Oregon bill would expand assisted suicide law again. Non doctors could prescribe death.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Will there ever be enough killing?
Will there ever be enough killers?

On January 30, I published an article concerning Vermont Bill 75 that expands Vermont's assisted suicide law for the third time.

Oregon are also debating a bill to expand their assisted suicide law for the third time. Oregon assisted suicide bill SB 1003 will allow non doctors to prescribe death.

SB 1003 changes the term "attending physician" to "prescribling provider" and "consulting physician" to "consulting provider."

Provider means: 

(a) A physician licensed...,
(b) A physician assistant licensed...,
(c) A nurse practitioner licensed...

Therefore SB 1003 will allow non physicians, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners to participate in killing.

The weak link for the assisted suicide lobby is that very few doctors are willing to be involved with killing their patients. By adding physician assistants and nurse practitioners they will increase the number of providers who are willing to be involved with killing.

SB 1003 also reduces the waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours while enabling the "providing prescriber" to waive the waiting period to essentially allow a same day death.

SB 1003 also requires hospices and hospitals to publicly disclose their assisted suicide policy. Hospices and other healthcare facilities will be required to inform patients of their assisted suicide policy and post their assisted suicide policy online.

SB 1003 is the third time that Oregon is expanding their assisted suicide law.

In 2019 Oregon passed Bill SB 0579 which allowed doctors to waive the 15 day waiting period. 

In 2023 Oregon passed Bill HB 2279 which removed Oregon's assisted suicide law residency requirement.

The 2023 Oregon assisted suicide report indicates that there were 367 reported assisted suicide deaths up by 21% from 304 in 2022. Will there ever be enough killing?

Vermont House Bill 75 to expand assisted suicide law again.

House Bill 75, if passed, would be the third expansion of Vermont's assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Vermont House Bill 75 (H 75) will expand the state assisted suicide law by allowing (non physicians) naturopathic physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to participate in assisted suicide.

Are naturopathic physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants demanding the right to be involved with killing people?
Or is it that there are too few physicians who are willing to kill?

H 75 has been referred to the Committee on Health Care.

If passed, H 75 would be the third expansion of Vermont's assisted suicide law. 

Assisted suicide laws, once legal, inevitably expand (Article Link).

When writing about Vermont's continuous expansion of their assisted suicide law I ask the question, will there ever be enough killing?

On January 5, 2024 I reported that data from the Vermont Department of Health indicated that the number of assisted suicide deaths more than quadrupled in 2022/2023 from the previous two years.

The increase in Vermont assisted suicide deaths is partly due to the expansions of the Vermont assisted suicide law.

In 2022 Vermont passed assisted suicide bill S74 which expanded their assisted suicide law by allowing assisted suicide by telemedicine, (permitting lethal assisted suicide poison prescriptions to be written without meeting the person), eliminating the 48 hour waiting period before prescribing and defining assisted suicide as a "healthcare service."

On March 14, 2023 Vermont's Attorney General's Office  reached an agreement with the assisted suicide lobby to remove the residency requirement for assisted suicide in Vermont. That means residents form other states can die by assisted suicide in Vermont. A media report  indicated that a Connecticut woman died by assisted suicide in Vermont. 

Now Vermont wants to permit expand the law by permitting other medical professionals to also be legally capable of killing their patients.

Vermont assisted suicide deaths more than quadruple.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

According to the Vermont Department of Health, the number of assisted suicide deaths more than quadrupled in the past two years. According to the report, in the past two years there were 72 reported assisted suicide deaths which was up from 17 reported assisted suicide deaths in the previous two years.

The latest assisted suicide report from the Vermont Department of Health indicates that there were 85 "reportable events" between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2023 which was up from 29 "reportable events" between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021 in the previous report. The new report also indicates that since assisted suicide was legalized in 2013 there have been 203 "reportable events."

According to the Vermont report:

Eighty-four out of the eighty-five total reportable events have a death certificate on file with the Vermont Vital Records’ Office. All of the available death certificates list the appropriate cause (the underlying disease) and manner of death (natural), per Act 39 (2013) requirements.

Notice how the Vermont law requires falsification of the death certificate.

The Vermont report indicated that of the 84 death certificates, 72 died by assisted suicide, 8 died from their underlying disease, 1 died from another cause and in 3 deaths, the cause was unknown.

