth], according to proponents, … there has never been a case of abuse out in Oregon – that’s right, the first state-run program ever without a case of abuse. The only reason that no abuse is discovered is because the reports are designed that way. The only abuses we know of are ones that somehow make it to the media.

For example, Wendy Melcher died after being given massive doses of barbiturate suppositories by two nurses, one of whom was having an affair with Wendy’s partner. The nurses claimed that Melcher had requested assisted suicide, but there was no doctor’s prescription, Wendy did not self-administer, and the nurses never reported her death to the Oregon Department of Health as an assisted suicide.

Yet instead of referring the nurses to authorities for criminal charges, the state nursing board secretly suspended one nurse’s license for 30 days and placed the other on two years “probation.” It took a reporter’s phone call years later to inform Melcher’s devastated family that she had been killed. It seems that the very existence of the assisted suicide law turned evidence of a serious crime into an excusable mistake. The Portland Tribune editorialized, 

“If nurses — or anyone else — are willing to go outside the law, then all the protections built into the Death With Dignity Act are for naught.”

The fifth falsehood is that “aid in dying” is not assisted suicide. …

Encouraging assisted suicide for some will encourage suicide for all. Suicide contagion is real. According to the Centers for Disease Control, Oregon’s already high suicide rate has increased much more than the national average; from 1999 until 2010, the rate of increase for people age 35-64 was 49% in Oregon versus 28% nationally. …

The sixth falsehood is that assisted suicide is all about pain and suffering. But the five leading reasons reported by prescribing doctors solely deal with psychosocial distress about disability. First is distress about dependence on other people (“losing autonomy” 92%), second is distress over lost abilities (“less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable” 89%), followed by feelings of shame and perceived/actual loss of social status (“loss of dignity” 79%), distress about needing help with incontinence (“losing control of bodily functions” 50%), and believing that suicide would leave loved ones better off (“burden on family, friends/caregivers” 40%).

Another falsehood is that “choice” belongs only to the individual. It’s a fantasy that other people only want what the individual wants, and completely support whatever the person chooses.

… Here is an example of a man told he was a burden. Oregonian Kathryn Judson wrote of bringing her seriously ill husband to the doctor.

I collapsed in a half-exhausted heap in a chair once I got him into the doctor’s office, relieved that we were going to get badly needed help (or so I thought). To my surprise and horror, during the exam I overheard the doctor giving my husband a sales pitch for assisted suicide. "Think of what it will spare your wife, we need to think of her," he said, as a clincher….

The lives of non-“terminal” disabled people share many traits with people requesting assisted suicide, but we reject as bizarre and dangerous the notion that personal dignity is somehow lost through reliance on others, or because we are not continent every hour of every day. That’s why for 40 years the disability rights movement has insisted on funded programs to provide necessary personal care attendant (PCA) services for all disabled people, including people disabled by their serious illness.

Assisted suicide laws set up a two-tier system, under which some people get suicide prevention services while others get suicide assistance. The difference between the two groups would be based on value judgments about so-called “quality of life.” Many of us already get told, straight to our face and through medical hostility, that we might be better off dead. Legalized assisted suicide makes that prejudice official policy.

That’s why every leading national disability rights group that has taken a position on assisted suicide has come out against it.

There is no way to come up with a better bill through the “thoughtful and deliberative” process envisioned by sponsor Senator Dan Feltes.

This study commission would be well replaced by a commission that would investigate how best to “help older people in New Hampshire live well.”

…Reject SB426 because it’s dishonest and dangerous. Thank you.

To read John’s entire testimony, go here.