Dr. Phil show: Woman wants to euthanize her adult children with disabilities.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On March 17, 2012 Global News 16 x 9 showed an episode entitled: "Taking Mercy" that featured Annette Corriveau, who wants to have her adult children who live with significant disabilities, euthanized. The show also featured Robert Latimer, who was convicted of killing his daughter Tracy in 1993. Tracy had cerebral palsy.

• Link to the Global News Show. 
• Link to my commentary on the Global News show. 
• Link to the EPC response to the Global News "Taking Mercy" segment.
• Link to the response by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities to the Global News - "Taking Mercy" segment.

On  April 13, 2012 the Dr. Phil Show featured Annette Corriveau, who would like to have her adult children with disabilities euthanized and Geoffrey Fieger, the lawyer who defended Jack Kevorkian. Link to the Dr. Phil show.

Corriveau children

While intellectuals discuss euthanasia for infants with disabilities, the mainstream media is now promoting euthanasia for adults with disabilities. 

The eugenic philosophy, a philosophy that believes in eliminating people whose lives are deemed to be not worth living or eliminating the imperfect from the genetic pool, has been reborn under the guise of "compassion."

People must have forgotten what occurs when society deems that some lives are not worth living. There are no limits to eugenic attitudes. Once a eugenic philosophy takes hold the question becomes whose lives are worth living and eventually the question will be - is your life worth living.

Eugenics, clothed in compassion creates pressure on the lives of the vulnerable. Those who decide not to die a premature death, or people who resist killing their disabled children or parents will be referred to as selfish. They will be told that they lack compassion or that they are abusing the limiting healthcare resources.

They will be told that they can choose to live, but not at the expense of society.

Am I wrong? Corriveau visits her children, who have been institutionalized since the age of 7 and 8, only once every two months.

When considering the eugenic attitude that is becoming prevalent in our current culture, my response is - Never Again.

The following text is what was posted on the Dr. Phil website: 

Deadly Consequences - Murder or Mercy.

Annette says she wants the right to euthanize her severely-disabled children, who are being kept alive only by feeding tubes. What would you do?

Annette says she wants the right to euthanize her children, 42-year-old Jeffrey and 43-year-old Janet, who are suffering from the rare, incurable genetic disorder, Sanfilippo Syndrome. “If Janet and Jeffrey were able to make a decision about life, the way it is with them, they would opt for suicide,” Annette tells Global News Canada in the documentary, Taking Mercy.


Annette recalls that the “terrible twos” lasted longer than expected, and by age 4, she realized something wasn’t right with her children: they were losing motor skills and losing the language they had developed. A hospital in London, Ontario, finally handed down the devastating diagnosis. Janet and Jeffrey’s conditions progressively worsened, and at ages 7 and 8, they were institutionalized — and have been ever since.
    
“They have said for years already that they don’t think [Jeffrey] can hear or see — but how do you judge?” Annette asks. “[It’s] the same with brain activity. How do you judge how much [activity is there]?” She compares their conditions to that of a comatose patient. “There’s sometimes brain activity, but how much?” she asks. Annette says she first thought about taking control of her children’s lives when the feeding tubes went in. “If God wanted them to live past adulthood, then the tubes wouldn’t have been needed,” she says. “The tubes are allowing them to exist. Without the tubes, they wouldn’t be here. This is no life.”


Dr. Phil welcomes Annette to the show. “Tell me exactly what you want to do and exactly how you’ve come to the decision,” Dr. Phil says.


"I saw an article in the paper that said that, again, someone had tried to pass the law for euthanasia — assisted suicide — and it was vetoed,” she says. “I got angry and wrote a letter to a newspaper; and the Global TV program read that letter, and they approached me [to do a story].

“After 25 years of watching them just exist, it’s time that somebody did something," she continues. "I didn’t want to be the one to do it, but I’m here,” she adds.


“If you were going to do it, do you now wish you had done it 25 years ago?” Dr. Phil asks Annette.


She says she would have considered doing it 17 years ago, when Jeffrey first had his feeding tube inserted.

Annette says she wants the right to euthanize her severely-disabled children, who are being kept alive only by feeding tubes. What would you do? Then, former model, Stephanie Vostry, says she’s fighting to survive chronic Lyme disease, an illness some believe she may be faking. Plus, chronic Lyme disease hits close to home for a "Dr. Phil" staff member.

Mercy or Murder?

Is it your belief that they are consciously suffering pain?” Dr. Phil asks Annette.
“My daughter broke her thumb once. No one knew about it, because she couldn’t voice that,” Annette responds. “So, how do we know if she’s suffering?” She admits that she doesn’t know whether her children are feeling pain. “I hope they’re not, but I don’t know.”

Why does Annette say she only visits her children every 2 months?

See what a typical day is like for Janet and Jeffrey.

Attorney Geoffrey Fieger, who gained notoriety for his outspoken defense of the late assisted suicide advocate, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, joins the show. “Annette obviously wouldn’t be in this situation but for the advancement of science,” he says. “She’s faced with an unbelievably difficult decision. Her children are being warehoused. Whether or not they’re in physical pain, they’re clearly not existing.” 

Geoffrey draws a comparison between dying of starvation and dying mercifully.

In the previously-recorded documentary, Annette admits, “There have been times when I thought about doing something myself [to end my children’s lives].” To her critics, she says, “Unless you’ve been there, don’t judge.”

Ruthi, mother of seven, including three with special needs, says the idea of euthanizing disabled children is nauseating and the same as putting a gun to their heads. She addresses Annette from the audience. “I’m sorry that those children are the way they are. I’m sorry that my child might be that way some day,” Ruthi says. “I will not euthanize my child because it’s too much trouble for me [to keep them alive].”

Vermont Senate defeats assisted suicide bill again.

The Vermont Senate has defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide again.