The report from two years ago stated that of the 29 death certificates, 17 died by assisted suicide, 10 died from their underlying disease, 1 died from another cause and in 1 death the cause was unknown.

When the cause of death is unknown, the person may have died by assisted suicide but no report was received.

The increase in Vermont assisted suicide deaths is partly due to the expansions of the Vermont assisted suicide law.

In 2022 Vermont passed assisted suicide bill S74 which expanded assisted suicide by allowing assisted suicide by telemedicine, (permitting a doctor to prescribe lethal assisted suicide poisons without directly examining the person), eliminating the 48 hour waiting period before prescribing the lethal drugs and defining assisted suicide as a "healthcare service."

On March 14, 2023 Vermont's Attorney General's Office reached an agreement with the assisted suicide lobby to remove the residency requirement for assisted suicide in Vermont. A recent media report indicated that a Connecticut woman recently died by assisted suicide in Vermont.

Vermont legalizes assisted suicide by Zoom

This article was published by National Review online on April 28, 2022.

By Wesley Smith

Remember when we were told that assisted suicide would only be engaged in as part of an intimate and long-term physician/patient relationship?

Of course, the laws never required that. And now, Vermont has legalized assisted suicide by Zoom or Skype. The new law also eliminates the previous requirement that the doctor have examined the patient. In other words, the poison-prescribing doctor would seem to never have to actually meet the patient in person. From the recently passed and signed S 74:

(a) A physician shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action if the physician prescribes to a patient with a terminal condition medication to be self-administered for the purpose of hastening the patient’s death and the physician affirms by documenting in the patient’s medical record that all of the following occurred:

(1) The patient made an oral request to the physician in the physician’s physical presence or by telemedicine, if the physician determines the use of telemedicine to be clinically appropriate, for medication to be self-administered for the purpose of hastening the patient’s death.

(2) No Not fewer than 15 days after the first oral request, the patient made a second oral request to the physician in the physician’s physical presence or by telemedicine, if the physician determines the use of telemedicine to be clinically appropriate, for medication to be self-administered for the purpose of hastening the patient’s death.

Strict guidelines protect against abuse! Except they were never strict, and those that do exist are not intended to stick. As soon as people become comfortable with doctors participating in their patients’ suicides, the “protections” touted so loudly are suddenly redefined as “obstacles,” and “access” to facilitated death “is improved” by making it easier to be made dead.

And cold cynics that assisted-suicide advocates are, they know that by the time their ruse becomes apparent, people won’t care anymore. Look Ma. No brakes!

Vermont Bill S74 would permit assisted suicide by telemedicine.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The assisted suicide lobby is focusing on expanding assisted suicide in states where it is legal.

Vermont assisted suicide bill S74 expands assisted suicide by allowing assisted suicide by telemedicine, which permits a doctor to prescribe a lethal assisted suicide drugs without ever meeting the person, eliminating the 48 hour waiting period before prescribing the lethal drugs and defining assisted suicide as "healthcare service."

For several years, the assisted suicide lobby has promoted the use of telemedicine for approving and prescribing lethal assisted suicide drugs. Assisted suicide by telemedicine eliminates the chance to discover that the person asking for assisted usicide was misdiagnosed. If the doctor does not examine the person who requests assisted suicide then they are basing their assisted suicide approval solely on the person's medical record.

Permitting assisted suicide by telemedicine in states where assisted suicide is legal may enable doctors to approve and prescribe out-of-state assisted suicides. Telemedicine approvals enables the assisted suicide lobby to set-up a national assisted suicide approval and prescribing center to permit assisted suicide nationally.

There are several other concerns with S74 but I am really concerned that S74 defines assisted suicide as a "healthcare service." Defining assisted suicide as a healthcare service leads to a right to assisted suicide.

Further to that, if assisted suicide is defined as a healthcare service, doctors who refuse to participate in assisted suicide may be forced to refer patients for assisted suicide. A physician who does not provide certain healthcare services is expected to refer patients to physicians who will provide the healthcare service.

Vermont Bill S74 concerns the normalizing of assisted suicide and permitting doctors to prescribe lethal assisted suicide drugs to someone who they have never met. 

Assisted suicide is not a healthcare service, in fact it is antithetical to healthcare.

Making it up as they go: Falsifying Vermont death certificates

This article was published by the Australian Care Alliance on January 2, 2020.

• Vermont: 28 people reportedly died by assisted suicide in the past two years.

