BILL C-7 and broadening Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada

For immediate release Montreal, 26 February, 2020 PRESS RELEASE   BILL C-7 and broadening Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada   Do we collectively seek the most permissive voluntary euthanasia program in the world?

Petition: Reject euthanasia Bill C-7 (Link).

Following Monday’s tabling of Bill C-7 in the Canadian Parliament, Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia deplore this new chapter in a political approach leading step by step to death on demand for suffering people in Canada. Bill C-7, removes the requirement that a person receiving “medical assistance in dying” (MAiD) be in a situation where natural death is reasonably foreseeable. This effectively opens the door to any Canadian who is physically sick and suffering, and who wishes it, to be legally killed by a doctor.

Let us be very clear: if this bill is not significantly amended, Canada will have the most permissive euthanasia program in the world.

The Truchon-Gladu decision of the Quebec Superior Court, the government’s refusal to appeal it, and the present bill are proof of the validity of the concerns expressed before MAiD was decriminalized in 2016. We and many other groups insisted that, once anyone is permitted to directly cause the death of another person, there is no safeguard that can prevent this “right” from being extended to groups not initially foreseen.

As opposed to Quebec, which simply decided to conform to the Truchon-Gladu decision by removing de facto the end of life criterion, the federal government at least chose to maintain the use of the reasonably foreseeable natural death criterion, as a way of creating safeguards for MAID requested by patients who are not dying.

However, despite assurances in the Preamble that “Canada is a State Party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and recognizes its obligations under it, including in respect of the right to life… [and] Parliament affirms the inherent and equal value of every person’s life and the importance of taking a human rights-based approach to disability inclusion, Bill C-7 constitutes a threat for some citizens.

It would permit any person who has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability, and is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability, to obtain MAID without being near the end of life, only 90 days after making the request.

We are assured that the Bill excludes MAiD on the basis of mental illness, but we know that a Parliamentary committee scheduled for a few months from now will study this possibility, as well as those of the euthanasia of mature minors and of adults incapable of decision-making who have made an advance request. We are concerned that the present bill will pave the way to extension of MAID to these groups.

The “added safeguards” promised for people whose end of life is not approaching are weak indeed. While in the Netherlands the doctor must agree that there are no other potential means of alleviating suffering before euthanizing a patient, Bill C-7 only specifies that the doctor must “ensure that the person has been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including, where appropriate, counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care …”, and “… that the person has given serious consideration to those means…” There is no need for the patient to try other options; indeed, there is no need for the means to be even available to him.

Accessibility to such services should, on the contrary, be the priority for our federal and provincial legislatures, long before any new extension of euthanasia.

The Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia seeks to ensure quality medical care and respectful decision-making for vulnerable patients, especially those at risk of pressure to end their lives prematurely through euthanasia or assisted suicide, and to protect the professional integrity of all health care workers.

For further information or to request an interview with
Dr. Catherine Ferrier (Physicians' Alliance) or Me Michel Racicot (LWD), please contact: Charmine Francis (Coordinator)
Tel: +1 (438) 938-9410
Website: www.collectifmedecins.org/en
Email: info@collectifmedecins.org

Delta Hospice - Not yet forced to do euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sandor Gyarmati reported for the Delta Optimist that the British Columbia Health Minister, Adrian Dix, announced that the provincial government will terminate the service agreement with the Delta Hospice Society on February 24, 2021 unless they begin to provide euthanasia at the Irene Thomas Hospice in Ladner BC.

Gyarmati, makes it seem like the Delta Hospice has lost their battle with Fraser Health, but I believe they have won the battle with Fraser Health.

Rally in support of the Delta Hospice - April 4, 2020 in Victoria BC (Link).

Last December the Delta Hospice Society was ordered by the Fraser Health Authority to provide euthanasia or lose its funding. Soon after, the BC Health Minister, Adrian Dix, stated that he will force the Delta Hospice to provide euthanasia.

The Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians President, Dr Leonie Herx responded by supporting the Delta Hospice and explaining to the BC Health Minister that:

MAiD is not consistent with the philosophy, intent, or approach of hospice palliative care which supports dying as a natural process and does not hasten death.

The BC Health Minister later responded by ordering the Delta Hospice to start offering euthanasia by February 3, 2020 or lose its funding.
 