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin promised to legalize assisted suicide during the 2010 election campaign. Shumlin also accepted out-of-state money from the suicide lobby towards his election campaign.

In mid-March the Vermont Senate Judiciary committee rejected a bill to legalize assisted suicide. Bills to legalize assisted suicide have been defeated on several occasions over the past few years.

The suicide lobby appears to be getting desperate in Vermont.

After the assisted suicide bill was rejected in March, the supporters of the bill decided to attach the assisted suicide bill to a tanning bed regulation bill.

After a two hour debate in the Vermont Senate, yesterday (April 12), the Senate voted 18 to 11 to reject the assisted suicide bill again.

The article on WPTZ.com (News Channel 5) stated:

Supporters engineered the showdown earlier in the week when, in a surprise maneuver, the Health and Welfare Committee attached the bill to an unrelated measure regulating indoor tanning salons.

The Judiciary Committee had earlier decided against sending the end of life bill to the Senate floor.

"For ten years we've watched the 'death with dignity' bill in the Senate, for ten years it's stayed in committee with no hope of getting out," said Sen. Claire Ayer, an Addison Democrat. "At least have the discussion, whether the vote is up or down is almost irrelevant."

But opponents, including Sen. Richard Sears of Bennington County who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, railed against what he considered an assault on Senate procedure. At one point Sears told colleagues the bill had been "hijacked" from his committee and if senators stood by, the "people of Vermont would be the big losers."

Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Scott ruled the tanning and end of life measures were not germane to one another and senators agreed, effectively ending consideration for the year.

But the preceding debate, before a standing room only crowd, including spirited floor speeches zigzagging between the value of providing terminally ill Vermonters with end of life choices, and the relative importance of following Senate protocol.

Spectators witnessed several moments of political theater when Sears questioned Sen. Hinda Miller, the Chittenden County Democrat who had engineered the debate, asking her to explain legal and ethical considerations of the bill.

After Miller was unable to answer a series of questions, she asked for a recess and rushed over to confront Sears.

Senate President Pro-Tem John Campbell then tried to referee the tension between members of his own party.

A moment later, Sears said to Miller, 'If you want to debate, we'll have a debate. If you aren't prepared for the debate, you shouldn't cry foul! It's not abuse."

"Be nice," another Democrat cautioned Sears.

Campbell, who also opposes the legislation, told reporters with so much pressure by advocacy groups, "this debate has to happen."

The bill would permit Vermont doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a patient who had twice requested it, was in the final weeks of life, and who had cleared a series of other eligibility requirements. It is patterned after an established law in Oregon.

Several members spoke passionately about their own family histories with terminal illness, or those of vocal constituents, arguing for or against various dimensions of the proposal.

"I respect those who object on religious grounds, but my choices should not be restricted because of someone else's religious preferences," said Sen. Diane Snelling, a Republican from Chittenden County.

Ahead of the vote, some members made clear they were not passing judgment on the merits of the 'death with dignity' bill, but on the process of the Senate.

Many expect the issue will be reintroduced next year. Gov. Peter Shumlin supports the bill, and House Speaker Shap Smith has said a majority of his chamber would vote in favor of it were the Senate to approve it first.

Dick Walters, president of the advocacy group Patient Choices Vermont, said he "appreciates the attempt by our Senate supporters to bring this bill to the Senate floor for a vote. We celebrate their courage and willingness to discuss an issue that is so important to so many Vermonters."

The roll call vote (to overturn the ruling of Lt. Gov. Scott and proceed with full consideration of the bill) follows:

Ashe - YES

Ayer - YES
Baruth - YES
Benning - NO
Brock - NO
Campbell - NO
Carris - NO
Cummings - NO
Doyle - NO
Flory - NO
Fox - ABSENT
Galbraith - YES
Giard - NO
Hartwell - NO
Illuzzi - NO
Kitchel - NO
Kittell - YES
Lyons - YES
MacDonald - YES
Mazza - NO
McCormack - YES
Miller - YES
Mullin - NO
Nitka - NO
Pollina - NO
Sears - NO
Snelling - YES
Starr - NO
Westman - NO
White - YES

YES-11
NO - 18

 Congratulations True Dignity Vermont.

Is the Netherlands government concerned about "Euthanasia Tourism?"

An article that was written by Cecilia Rodriguez and published in Forbes Magazine last week entitled: Holland Targets its Drugs and Death Tourism is suggesting that the Netherlands government is concerned about "euthanasia tourism."

Switzerland has been concerned about the issue of "Suicide Tourism" for quite some time. The Dignitas Suicide Centre focuses on a profitable business of providing suicide for foreign tourists.

After referring to new controls that have been put on the drug tourism in the Netherlands the Forbes article states:

As for the other tourism on the ropes, officially only Dutch residents should receive medical assistance to commit suicide. But the law doesn’t prohibit doctors from administering euthanasia to non-residents. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia and its legislation on the right to die is considered the most liberal in the world, although it applies  only to cases of ”hopeless and unbearable” suffering. (That said, the Netherlands is not the only destination for legal euthanasia. First and foremost is Zurich, Switzerland, where hundreds of tourists, mostly British, make the journey to end their lives.)

It’s not the existence of assisted-suicide tourism that’s behind the latest controversy but, rather, the implicit danger that it could spin out of control, ‘a la coffeeshops’, thanks to two new initiatives pushed by the organization Right to Die: To make euthanasia widely available by creating  mobile teams to assist patients to die at  home, and by proposing legislation to give the right to die to everybody over 70 years old.

Conservative members of the government and various religious organizations fear that such measures could trigger a wave of euthanasia tourism. Right or not, the country’s longstanding reputation as a haven for live-and-let-live — or die-and-let-die — is under assault as never before.