As reported in a previous blog on the latest report on deaths by assisted suicide in Vermont, the report states:

100% of the death certificates listed the appropriate cause (the underlying disease) and manner of death (natural), per Act 39 requirements.

This is a curious statement as Act 39 as passed by the Vermont legislature and in force does not include any such requirement.

This matter was raised with the Vermont Department of Health. The reply seems to confirm that when it comes to reporting on assisted suicide officials simply make it up as they go along.

In reply to this query:

Page 2 of your report states:

"All 34 events have a death certificate on file with the Vital Records’ Office. One hundred percent of the death certificates listed the appropriate cause (the underlying disease) and manner of death (natural), per Act 39 (2013) requirements."

The reference to "Act 39 (2013) requirements" seems to be misleading as while there was a provision to this effect in S77 as introduced into the Senate this provision was deleted and does not form part of Act 39 of 2013 (Chapter 113, Title 18 of the Vermont Statutes).

On the face of it in the absence of such a provision deaths certificates in these circumstances should be handled in accordance with the provisions in 18 V.S.A. § 5205 or elsewhere in Chapter 107, Title 18.

Could you please advise if there is some other legal authorisation for the completion of a Vermont

death certificate in the event of a death following ingestion of a lethal poison, albeit in apparent accordance with the provisions of Chapter 113, Title 18 of the Vermont Statutes, recording the manner of death as natural and the underlying condition as the sole cause of death with no reference to the effect of the lethal poison in causing that death?

The official reply from the Vermont Department of Health reads:

18 V.S.A. § 5293(a) states, "Except as otherwise required by law, information regarding compliance shall be confidential and shall be exempt from public inspection and copying under the Public Records Act." In addition, decisions made between patient and doctor are protected health information under both state and federal privacy laws. If a death certificate were to make reference to a prescribed dose under Act 39, it would be visible to the public and therefore violate both general and specific provisions of state law. A physician listing the underlying disease and manner of death [as natural] is both appropriate and preserves the confidentiality due the patient.

This reply is extraordinary.

Firstly, 18 V.S.A. § 5293 deals with the information collected and reported on pursuant to the Rule which makes no reference whatsoever to death certificates. It does however refer to the cause of death in requiring the prescribing physician to specify in a follow up form.

Whether the patient died as a result of the ingestion of the prescribed dose; as a result of the underlying disease; or whether the cause is unknown to the physician.

The legislative history of Act 39 indicates that the legislature considered but rejected an explicit provision mandating the falsification of death certificates for deaths following ingestion of a lethal poison prescribed under its provisions:

See the struck out paragraph on p.10 of the Bill as passed by the Senate and House which read:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the attending physician may sign the patient’s death certificate, which shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause and manner of death.

An alternative provision was proposed but later withdrawn:

The patient’s death certificate shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of the death and shall list the manner of death as natural.

It is alarming that the unelected officials of the Vermont Department of Health are choosing on their own authority to not just act as if this latter proposal was the law in Vermont but to brazenly claim that it is in an official report to the legislature and to praise physicians for their 100% compliance falsifying Vermont death certificates in accordance with unfounded statement of the law.

The general instructions to physicians regarding the accurate completion of death certificates place great emphasis on the importance of a comprehensive recording of ALL the causes contributing to a death.

Certify the cause of death as accurately as possible.

The manner of death describes the circumstances surrounding the death. In Vermont and in most of this country there are only 5 choices:

• Natural
• Accident
• Suicide
• Homicide
• Pending Investigation (only available to medical examiners)
• Could Not Be Determined
• All cases that are not due exclusively (100%) to natural disease MUST, by law, be reported to the Medical Examiner's Office (1-888-552-2952). If an injury in any way contributes to the person’s death, no matter how long ago that injury was sustained, the death is not considered natural.

Stated very simply, a cause of death is the disease or injury responsible for starting the lethal sequence of events which ultimately lead to death. A competent cause of death must be as etiologically specific as possible. Etiologically specific causes of death are the disease entities studied in basic pathology courses

The mechanism of death is the altered biochemistry or physiology whereby the cause exerts its lethal effects. Mechanisms are not specific and can NEVER replace or substitute for a cause of death. Mechanisms can never stand alone on a death certificate and always need an underlying cause of death. Always ask yourself what the mechanism is due to in order to find the underlying cause of death.

Medical judgment and common sense are required for certifying the cause of death.