The latest edict from the BC Health Minister is a small victory. The Delta Hospice was ordered to provide euthanasia by February 3, 2020 or lose its provincial funding. They are now being told that their service agreement will be terminated on February 24, 2021, or one year from now.

The citizens in Delta BC will continue to have access to excellent care in a no kill hospice for at least one more year.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition launched a successful online petition resulting in more than 19,500 people sending an email to the BC Health Minister, telling him that Hospices Must Not Be Forced to do euthanasia. EPC also provided paper petitions to our supporters to be sent to BC Health Minister.

Join us April 4 at the BC Parliament buildings in Victoria at the rally in support of the Delta Hospice.

The battle has just begun. Hospices must not be forced to do euthanasia.

Assisted Suicide laws are lethal discrimination against old, ill and disabled people

This article was published on February 24 in connection with a poll on assisted suicide. The rift published a YES and NO assisted suicide article (Link) and then asks you to vote.

Diane Coleman wrote the No to assisted suicide article that I have re-published below.

By Diane Coleman

President of Not Dead Yet

Assisted suicide may understandably be viewed as an easy way to die, but a closer look reveals inherent dangers that should lead to second thoughts.

First, assisted suicide is not needed to ensure that we can die peacefully in our sleep, since we can already do so by receiving palliative care, up to and including full sedation.

So what do assisted suicide laws actually do? They grant civil and criminal immunity to healthcare providers and caregivers who may be involved.

The image of government approved, medically administered assisted suicide is that it only hastens the death of someone who is already dying and voluntarily takes lethal drugs, with “safeguards” preventing abuse. 

Under U.S. laws, an heir or abusive caregiver may suggest assisted suicide, witness the written request, and even give the drug without consent.

In contrast, in U.S. jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal, Oregon being the national “model”, no authority verifies patients were eligible or procedures were followed. A short form filed by the prescribing doctor is accepted at face value. It’s the “honor” system.

The U.S. laws require a 6-month prognosis, yet Oregon data shows that people far outlived their prognosis. Hospice data shows that 12-15% outlive their predicted expiration date. Oregon also defines someone as “terminal” who simply cannot afford treatment.

Some countries have expanded assisted suicide eligibility to include people with ordinary non-terminal disabilities and even psychological suffering with no physical illness.

So the image that all eligible people are dying soon anyway is not valid. But isn’t it still voluntary?

Unfortunately, under U.S. laws, an heir or abusive caregiver may suggest assisted suicide, witness the written request, and even give the drug without consent. No independent witness is required when the drugs are used, so who would know? Assisted suicide can also hide medical mistakes or malpractice.

Assisted suicide is being marketed as a new “civil right”

Finally, perhaps the greatest concern should be healthcare cost cutting pressures. As cofounder of the Hemlock Society Derek Humphry wrote, “…economics, not the quest for broadened individual liberties or increased autonomy, will drive assisted suicide to the plateau of acceptable practice.”

Assisted suicide is being marketed as a new “civil right,” but will we fall for it? Will we offer suicide prevention to most suicidal people, but carve out those who are old, ill and disabled? How long before a so-called option turns into an expectation, then a duty?

The real civil rights are nondiscrimination and equal protection of the laws. This is why every major national U.S. disability organization that has taken a position on assisted suicide laws opposes them.

Portugal may soon legalize doctors lethally injecting their patients.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On February 20, the Portuguese Parliament voted on five different proposals to legalize euthanasia. All of the proposals passed, even though two years ago, similar proposals were defeated.

The Portuguese government will now propose a single bill for parliament.

A report by Barry Hutton for the Associated Press explains that Portuguese president, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa opposes euthanasia and may veto the bill. Hutton wrote:

President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, who is known to be reluctant about euthanasia, could veto the new law, but parliament can override his veto by voting a second time for approval. The Portuguese president doesn’t have executive powers. 

The head of state also could ask the Constitutional Court to review the legislation; Portugal’s Constitution states that human life is “sacrosanct,” though abortion has been legal in the country since 2007.

Based on the recent vote, it is possible that the Portuguese parliament can over-ride a veto.

Groups that oppose euthanasia are gathering signatures to demand a referendum on the issue. During the parliamentary debate on euthanasia, there were hundreds of people protesting euthanasia. One One banner said: 

“Euthanasia doesn’t end suffering, it ends life.”