When I wrote about the "mobile euthanasia teams" in the Netherlands I connected the euthanasia teams to ending the lives of people who have been denied euthanasia by their doctors, to people with disabilities or people with chronic conditions who are not mobile and not terminally ill, and to people with dementia or Alzheimer's disease, but I did not recognize how the mobile euthanasia teams may also open up the option of "euthanasia tourism."

Vermont - Assisted Suicide bill may get attached to tanning bed regulation bill.

If assisted suicide is good for Vermont then why is the suicide lobby needing to attach the assisted suicide bill to a bill that regulates the use of tanning beds in Vermont?

If the Vermont assisted suicide bill is allowed to be attached to a tanning bed regulation bill, it will make a mockery of an important life and death issue.

This latest action shows the desperation of Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin. Shumlin is attempting to push his political agenda, knowing that the legalization of assisted suicide has been consistently defeated in Vermont.

Governor Shumlin received out of state political donations during the last election campaign with the promise that he would legalize assisted suicide in Vermont. Shumlin didn't count on the fact that the majority of Vermont Senators oppose assisted suicide.

The same assisted suicide bill recently died in the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee. The suicide lobby isn't happy that they have lost again in Vermont and have decided to legalize death by lethal dose in Vermont at all costs.

True Dignity Vermont, a group of Vermont citizens who oppose assisted suicide, alerted their supporters to contact their representatives to oppose bringing assisted suicide into Vermont by a sneaky back-door tactic.

An interesting interview was done by Bob Kinzel of several Vermont Senators on Public Radio and this is what was said:

The legislation establishes a process that allows terminally ill people to receive medications that they can use to end their lives.  The bill was bottled up in the Senate Judiciary committee where a majority of members opposed it and it appeared unlikely that the issue would ever make it to the Senate floor. 

(Kinzel) So several members of the Senate Health Care committee added the bill as an amendment to legislation that prohibits minors from using tanning beds. Chittenden senator Hinda Miller is a strong supporter of the bill. She says the issue deserves a full vote on the Senate floor. 

(Miller) "We have the Governor and the Speaker who have for many years wanted this bill to pass and then we have Senate leadership that was not for the bill. So we're representing citizens of Vermont." 

(Kinzel) The question is whether or not the amendment will be considered germane to the tanning bill. Miller says since tanning beds are responsible for the development of certain types of cancer, the connection is definitely there. 

(Miller) "At a certain point you do what you have to do and we have a lot of ways to get things to the floor and sometimes different ways are blocked and you have to be a little creative and we feel strongly that this will be germane and that we will be able to bring this bill to a vote. That's what we want to do." 

(Kinzel) Rutland senator Kevin Mullen is a member of the committee. He opposes the bill and he was shocked that supporters took this action. 

(Mullen) "Extremely disappointed. I mean we were talking about telemedicine and tanning beds today in committee and to think that Death with Dignity all of a sudden comes out of thin air and gets voted on within a matter of minutes is just not the way it should be done." 

(Kinzel) Senate President John Campbell is also a member of the committee and a strong opponent of the bill. He doesn't think the amendment will be found to be germane. 

(Campbell) "Unfortunately I think that this is going to pit this committee against the Judiciary committee which did take the testimony in this matter. So I guess time will tell." 

(Kinzel) As the presiding officer of the Senate, Lt. Governor Phil Scott will rule on a number of procedural challenges to the bill and his decisions can be challenged on the Senate floor. 

If backers are not successful in this initial effort, they say they'll look for other bills to attach their amendment to.

I reiterate: "If backers are not successful in this initial effort, they say they'll look for other bills to attach their amendment to." 

So much for honesty and true democracy.

Assisted Suicide Laws are a Recipe for Elder Abuse - Room for Debate

The New Times published several articles concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide under the title of "Room for Debate." The article below titled: Assisted Suicide Laws are a Recipe for Elder Abuse was written by Margaret Dore.

By Margaret Dore

Margaret Dore

NY Times - April 10, 2012

Assisted suicide means that one person provides the means or information for another person to commit suicide. In Oregon and Washington, assisted-suicide laws were passed by ballot measures. No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.

The Oregon and Washington acts apply to “terminal” patients, defined as patients predicted to have no more than six months to live. Doctor prognoses, however, can be wrong. Moreover, treatment can lead to recovery. My friend Jeanette Hall was adamant that she would “do” Oregon’s act. She had been diagnosed with cancer and was given six months to a year to live. Her doctor convinced her to be treated. That was nearly 12 years ago.

"Doctor prognoses can be wrong; moreover, treatment can lead to recovery."

Proponents tout assisted suicide as providing “choice” over the timing of one’s death. But choice under the Oregon and Washington acts cannot be assured. For example, neither act requires witnesses at the death. Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the patient’s death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent. Even if he struggled, who would know?

Assisted suicide is a concept contrary to public safety and a recipe for elder abuse — Americans are right to be skeptical of these laws.

Margaret Dore, a lawyer in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal, is the president of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit organization opposed to assisted suicide. 

Too Many Flaws in Assisted Suicide Laws

The New Times published several articles concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide under the title of "Room for Debate." The article below titled: Too Many Flaws in Assisted Suicide Laws was written by Marilyn Golden.

By Marilyn Golden
NY Times - April 10, 2012

Marilyn Golden

While Oregon and Washington State have legalized assisted suicide, about half of U.S. states have defeated or banned it, often with an opposition coalition spanning left to right.

Mixing assisted suicide and profit-driven managed health care is a dangerous mistake. A lethal prescription costs about $300, often much cheaper than treatment regimens. Denying or delaying treatment to save money already poses a significant danger, far greater if assisted suicide is legal. For example, two Oregonians, Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup, were informed that the Oregon Health Plan won't pay for their chemotherapy, but will pay for assisted suicide.

Doctor-prescribed suicide also raises concerns about elder abuse. In Oregon, once the lethal drug is in the home, no one can know how or by whom it was administered. No witness is required. Today’s harsh reality regarding abuse of vulnerable family members is unaddressed by the law.