Truthfulness, completeness, and reasonable accuracy should be the goal. Convenience and expedience should not play a role when certifying causes of death.

Unless of course it is under an assisted suicide law when:

medical judgement, commonsense, truthfulness, completeness and reasonable accuracy must all GIVE WAY to the convenience and expedience of falsifying public records to pretend that deaths by the ingestion of a lethal poison are entirely natural.

Vermont: 28 people reportedly died by assisted suicide in the past two years.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The media reported that 28 people died by assisted suicide in the past two years (July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2019). Calvin Cutler reported for WCAX3: 

The report released on Monday shows from July of 2017 to June of 2019, 28 people used the state's physician-assisted death program to end their lives. 

...Over the past two years, doctors have filled 34 prescriptions under the law. Of those cases, 24 patients had cancer, four had ALS and six had diseases like Parkinson's or similar conditions.

The state says of the 34 people who passed away, 28 died from a lethal prescription, five died from their underlying diseases and one person's cause of death is unknown.

Similar to other states, when the cause of death is unknown, the death may have been assisted suicide.

Click here for the full report.

Cutler also stated that the previous report, in 2017, indicated that 29 people had died by assisted suicide. Therefore 57 people have reportedly died by assisted suicide since it was legalized in 2013. The previous report also provided scant information.

The American Medical Association statement opposing assisted suicide says that legalizing assisted suicide causes more harm than good.

How a palliative care bill negatively affected conscience rights in Vermont.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In 2012, Vermont passed bill § 1871 Patient's bill of rights for palliative care and pain management bill. This bill seemed straight forward and it was seen as  seen as helping to prevent the legalization of assisted suicide in Vermont. This bill stated:

(a) A patient has the right to be informed of all evidence-based options for care and treatment, including palliative care, in order to make a fully informed patient choice. 

(b) A patient with a terminal illness has the right to be informed by a clinician of all available options related to terminal care; to be able to request any, all, or none of these options; and to expect and receive supportive care for the specific option or options available. 

(c) A patient suffering from pain has the right to request or reject the use of any or all treatments in order to relieve his or her pain. 

(d) A patient suffering from a chronic condition has the right to competent and compassionate medical assistance in managing his or her physical and emotional symptoms. 

(e) A pediatric patient suffering from a serious or life-limiting illness or condition has the right to receive palliative care while seeking and undergoing potentially curative treatment. (Added 2009, No. 25, § 3.)

In May 2013 Vermont legalized assisted suicide. The assisted suicide statute (Act 39) states:

The rights of a patient under section 1871 of this title to be informed of all available options related to terminal care and under 12 V.S.A. § 1909(d) to receive answers to any specific question about the foreseeable risks and benefits of medication without the physician’s withholding any requested information exist regardless of the purpose of the inquiry or the nature of the information. A physician who engages in discussions with a patient related to such risks and benefits in the circumstances described in this chapter shall not be construed to be assisting in or contributing to a patient’s independent decision to self-administer a lethal dose of medication, and such discussions shall not be used to establish civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action.

Notice how the Patient bill of rights for palliative care and pain management and the assisted suicide act require physicians to provide all information and answers to any questions. Both statutes obligate physicians to provide information, even when the physician opposes one of the options.

Does requiring a physician to provide information also require the physician to prove a referral?

On May 23, 2017, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) reported a victory, stating that Vermont physicians who object to assisted suicide are not required to provide information or refer for assisted suicide. 

The ADF signed an agreement with Vermont's Attorney General ensuring that physicians were not required to provide information or refer for assisted suicide.

According to Patient Choices Vermont, on December 18, 2017 US District Court Judge Geoffrey Crawford decided that:

“The agreement does not represent the views of the court on the merits of the parties' dispute … The consent agreement is a purely private agreement-not a judicial ruling-and not subject to review on appeal. But it is far from inconsequential and maintaining it on the court's docket has value in informing the public of the terms of the settlement struck by the parties.”

Patient Choices Vermont argues that the language of the Patients bill of rights for palliative care and pain management statute, the assisted suicide statute and the decision by Judge Crawford requires Vermont physicians to provide assisted suicide information.

It is not completely clear whether the agreement between ADF and Vermont's Attorney General stands and it is not clear whether the language of both statutes require Vermont physicians to refer for assisted suicide.

Nonetheless, the concern about being forced to provide information about assisted suicide began with the language in the Patients bill of rights for palliative care and pain management act. 