Recently the Spanish parliament also voted to continue to debate euthanasia. 

As bad as this is, the debate in Portugal is not over.

Canada's federal government asks Quebec court for 4 month extension to amend euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Canada's Justice Minister, the Hon. David Lametti and the Attorney General of Canada the Hon. Patty Hajdu have asked a Quebec Superior Court for a four month extension to amend Canada's euthanasia law.

A Quebec Superior Court decision, in September 2019, struck down the requirement in Canada's euthanasia law that a person's natural death must be reasonably foreseeable. The Quebec court decision gave the federal government six months to amend the euthanasia law in line with their decision. The federal government did not appeal the decision.

At that time, I reported that striking down the "terminal illness" requirement in the law opened the door to euthanasia for psychiatric conditions alone (Link).

In a press release from the Department of Justice, Ministers Lametti and Hajdu stated:

Hon Patty Hajdu

"Today, the Attorney General of Canada filed a motion to request a 4-month extension of the Superior Court of Québec's September 2019 Truchon ruling.

"Without this extension, the 'reasonable foreseeability of natural death' criterion from the federal law will no longer be applicable in the province of Quebec come March 12, but will remain in effect in other provinces and territories.

Hon David Lametti

"Following the successful completion of the Government's consultations on this important matter, we fully intend to introduce new medical assistance in dying legislation in the near future. An extension would give Parliament time to consider and enact proposed amendments. 

"We recognize that medical assistance in dying is a complex and deeply personal issue. The high level of engagement during the January 2020 online public consultations—which received nearly 300,000 responses—is a strong demonstration of the importance of this issue for Canadians. 

"We remain committed to responding to the Court's ruling as quickly as possible."The fact is that there is no rush to change Canada's euthanasia law. The Liberal government is talking about opening Canada's euthanasia law to people with mental illness and to people who are incompetent, but had made an advanced request to be killed.

The online consultation questionnaire that the federal government had was a sham and the data was unreliable. The consultation employed questions that implied support for euthanasia and the computer system did not prevent people from answering the questionnaire countless times.

The government announced, last year, that they would not amend the law until the five-year consultation on the law that was to begin in June 2020. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition holds that the federal government should not amend the law until after they have completed the five-year consultation on Canada's euthanasia law.

In 2019, at least 5000 people died by euthanasia, and since legalization at least 13,000 people have died by euthanasia in Canada.

More articles on this topic:

• Competing reports on euthanasia for mental illness (Link).
• Why legalizing MAiD for mental illness is misguided (Link).
• Quebec backtracks to permit euthanasia for mental illness (Link).
• Quebec government begins consultation to extend euthanasia for Alzheimer's (Link).

Marylanders need health care, not assisted suicide

This article was published by the Frederick News Post on February 17, 2020.

By Katie Collins-Ihrke is the executive director of Accessible Resources for Independence, the Center for Independent Living in Anne Arundel and Howard counties.

The Maryland Legislature is expected to again consider an “end-of-life option” bill in its new session. Once again, disability activists will be a prominent part of the coalition to oppose the bill as a discriminatory overlay to a beleaguered and inequitable health care system.
The bill, an assisted-suicide bill, authorizes health care providers to write lethal prescriptions for people who are considered terminally ill, and grants broad legal immunity to everyone involved in their deaths. It does not provide medical and palliative alternatives. The only course of action it facilitates is death.

People have every right to say no to treatment they don’t want. However, there is a sharp distinction between a patient deciding when not to have life-prolonging treatment and a doctor actively prescribing lethal drugs for the purpose of directly causing the patient’s death. As Dr. Joseph Marine, professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, has stated, assisted suicide:

“is not medical care. It has no basis in medical science or medical tradition ... the drug concoctions used to end patients’ lives … come from the euthanasia movement and not from the medical profession or medical research.”

Physician-assisted suicide is depicted by its supporters as a choice for patients who have tried everything; however, many Marylanders do not have access to “everything.” The medical system is focused on reducing costs as it remains profit-driven. Many people struggle to obtain basic care. Yet there still are “quality of life” prejudices against elders and people with disabilities, and people of color still cope with deadly health disparities. Survival rates for cystic fibrosis, for example, vary depending on the type of insurance a person has available. With the system so broken and no consensus about solutions either on the state or federal level, it is inherently dangerous to legalize assisted suicide for any class of patients.