"Disabled patients, the elderly and those with depression or mental illness are especially vulnerable." 

Doctor-prescribed suicide especially affects people with depression or mental illness. Michael Freeland had a 40-year history of acute depression but received lethal drugs in Oregon.

Oregon’s “safeguards” offer no protection. If a doctor refuses, patients find another doctor. “Death within six months” is often misdiagnosed, endangering persons not terminally ill, including disabled people with many meaningful years of life ahead. The law offers no protection when family pressures, financial or emotional, distort patient choice.

The Oregon model lacks meaningful oversight, has no investigation of abuse, and its data is flawed. Americans are wise to reject assisted-suicide laws -- they're bad medicine.

Marilyn Golden is a senior policy analyst at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

Underlying Skepticism of Prescribed Suicide - Room for Debate

The New Times published several articles concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide under the title of "Room for Debate." The article below titled: Skepticism of Prescribed Suicide was written by Rita Marker.

By Rita Marker
NY Times - April 10, 2012

Even in the Netherlands where tolerance reigns supreme, the Dutch are beginning to have second thoughts. Based on the recent establishment of mobile euthanasia clinics and on calls to expand eligibility for euthanasia and assisted suicide to anyone over 70 years old, alarm has grown that things could spin out of control.

In the U.S., Oregon transformed the crime of assisted suicide into a "medical treatment" in 1994. Since then, more than 120 Oregon-style laws have been proposed in states across the country. With the exception of Washington in 2008, all have failed. Proponents of doctor-prescribed suicide claim that Oregon's annual reports prove the law is working well. But, contrary to that claim, there's no way of knowing what's really happening. As the state agency charged with overseeing the practice stated in a report summary, there's no way to know if data provided by prescribing doctors is accurate or complete, and the state has no authority to investigate assisted-suicide deaths.

Vermont introduces assisted suicide bill through the back-door.

True Dignity Vermont alerted its supporters that the assisted suicide bill, that had recently died in committee, has now been attached to a bill to regulate tanning beds.

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin campaigned on legalizing assisted suicide. Shumlin accepted money from the suicide lobby during his campaign.

Shumlin may also be concerned that since the economy continues to suffer in Vermont, that conservative candidates will win more seats in the November election, making it more difficult for him to legalize assisted suicide in Vermont.


True Dignity Vermont ends their update to their supporters by stating:

We have no position on the language in H157 concerning tanning beds. Our position is strictly against legalizing assisted suicide. We regret that this issue has surfaced again, after Vermonters have voiced their opposition to it time and time again.

The following is the reprint of the notice from True Dignity Vermont:

Proponents of assisted suicide are using a sneaky backdoor tactic to force a full Senate vote on assisted suicide!

As you likely recall, the assisted suicide legislation, S103, had a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, but proponents failed to persuade the members of the Judiciary Committee to pass it out of committee. Sen. Dick Sears, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee remained steadfast in his opposition to the legislation, for which we continue to be grateful and urge thanks.

But a well-funded campaign to legalize assisted suicide in our state has now attached language to legalize assisted suicide to a bill regulating the use of tanning beds by minors in the Health and Welfare Committee.

A full Senate vote is expected as early as Thursday, April 12th. Time is of the essence, and we are urging you to begin to contact your Senators immediately. Please call the Statehouse at 802-828-2228 and ask them to vote against any bill with assisted suicide language attached, specifically H157, coming out of the Health and Welfare Committee. Give your name and town and ask your Senators to vote against any and all attempts to pass assisted suicide.

Contact information for your State Senators can be found here:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/lms/legdir/districts.asp?Body=S&Session=2012

We have no position on the language in H157 concerning tanning beds. Our position is strictly against legalizing assisted suicide. We regret that this issue has surfaced again, after Vermonters have voiced their opposition to it time and time again.

Massachusetts assisted suicide bill is a "Doctor & Heir Protection Bill"

A "Doctor & Heir Protection Bill"

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore

On April 2, 2012, the Massachusetts Attorney General issued a draft ballot question title and draft yes/no statements for the assisted suicide initiative. Below please find my objection based on the initiative's being a doctor and heir protection bill. For a print copy, please click here. 

I.  INTRODUCTION

The proposed act in Petition 11-12 protects persons who cause or assist the death and/or suicide of another person. This memo discusses why the draft title and one-sentence statements for the act are misleading and should be amended.

II.  THE ACT

A.  The Act Protects People who Cause or Assist a Patient’s Death and/or Suicide

Under current law, people who cause or assist another person’s death or suicide face serious legal consequences. They can be convicted of a crime, including murder.[1] They can be found civilly liable for assisting a suicide, committing malpractice and/or causing a wrongful death.[2] They can also be deprived of an inheritance or life insurance proceeds payable due to the death.[3]

With the proposed act, however, persons who cause or assist another person’s death and/or suicide are protected from these consequences. The act also opens the door to new paths of elder abuse.

How the act works, some of its protections and how it will promote elder abuse are described below.

B.  How the Act Works

The act has an application process to obtain a lethal dose for the purpose of causing a patient’s death.[4] The application process includes a written request form with two required witnesses.[5] One of the witnesses is allowed to be an heir who will benefit financially from the patient’s death.[6]

The act also requires that the patient be “terminal,” which does not necessarily mean that the patient is dying anytime soon.[7] The act states that only substantial compliance is required with its provisions.[8]

Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight.[9] The death is not required to be witnessed.[10] Indeed, no one is required to be present.[11]

C.  Protections

The proposed act protects persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide, as follows.

1.  Secrecy, privacy and protection from inquiry

Under the act, § 4(2), the death certificate is required to list a terminal disease as the cause of death, not the true cause of death, a lethal dose.[12] This makes it less likely that anyone will know that the person died under the act.