In this case, a good intention resulted in a problematic outcome.

Fifteen Fatally Flawed Assisted Death Experiments.

The Australian Care Alliance has completed research on every jurisdiction that legalized euthanasia and/or assisted suicide including Australia's Northern Territory that overturned the assisted suicide in 1997 and Victoria Australia and Hawaii that have yet to implement their death laws.

Here is the link to the Australian Care Alliance web page with links to the information on the fifteen fatally flawed laws.

Link to the PDF of the 15 Fatally Flawed Experiments (Link).

For your convenience here are the links:

• Australia's Northern Territory (1996 - 97)
• Oregon USA (1997 -)
• Switzerland (1998 -)
• Netherlands (2002 -)
• Belgium (2002 -)
• Luxembourg (2009 -)
• Washington State USA (2009 -)
• Vermont USA (2013 -)
• Canada (2015 -)
• Columbia (2015 -)
• California USA (2016 -)
• Colorado USA (2016 -)
• District of Columbia USA (2016 -)
• Hawaii USA (2019 -)
• Victoria Australia (2019 -)

The Australian Care Alliance has completed incredibly useful research.

Assisted suicide legalization defeated in the US in 2017.

Jacqueline Abernathy

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

With nearly every state assisted suicide legislative attempt complete, initial data from a research study by Dr. Jacqueline H. Abernathy at Tarleton State University finds a staggering increase in the number of attempts to legalize assisted suicide in U.S. over the past year, in spite of an overwhelming failure rate associated with such legislation: fewer than one percent of all assisted suicide bills become law.

The analysis, to be presented at the 2017 National Euthanasia Symposium in Toronto on October 28, included all bills introduced in 36 states and the District of Columbia since 1994. Of the 231 total bills, nearly one-fifth (43 bills) were introduced just this year in 26 states and all attempts failed. This increase in the number of attempts to legalize assisted suicide is notable due to the fact that such bills have greater than a 99 percent failure rate. Only three have been signed into law in the last 23 years. In spite of the volume of bills introduced this past year, 100 percent of these attempts failed while Alabama tightened their assisted suicide statute.

Only in the last 4 years have any bills passed the legislative process and of the three, only one, Vermont in 2013, was signed into law following standard legislative procedure. California followed in 2015 by resurrecting a defeated bill in an unrelated special session, where processes are abbreviated and legislation is rushed. Similar can be said of Washington DC that recently passed their ordinance through only a city council vote rather than a bicameral legislature. These victories may explain, in part, the staggering increase in the number of bills introduced in other states.
 
Dr. Abernathy's analysis indicates that while the number of attempts in 2017 alone make up 18 percent of the total number of attempts since 1994, only one state, Indiana, made its first attempt this past year. In 2017, Indiana introduced two bills to legalize assisted suicide alongside the 43 bills in a total 26 states. The other 25 states (or 96 percent) had introduced previous failed assisted suicide legislation. Therefore the analysis shows a potential uptick in the number of bills proposed within each state, there was not a significant increase in the number of new states considering assisted suicide legislation.

Dr. Abernathy also notes that there appears to be no correlation between the number of attempts and an increased likelihood of success. This is in spite of the increase in the number of multiple bills introduced in a single session as well repeat attempts over a number of years. While 12 of the 13 states with previous failed bills introduced more than one bill in 2017, including the one state without previous attempts, historically, the number of bills introduced in one year does not appear to correlate with the likelihood of having a bill pass.

The same can be said of repeat attempts. Vermont introduced a total of 12 bills before the assisted suicide law passed and California proposed 8 but DC had only one proposal. Likewise, Hawaii introduced 5 bills in 2017 alone, adding to a total of 35 failed attempts since proposing its first bill nearly 20 years ago in 1998. Of all 36 states, only Louisiana has only one attempt on record. Over half of all state legislatures that have attempted to legalize assisted suicide have five more attempts and seven of these 19 states have attempts numbering in the double digits. Considering the number of states that continue to fail after exceeding both Vermont and California in both the number of repeat attempts and number of bills per session, this political strategy has yet to suggest that perseverance alone can win sufficient legislative support.