Under the act, § 12, required record keeping regarding a doctor’s compliance with the act is maintained in the patient’s medical record, which is a private document protected by HIPPA.[13] This makes it less likely that any lack of compliance by the doctor will be exposed.

Under the act, §15, the department of public health is to collect data for the purpose of an annual statistical report.[14] The data is to be self-reported by doctors and dispensers of the lethal dose.[15] In the event a report is incomplete, the department is charged with contacting the person “to request” a complete report.[16] No investigation is authorized.[17] Moreover, the data collected:

"shall not be a public record to the extent it contains material or data that could be used to identify individual patients, physicians, or other health care providers."[18]

In Oregon, one of just two states with a similar law, the Oregon Health Authority has interpreted a similar provision to prevent legal representatives and law enforcement from obtaining access to the information.[19] Once again, it is less likely that any lack of compliance will be exposed.

2.  No witnesses

As noted above, the act does not require witnesses at the death. This creates the opportunity for an heir, or another person who will benefit from the patient’s death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent, in private. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

3. Immunity

Under the act, persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide are given immunity from criminal and civil liability, and also immunity from professional discipline. § 18(1)(a) states:

"No person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action by any regulatory agency for any actions undertaken in compliance with this chapter."

4. More immunity

The act also provides that deaths and/or suicides under the act:

"shall not constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide under any criminal law of the commonwealth."[20]

In Washington state, the other state with a similar law, similar language has been interpreted to require medical examiners, coroners and prosecuting attorneys to treat the death as “Natural.”[21] If so interpreted in Massachusetts, persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide would be given another layer of protection against prosecution.

5. Substantial compliance and good faith

As noted above, the act only requires substantial compliance with its provisions, which makes it less likely that persons who cause or assist a person’s death and/or suicide will run afoul of the act. The act also holds participants to a “good faith” standard, as follows:

"A person who substantially complies in good faith with the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be in compliance with this chapter."[22]

The act does not define what is meant by good faith. In the context of former G.L. c. 106, § 65(2), “good faith” was  interpreted to mean “in fact done honestly, whether it be done negligently or not.”[23] If so interpreted here, the above provision gives participants a further protection from liability.

6. Patients are not allowed to opt out

Persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide are also protected because patients are not allowed to opt out of the act’s provisions. Consider, for example, a wealthy gentleman concerned that his daughters are more interested in his money than him and/or that they will be pushing him to request a lethal dose. A counter-move would be for him to make their inheritance contingent on his death not being via a lethal dose. Under the act, however, any such provision in a contract and/or will is invalid. The act, § 16(1) states:

"No provision in a contract, will, insurance policy, annuity, or other agreement, whether written or oral, made on or after January 1, 2013, shall be valid to the extent the provision would condition or restrict a person’s decision to make or rescind a request for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner."

D. The Act will Promote Elder Abuse

In Massachusetts, elder abuse is on the rise.[24] If the proposed act is enacted, new paths of abuse will be created against the elderly, with the most obvious path being due to the lack of witnesses at the death. Even if the elder struggled, who would know?

E.  The Title and One Sentence Statements

The Attorney General’s Office has provided the following ballot question title and one sentence statements:

"Title:  Prescribing Medication to End Human Life

A Yes vote would enact the proposed law allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at a qualifying, terminally-ill patient’s request, to end that person’s life. 

A No vote would make no change in the laws relating to prescribing medication to end human life."

III.  ISSUES


A.  Whether the ballot question title should be amended and replaced because it is misleading?

B.  Whether the one-sentence statements should be amended and replaced because they are misleading?

C.  Whether the replacement title and statements proposed herein should be adopted?

IV.  ARGUMENT

A. The Law G.L. c. 54, § 53 states that one-sentence statements describing “the effect of a yes or no vote” shall be “fair and neutral.” § 53 also states that a court may issue an order requiring an amendment when the ballot question title or the one-sentence statements are “misleading.”

B. The Title is Misleading

As described above, the proposed act is a multi-layer protection bill for people who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide. The persons protected include heirs and other people who benefit financially from the deaths. The act is also a major change in the law, for example, conduct that is now “murder” would be  legalized and/or allowed to occur without penalty. 

In this context, the draft title, “Prescribing Medication to End Human Life,” is misleading for three reasons:  First, the title’s central thrust, “prescribing medication,” is only a small part of the act and a side issue to the act’s central effect, which is the protection of people who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide.   

Second, with the title’s focus on “prescribing medication,” there is the implication that the act is limited to doctors or healthcare, when the act also protects heirs.  

Third and finally, the title uses the term, “human life,” which is not a term used by the act. In common parlance, “human life” includes the unborn. Reading the title, a voter could reasonably understand that the act seeks to legalize a “morning after” pill or some other method of prescription abortion.

C. A Fair and Neutral Title

A “fair and neutral” title would instead capture the central  effect of the act, which is the protection of people who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide under the act. A fair and neutral title would therefore be along these lines: “Protection for Persons who Cause or Assist Deaths and/or Suicides.”

D. The Yes Statement is Misleading

The Yes statement states:

"A Yes vote would enact the proposed law allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at a qualifying, terminally-ill patient’s request, to end that person’s life."

The above statement is misleading because it focuses on “medication,” not the essence of the act, which is to protect people who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide. The statement is also misleading because it refers to a patient’s “request,” thereby implying that the act is always voluntary for patients, which is not the case. As described above, the act does not allow patients to opt out of its provisions. There is also a complete lack of oversight when the lethal dose is administered. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

E. A Fair and Neutral Yes Statement

A fair and neutral yes statement would describe the effect of the act if enacted, which would be something along these lines:

"A Yes vote would enact the proposed law providing protections for persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide, under circumstances that would not necessarily be voluntary for the patient."

F. The No Statement is Misleading

The No statement states:

"A No vote would make no change in the laws relating to prescribing medication to end human life."

The statement is misleading due to its use of the term, “human life,” which again, is not a term used by the act and which also connotes abortion. The statement is also misleading because with the last part of the statement, “relating to prescribing medication to end human life,” there is the implication that a No vote might change some other law (not “relating to prescribing medication to end human life”).

G.  A Fair and Neutral No Statement.

To be fair and neutral, the no statement should read:  “A No vote would make no change in the law.”

VI.  CONCLUSION

The draft title and one-sentence statements are misleading. They should be amended and replaced as submitted herein.

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of April 2012,

Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
www.margaretdore.com1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154
206 389 1754

FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Commonwealth v. Bowen, 13 Mass. 356 (1816)("If one counsel another to commit suicide, and the other, by reason of the advice, kill himself, the advisor is guilty of murder, as principal"); and In re Joseph G., 194 Cal.Rptr 163, 165-167 (1983), citing Bowen, supra, as authoritative.
[2] See Nelson v. Massachusetts Port Authority, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 433, 435-6, 771 N.E.2d 209 (2002) (These cases fit into two patterns: (1) the defendant's negligence was the cause of the decedent's uncontrollable suicidal impulse; or (2) the decedent was in the defendant's custody and the defendant had knowledge of the decedent's suicidal ideation); Edwards v. Tardif, 240 Conn. 610, 692 A.2d 1266 (1997)(affirming a large judgment against a physician who had prescribed an "excessively large dosage" of barbiturates to a foreseeably suicidal patient who killed herself via the barbiturates); and Cramer v. Slater, 146 Idaho 868, 878, 204 P.3d 508 (2009), stating that doctors "can be held liable for [a] patient's suicide."  In Cramer, doctors negligently informed a patient about his HIV/AIDS status, which allegedly caused him to commit suicide.  For another example, see William Dotinga, “Grim Complaint Against Kaiser Hospital,” at
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/06/43641.htm (Patient’s son suing Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and affiliates, a doctor and two social workers arising out of the intentional death of his father via a "terminal extubation").
[3] See  Minasian v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 295 Mass. 1, 3 N.E.2d 17 (1936), (“It is settled law that a mentally responsible person who commits murder loses all right to the proceeds of a life insurance policy on the life of the person murdered”) An inheritance can be set aside for undue influence, for example, when an heir actively participated in the making of the will and/or was present when the will was executed. See e.g., M.G.L.A. 190B § 2-505(b) and Burns v. Kabboul, 595 A.2d 1153, 1163 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)("It will weigh heavily against the proponent [of the will] on the issue of undue influence when the proponent was … present at [its] dictation …”).
[4] The act, §§ 2-13, and 21.
[5] Id., §§ 3 and 21.
[6] Id. (providing that one of two required witnesses on the lethal dose request form cannot be a patient’s heir or other person who will benefit financially from the death; the other witness may be an heir or other person who will benefit financially from the death).
[7] See act, § 1(3) and Nina Shapiro, Terminal Uncertainty ­ Washington's new 'Death with Dignity' law allows doctors to help people commit suicide ­ once they've determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they're wrong?, Seattle Weekly, January 14, 2009, available at www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-14/news/terminal-uncertainty
[8] The act, § 18(1)(a) states: “A person who substantially complies in good faith with the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be in compliance with this chapter.”
[9] See the act in its entirety.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] § 4(2) states: “The attending physician may sign the patient’s death certificate which shall list the underlying disease as the cause of death.”
[13] § 12.
[14] § 15. 
[15] § 15(1).
[16] Id.
[17] See entire act.
[18] § 15(2).
[19] See E-mail from Alicia Parkman, Mortality Research Analyst with the Oregon Health Authority, to Margaret Dore, January 4, 2012 (“We have been contacted by law enforcement and legal representatives in the past, but have not provided identifying information of any type”), available here.
[20] The Act, § 18(1)(b).
[21] See: Washington State Department of Health, “Instructions for Medical Examiners, Coroners, and Prosecuting Attorneys: Compliance with the Death with Dignity Act,” Revised April 8, 2009, available here and at http://www.doh.wa.gov/dwda/forms/MEsAndCoroners.pdf
[22] §18(1)(a).
[23] See Westlaw printout attached here.
[24] Madeline McNeilly, “Elder Abuse is a growing problem that’s underreported,” The Sun Chronicle, August 14, 2011, at  http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2011/06/15/columns/9727616.txt .  See also: Jaclyn Reiss, “Elder-abuse cases on the rise in Massachusetts,” Metro West Daily News, February 19, 2011, at http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/lifestyle/health/x268608620/Elder-abuse-cases-on-the-rise-in-Massachusetts ; and Steve Adams, “Elder abuse and neglect  complaints on rise in Massachusetts,” Gate House News Service, September 6, 2010, at http://www.wickedlocal.com/swansea/archive/x128163064/Elder-abuse-and-neglect-complaints-are-on-the-rise-in-Massachusetts#axzz1V1xksjt4

Debates on euthanasia and assisted suicide scheduled in BC and Alberta.

A series of debates on euthanasia and assisted suicide have been sponsored by the Centre for Inquiry. We need our supporters to attend these debates to ask good questions from the audience and support our debaters.

Dr. Will Johnston

Vancouver BC: Thursday, April 12, 2012

Dr. Will Johnston, President Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - BC is debating Wanda Morris from (Dying with Dignity)
Time: 7:00 pm
Location: Simon Fraser University
Venue: SFU-Harbourside Campus Room 1900; 515 West Hastings Street, V6B 5K3

Roy Green Show - Corus Radio Network. (Phone in)
Sunday, April 15, 2012 (11:05 am Pacific Time)
Dr. Will Johnston, President Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - BC is debating Wanda Morris from (Dying with Dignity)

Kamloops BC: Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Margaret Dore

Margaret Dore, President of "Choice is an Illusion" - Washington state is debating Wanda Morris from (Dying with Dignity)
Time: 7:00 pm
Location: 900 McGill Road, Kamloops BC.
Venue: Irving K. Barber Centre, Thompson Rivers University

Kelowna BC: Thursday, April 19, 2012

Margaret Dore, President of "Choice is an Illusion" - Washington state is debating Wanda Morris from (Dying with Dignity)
Time: 7:00 pm
Location: Mary Irwin Theatre, at the Rotary Centre for the Arts
Venue: 421 Cawston Avenue, Kelowna, BC.