Further analysis should offer more insight but these initial reports demonstrate a continuing overall failure rate of assisted suicide legislation in spite of both recent loses and the significant increase in the frequency of attempts. These initial results do indicate the use of persistence as a political strategy for the assisted suicide lobby but do not validate the efficacy of that strategy. As of yet, these numbers do not suggest lawmakers in general are willing to accept assisted suicide after a certain number of bills are introduced. Perhaps a greater number of lawmakers are willing to introduce bills, but the fact that these bills continue to fail and fewer states are rushing to consider such legislation suggests that assisted suicide remains an unlikely cause to advance in U.S. statehouses.

This article is based on the, yet to be published, analysis of assisted suicide legislation in the U.S. by Dr Jacqueline Abernathy at Tarleton State University.

For more information:

• Euthanasia and assisted suicide continue to be defeated.
• One year of legalized assisted suicide in California. Countless unanswered questions.

Conscience Rights Victory for Vermont health professionals after pro-suicide group drops appeal

This article was published by Alliance Defending Freedom on May 23, 2017

Rutland, Vt. – A pro-suicide group has dropped its appeal of a federal court’s decision which affirmed that a Vermont law can’t be interpreted to require pro-life health professionals to counsel or refer patients for assisted suicide. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit officially dismissed the appeal Monday, thus ending the case.

The withdrawal of the appeal by Compassion & Choices leaves in place a consent agreement between physician groups and the Vermont Attorney General’s office, which agreed that the court was correct in deciding that the state’s Act 39 does not force conscientious professionals to ensure all “terminal” patients are informed about the availability of doctor-prescribed death.

“Vermont health care workers just want to act consistently with their reasonable and time-honored convictions without fear of government punishment,” said ADF Senior Counsel Steven H Aden, who argued before the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont in November of last year in Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare v. Hoser. “Conscientious Vermont healthcare professionals are in agreement with the state that the law doesn’t force them to participate in this heinous process, and they are pleased that the nation’s foremost advocate of assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, has abandoned its effort to force them to do so.”

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and ADF-allied attorney Michael Tierney represent the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare and the Christian Medical and Dental Association, groups of medical professionals who wish to abide by their oath to “do no harm.”

Act 39, Vermont’s assisted suicide bill, passed with a very limited protection for attending physicians who don’t wish to dispense death-inducing drugs themselves, but state medical licensing authorities construed a separate, existing mandate to counsel and refer for “all options” for palliative care to include a mandate that all patients hear about the “option” of assisted suicide. For that reason, the groups representing pro-life health professionals filed suit.

The court ruled that the groups lacked a legal right to bring the lawsuit because the law actually doesn’t force them to act contrary to their conscience—a finding that Compassion & Choices initially opposed. The dismissal of the appeal leaves Vermont healthcare professionals free to “do no harm” without fear of retaliation for their pro-life views.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

Film Producer Seeking Assisted Suicide Stories

The producers of The Euthanasia Deception documentary (www.VulnerableFilm.com) are working on a new film dealing with the effects of assisted suicide in America. 

Assisted suicide is currently legal in the States of Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, and the District of Columbia. 

If you or a loved one have felt coerced, experienced abuse, or come back from the brink of death by assisted death, we would like to hear from you. 

Email us a brief description with contact information at VulnerableStories@gmail.com.

Outgoing Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin’s Father’s Death was an Assisted Suicide

This article was published by True Dignity Vermont on January 6, 2017.

Peter Shumlin, the outgoing governor of Vermont, fought hard to legalize assisted suicide in the state; so it was no surprise when he listed it among other “accomplishments” in his farewell speech this week. A big surprise, however, came when the governor revealed that his own father died from assisted suicide. (Link to Youtube video) comments begin at minute 54:50.

Bristling with pride, Shumlin said that never in his wildest dreams did he imagine that his own father would die in this way. In May of 2011, however, True Dignity commented on a speech he made at a VT showing of the film “How to Die in Oregon”. The speech can be viewed at (Link to youtube video) comments begin at Minute 1:40. Speaking about how much he hoped VT would enact legal assisted suicide, he actually used his parents as illustrations of why he felt legalization was important.

Here, in italics are our comments at the time:

We were offended by the governor’s filmed jokes about how his apparently healthy but aged parents haven’t responded as he would have liked to his attempts to have “the conversation” to plan for their dying (in the video the audience laughs when he says he asked where they planned to be in ten years). 

… We need….to fight against the seduction of his not so soothing words about how Vermonters “take care of each other”, when he speaks words like these in the context of a conversation about assisted suicide.