Calgary Alberta: Sunday, April 22, 2012

Dr. Will Johnston, President Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - BC is debating Wanda Morris from (Dying with Dignity)

Time: 3:30 pm
Location: Science Theatre Bldg, Room ST140
Venue: University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. N.W., Calgary

German Judge May Have Opened the Assisted Suicide Door

Wesley Smith

American lawyer and bioethicist, Wesley Smith commented on the judicial decision in Germany that may have opened the door to assisted suicide. Smith stated on his blog on the National Review online:

I am not a German lawyer and so, I don’t know if this is dispositive or merely the first step in a longer legal process. But a German administrative court has apparently ruled that the ban on physician-assisted suicide is too “general,” whatever that means.  From the UPI story:

An administrative court in Berlin has given German doctors the power to use  their own judgment in cases involving terminally ill patients who want to  die. The court lifted a physician’s association ban on assisted suicide that  included fines of up to $65,722 on doctors who provided their patients with  enough drugs to kill themselves, The Local reported Wednesday. Court spokesman Stephan Groscurth said the judges found the ban “too  general.” Euthanasia is currently illegal in Germany. However, if a doctor is certain a  dying patient wishes to end his or her life, a physician can provide that  patient with the means to commit suicide.

Apparently, this is viewed as an answer to Swiss “suicide tourism:”

Observers said the court’s action means terminally ill patients will no  longer have to travel to countries where assisted suicide is legal. “This is a step towards stopping ‘suicide-tourism’ that is happening in  Germany right now,” said Dieter Graefe, a judge who is an expert on assisted  suicide.

Surrender to it, actually. Don’t make them go to Switzerland to kill themselves, let them do it at home!

That last bit really has my teeth grinding.  Not only will that mean more suicides potentially–common sense tells us that suicidal patients are more likely to do so at home rather than travel to die–but the Swiss suicide clinics are not limited to the terminally ill.  There have even been joint suicides of married couples! Under the court’s reasoning, doctors should be thus be allowed to assist these suicides as well.  Once the door is opened, the door is open!

Second Thoughts grow on Assisted Suicide

Diane Coleman and Stephen Drake have co-wrote this article that was published in the Wall Street Journal today titled: Second Thoughts Grow on Assisted Suicide. The article is reprinted below:

Second Thoughts grow on Assisted Suicide

Wall Street Journal - April 5, 2012

By DIANE COLEMAN and STEPHEN DRAKE

The risks of mistake, coercion and abuse are too great to warrant legal immunity for doctors who help end lives.

An initiative to legalize assisted suicide will be on the November ballot in Massachusetts. Last month, advocates on both sides of the issue testified at a legislative hearing in Boston. Although the debate about assisted suicide is often portrayed as part of the culture war—with typical left-right, pro-con politics—the largest number of witnesses at the hearing were 10 disability-rights advocates who oppose the initiative.

In Massachusetts, the disability advocates call their opposition group "Second Thoughts." They say that assisted suicide may sound like a good idea at first, but on second thought the risks of mistake, coercion and abuse are too great to warrant legal immunity for doctors or others who assist suicide.

Proponents of assisted suicide claim that 14 years of data from Oregon—which legalized assisted suicide for people who are predicted to die in six months, with purported safeguards to ensure that it's voluntary—prove that such mistakes or abuses do not materialize. How would they know?

Oregon's annual reports tell us very little. For one thing, assisted-suicide laws like the one in Oregon and the one proposed for Massachusetts lack teeth. Doctors who fail to report giving a lethal prescription face no penalty. The state does not talk to doctors who denied a request to prescribe lethal drugs in order to find out why, or to families to learn why the person requested assisted suicide and what happened after the lethal drugs were obtained. No form of noncompliance with the law's relatively flimsy safeguards is monitored or investigated.

Assisted-suicide proponents have been pushing the term "aid-in-dying," hoping to get people to view a life-ending prescription as merely one option on a continuum of palliative or "end-of-life" care.

People already have the right to refuse unwanted life-extending treatments, and they have the option of using advance directives to determine their care when they can no longer express their wishes. But death that results from withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment has always been separated by a bright line from active measures to cause death. Assisted-suicide proponents seek to blur this line, while opponents want to hold the line against increased medical authority to end life.

The Massachusetts Medical Society and the Massachusetts Hospice and Palliative Care Federation testified against the ballot initiative. The Medical Society has stated that "allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good."

Proponents say that assisted suicide increases self-determination, but actually it puts one's life in the hands of others. It gives doctors the power to issue a lethal prescription with blanket legal immunity for any mistake as long as they claim "good faith." It gives insurers a cheaper option than providing the care you need.

People assume there are safeguards to ensure that withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is voluntary or at least consistent with the patient's directive. Few are aware that most states have laws granting doctors a "safe harbor" for denying care the patient wants if the doctor feels that it's "futile" or inconsistent with local standards of care. Aside from such futility policies, studies show that the protections people expect have proven unreliable.

A recent study in the Journal of Emergency Medicine found that having a living will might give people a false sense of security about getting the treatment they want. Based on survey responses from more than 700 physicians in 34 states, researchers from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center found that over 50% of physicians misinterpreted a living will as having a "do not resuscitate" (DNR) order when it did not. About the same percentage over-interpreted DNR orders as meaning no treatment except "comfort care" or "end-of-life" care.