In 2017 we are even more offended than we were in 2011. It is hard to believe that any governor would brag about facilitating a single suicide in his state. It is even harder to hear that governor brag about facilitating the suicide of his own parent.

Back in 2011, we were sorry for and feared for Peter Shumlin’s parents. It is self-evident to us that any suggestion that suicide is a viable end of life option for another person is itself pressure and can never be anything else If we heard the words Shumlin spoke in 2011 from one of our adult children, we would feel pressured, and we would not forget. No act done under pressure, even the most well-meaning pressure, is ever completely free.

We hope one day to live again in a state in which the sick and elderly are legally protected from such pressure, however well-meaning or inadvertent. Our new governor, Phil Scott, voted against legal assisted suicide when it was passed in 2013. Let’s ask him to work for its repeal now. Contact information will follow in the coming weeks.

Iowa newspaper uncovers abuse of assisted suicide laws and pressure to extend it to lethal injection (euthanasia).

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Des Moines Register newspaper published an in-depth examination of the practice of assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington State and uncovered significant problems. They learned that the data is incomplete, that there missing reports (under-reporting) and that the laws are not effectively monitored.

They also found that the assisted suicide lobby wants to extend assisted suicide laws to permit euthanasia or lethal injection.

Des Moines Register columnist, Kyle Munson, and investigative reporter, Jason Clayworth examine the practice of assisted suicide in America by analyzing the data and interviewing leaders from both sides of the assisted suicide debate. Their report was published on November 25, 2016.

The report states that Betsy Davis, who died by assisted suicide in California, received assistance in administering the lethal dose bringing into question the meaning of the term "self-administer." According to the report:

So when it came time to end her life under a new California law for the terminally ill, her caregivers propped her up and held the cup as she drank a fatal mix of prescription drugs. 

But physical assistance in taking the toxic medications is illegal, multiple experts contend. The report then examines the meaning of "self-administer." 

Kelly and Okray, Betsy's caregiver, were left with a lingering question: Is there an easier way to do this? 

Kelly said she also was troubled by the legal gray area: Had they violated the "self-administer" clause of California's law? 

The law defines “self-administer" as the “physical act of administering and ingesting the aid-in-dying drug to bring about his or her own death.”

"That doesn't mean they couldn't hold a cup that a person is drinking out of," said Matt Whitaker, state director in California of the organization, which supports assisted-suicide laws. "That would be fine."

Jennifer Holm

Jennifer Holm, who lobbies for assisted suicide in Iowa, stated that concerns with the definition of "self-administer" would be solved by legalizing euthanasia (lethal injection). According to the report:

Holm has been one of Iowa’s most outspoken advocates for assisted suicide. She says the data tell her that doctors should be allowed not only to prescribe the lethal drugs but to administer them as well, to help avoid complications.

The report not only uncovers problems with the definition of "self-administer" it also uncovers problems with the practice of assisted suicide laws. The report states:

Marilyn Golden (disability leader)

“Assisted suicide is nearly untraceable. There is minimal reporting and tracking,” said Marilyn Golden, a senior policy analyst for the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund in California. “It almost appears as if the practice of assisted suicide has deliberately been made secretive, all with the claim of patient confidentiality.” 

Among the 1,642 documented assisted suicides in Oregon and Washington since the states began reporting statistics in 1998 and 2009, respectively, the Register found: 

• COMPLICATIONS: At least 38 people (about 2.5 percent) experienced complications as they were dying, including regurgitation of the fatal medicine, seizures or waking up after taking the medication. 

• INCOMPLETE RECORDS: At least 478 deaths occurred without record of key details, such as whether complications occurred. At least 203 people have died without a record of whether the deaths were from ingesting medication or from natural causes. 

• PROLONGED DEATHS: In 2009, a person in Oregon took more than four days to die after taking the lethal medication. Of the two states, Washington had the most complete data. For deaths where time was recorded, 17 percent took 91 or more minutes. In Oregon, the median time before death in 2015 was 25 minutes.

• NO DATA: Two of the states where assisted suicide is an option — Vermont and Montana — do not track deaths at all. Data from California and Colorado, the most recent states to legalize assisted suicide, is not yet available.

The Des Moines Register report uncovers similar abuses and problems with assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington State as reported by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Don’t allow Vermont to force health professionals to assist in killing patients

This ADF media release was sent out on November 7.

The ADF is representing the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care.