The study shows that there is a frighteningly high likelihood that having a living will or DNR order will result in physicians withholding curative treatment that a patient actually wants.

A March 10 Wall Street Journal article, "What You Lose When You Sign That Donor Card," raised questions about the determination of death. What most people are unaware of is that, under the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), hospitals get to set their own standards and specific protocols to use in making that determination. A study published in 2008 in the journal Neurology found widespread variation in protocols used in top neurology centers.

Imagine allowing individual housing contractors to decide what parts of the plumbing code they choose to implement. That's what the UDDA has done with hospitals and determination of brain death—and it leads to the possibility that someone could be determined "brain dead" and eligible for organ procurement in Hospital A, and diagnosed as a severely injured person needing evaluation and treatment in Hospital B.

Family members are also major players when someone is sick enough to be unable to make his own health-care decisions. If you do not appoint someone you trust, state law designates a sequence of potential surrogates to whom doctors can turn for health-care decisions, usually the spouse first, then adult children, then parents, and so on down to the government's public guardian.

Unfortunately, elder-abuse data show that the perpetrators are frequently the spouse or an adult child. But neither surrogacy laws nor real-life practices in medical facilities are designed to prevent an abusive or even merely self-interested surrogate from deciding to pull the plug sooner than you might prefer.

In the face of such irrefutable evidence that safeguards to protect people from the involuntary withholding of life-sustaining treatment are not working, disability advocates see assisted suicide and the broken, profit-driven health-care system as a deadly mix. Today's risks of mistake, conflict of interest, coercion and abuse are too great.

Diane Coleman and
Stephen Drake

Ms. Coleman, a lawyer, is president and CEO, and Stephen Drake is research analyst, for Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights organization that opposes legalization of assisted suicide.

A version of this article appeared April 6, 2012, on page A13 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: 'Second Thoughts' Grow on Assisted Suicide.

Euthanasia: How voluntary is “voluntary”?

An article that was published by Michael Cook in Mercatornet in Australia concerns the question of How voluntary is euthanasia? It is a very good question especially when considering issues related to elder abuse. Cook's article: How voluntary is "voluntary"? has been republished here.

How voluntary is "voluntary"?

Michael Cook - April 3, 2012 - Mercatornet.com

Respect for autonomy is one of the most convincing arguments for euthanasia. It was the theme of a strong defence of legalising it in Australia in the Journal of Law and Medicine by Margaret Otlowski and Lorana Bartels in 2010. They concluded that “ in a secular society with an aging population” legalization is inevitable.

However, in the latest issue of the JLM a criminologist at the University of Tasmania has made a vigorous response. Jeremy Prichard doubts that many people in the community will be able to give full and voluntary consent to ending their lives. He contends that the growing prevalence of elder abuse suggests that aged people could easily be manipulated.

“Such procedures may be safe for socially connected, financially independent individuals with high autonomy and self-efficacy,” he writes, but “circumstances may be entirely different for isolated patients with low self-efficacy who represent an unwanted burden to their carers, some of whom may benefit financially from the death of the patient (even just in a reduction of financial pressure).”

Sometimes the request for euthanasia may be genuine, but it has been prompted by subtle pressure. Carers may easily convince a patient that death is the best option for everyone. Dr Prichard cites some disturbing anecdotes from research into elder care in Tasmania. In one, a woman describes how she is treated by her husband:

“I had the stroke a few years ago, I’m absolutely helpless to do anything myself ... [My husband] gets annoyed because I have to go to the toilet all the time and he has to help me. ... In his own selfish way he cares for me too, it’s just that he’s so disagreeable, he’s a real disagreeable old grump, he doesn’t like anyone around ... He talks about he’ll be glad when he dies all the time and I say “well what will I do?” He says “I just hope my time will hurry up and come.” That’s my life and I’ve got to put up with it ... I couldn’t get anyone else to look after me.”

Very little research has been done on pressures that could be exerted on the elderly and disabled. “Research on the risks of voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is in its infancy,” he writes.” So far as this article could ascertain, only one qualitative study has investigated the issues of pressure on patients to access voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.”

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition speaks out against Global News Show Attack on People with Disabilities

Press Release             For Immediate Release           April 3, 2012

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition speaks out against Global News Show Attack on People With Disabilities

The 16 x 9 GLOBAL News edition “Taking Mercy” (March 16, 2012) is an affront to Canadians with disabilities and may be construed as hate speech under certain human rights laws, says Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of EPC and father of a child with a disability. The piece advocates the killing of people with disabilities with impunity.

The media piece was completely biased and unbalanced. No person with a disability and no person holding a different viewpoint was part of the broadcast, notes Schadenberg.

Those of us who live with disabilities could easily have shared hospital rooms, support services, classrooms or neighbourhoods with Tracy Latimer and other children like her who have been murdered by their parents, says Rhonda Wiebe of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

EPC Toronto lawyer Hugh Scher, a person with a disability stated:

The suggestion that people with disabilities including children are better off dead than disabled is chilling, but reflects a deep-rooted feeling of many people who view disability with fear and stigma and who are able to relate much better to a non-disabled parent than to a murdered child with a disability.

Scher adds that programs such as Taking Mercy undermine the dignity and equality of people with disabilities by suggesting that they are better off dead. Such a sentiment is deeply offensive to people with disabilities.

EPC calls upon Global TV and all media outlets to change practices in order to ensure fair and balanced broadcasting that includes the voices of people with disabilities and others who believe that they have lives that are worth living. EPC also asks Global for equal time for people with disabilities and their families to respond to the broadcast.

For further information, please contact:

Alex Schadenberg, EPC Executive Director: 519-851-1434 or info@epcc.ca

Hugh Scher, EPC Counsel: 416-816-6115

Rhonda Wiebe, Council for Canadians with Disabilities: 204-952-1514

Link to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities media release: Link.