WHO: ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden and ADF-allied attorney Michael Tierney
WHAT: Available for media interviews following hearing in Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare v. Hoser
WHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 8, immediately following hearing, which begins at 1:30 p.m. EST
WHERE: U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, 151 West St., Room 204, Rutland

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden and ADF-allied attorney Michael Tierney will be available for media interviews Tuesday following a federal court hearing in a health care professionals’ lawsuit against Vermont officials in two state agencies. The medical professionals are asking the court to stop those agencies from forcing physicians and other health care workers to help kill their patients while their lawsuit proceeds and are asking the court to reject the agencies’ request to dismiss the lawsuit.

ADF attorneys and Tierney represent the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare and the Christian Medical and Dental Association, groups of medical professionals who wish to abide by their oath to “do no harm.”

“The government shouldn’t be telling health care professionals that they must violate foundational medical ethics in order to practice medicine,” said Aden, who will argue before the court Tuesday. “Because the state has no authority to order them to act contrary to that reasonable and time-honored conviction, we are asking the court to allow this lawsuit to proceed and to ensure that no state agency is able to force them to violate their ethics while this lawsuit moves forward.”

The state agencies, the Board of Medical Practice and the Office of Professional Regulation, are reading the state’s assisted suicide law to require health care professionals, regardless of their conscience or oath, to counsel patients on doctor-prescribed death as an option. Although Act 39, Vermont’s assisted suicide bill, passed with a very limited protection for attending physicians who don’t wish to dispense death-inducing drugs themselves, state medical licensing authorities have construed a separate, existing mandate to counsel and refer for “all options” for palliative care to include a mandate that all patients hear about the “option” of assisted suicide.

As the brief in support of the requested motion for preliminary injunction in Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare v. Hoser explains, “Vermont’s Act 39 makes the State the first and only one to mandate that all licensed healthcare professionals counsel terminal patients about the availability and procedures for physician-assisted suicide, and refer them to willing prescribers to dispense the death-dealing drug. Act 39 coerces professionals to counsel patients about the ‘benefits’ of assisted suicide—benefits that Plaintiffs’ members do not believe exist—and in addition stands in opposition to a federal law protecting healthcare professionals who cannot participate in assisted suicide for conscientious reasons.”

“Because Plaintiffs’ attempts to repeal or amend the law have proven futile, and enforcement is imminent,” the brief continues, “Plaintiffs…[ask] for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing the provisions of Act 39…and its incorporated statutes…against their members for declining to counsel or refer patients diagnosed with ‘terminal conditions’ on the availability of physician-assisted suicide.”

Letter-writing campaign: Protecting medical professionals conscience rights.

Court case filed to protect Vermont physicians and patients from coercion in assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed a lawsuit to protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals in Vermont and prevent physicians and patients from being coerced into assisted suicide.

According to the ADF media release the case was filed on July 19 in federal court on behalf of health care professionals in Vermont who refuse to refer their patients for death by assisted suicide and against the officials in the Vermont Board of Medical Practice and the Office of Professional Regulation.

The ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden states in the media release:

“The government shouldn’t be telling health care professionals that they must violate their medical ethics in order to practice medicine,” 

“... The state has no authority to order them to act contrary to that sincere and time-honored conviction.”

The Vermont assisted suicide law requires physicians to inform patients about all palliative care options. The ADF states that the Vermont Department of Health expanded the definition of palliative care to include assisted suicide. The ADF release quotes a Vermont Department of Health document that states:

“Do doctors have to tell patients about this option? Under Act 39 and the Patient’s Bill of Rights, a patient has the right to be informed of all options for care and treatment in order to make a fully-informed choice. If a doctor is unwilling to inform a patient, he or she must make a referral or otherwise arrange for the patient to receive all relevant information.”

The complaint filed as Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare v. Hoser states:

This is nothing but the redefinition of ‘palliative care’ to mean providing assisted suicide, an intolerable position for Plaintiffs and other conscientious physicians and healthcare professionals." 

“Plaintiffs, state and national associations of conscientious healthcare professionals whose personal and professional ethics oppose the practice of assisted suicide, bring this action on behalf of their members against the operation of Act 39 to force them to counsel and/or refer for the practice.”

A similar case was filed in Canada by physicians in Ontario who are being coerced by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons to refer patients to die by euthanasia or assisted suicide, even if the physician morally or ethically opposes killing patients.