Data from Oregon indicates that the leading reasons people request lethal prescriptions are unrelated to pain or unbearable suffering, but rather to factors such as perceived lessening of autonomy or dignity. These issues are difficult but they can be addressed by programs promoting greater access to consumer-directed home aide support and respite care, and a change in attitudes about human interdependence. The disability community has shown that severe physical limitations can be managed to maintain one’s enjoyment of life.

It is telling that supporters of last year’s assisted-suicide bill were critical to the point of abandoning the bill when quite minimal patient protections were added to it. Their concern seemed to be not in avoiding needless premature deaths, but in preventing delays and expenditure of resources. For example, a desire to die may be fueled by depression or other psychosocial factors causing suicidal ideation. But some proponents objected to a requirement that a person get a psychiatric evaluation before being given a lethal prescription because “There is a severe shortage of mental health professionals in Maryland,…[especially] in rural areas.” This seems like a tacit admission that Maryland residents may be underserved in their mental health needs at a time when they need services the most.

“End-of-life option” bills are consistently marketed to the public as applying only to people who are expected to die within six months, not to people with chronic illnesses or disabilities. But buyer, beware! Apart from the fact there is no way to prevent mistakes in diagnosis, even when more than one doctor is involved, the term “terminal illness” can be surprisingly elastic. An Oregon health official has written that conditions can be deemed terminal even if there is lifesaving treatment, but the person is uninsured or cannot afford it. This includes diabetes and other serious conditions which can be medically managed.

Curiously, last year’s proponents of the Maryland bill opposed an amendment to add terms like “irreversible” and “progressive” to the definition of terminal illness. Moreover, a recent medical commenter in the Baltimore Sun has urged that Maryland follow not Oregon, but Canada, which allows both assisted suicide and active euthanasia and which is dropping any requirement that death be “reasonably foreseeable,” thus offering assisted death to anyone with a significant health problem or permanent disability.

Disability advocacy organizations are against giving doctors the authority to write lethal prescriptions, regardless of how an assisted suicide bill is written. Catchphrases can’t change the fact that mistakes, coercion and abuses will occur. We aim for a more equitable and supportive health system which gives people true options so they can live as well as they can for as much time as they naturally have.

Euthanasia: Canada, Conscience and Coercion.

This article was published by Nancy Valko on her blog on February 18, 2020

Nancy Valko

By Nancy Valko

A January 22, 2020 CNA article titled “Perform Euthanasia or Lose Government Funding”, Canadian Hospice Told” revealed that a secular Canadian hospice was at risk of losing its government funding over its refusal to euthanize patients who request an “assisted death.”

How could this happen?

First of all, Canadian health care (known to Canadians as “medicare”) is 69% publicly funded for “medically necessary” care administered by the 13 provinces and territories with different rules. 31% of Canadian health care costs are paid by the private sector for services not covered or only partially covered by medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry.

The problems started when the Canadian Supreme Court legalized MAiD (Medical Assitance in Dying” in 2015.

Soon after, the province of Quebec drew up guidelines for MAiD and made “euthanasia kits” for lethal injections available to every doctor in Quebec. Most MAiD deaths in Canada are done by lethal injection.

In September 2016, about three months after euthanasia became legal in Canada, British Columbia's Fraser Health introduced a new policy which required all hospices receiving more than 50% of provincial funding for their beds to offer euthanasia to their residents. However, the hospice, in question, is operated by the non-profit organization the Delta Hospice Society, which is opposed to Canada’s MAiD

One doctor said that there are “‘strong lobbies’ backing this new effort to expand MAiD into additional institutions which receive provincial funding, including faith-based hospitals or hospices.” (Emphasis added)

How One Catholic Health Care Facility Responded To MAiD

Unfortunately in 2018, the Catholic Covenant Health system in the province of Alberta, Canada released a revised MAID policy:

“after consultations with more than 100 individuals and groups including doctors, Catholic bishops, Alberta Health Services, the Alberta government, patient advisers, families, ethicists and community members. 

Under the policy, witnessing and signing of legal documents and assessments of eligibility can take place on Covenant Health sites. Patients deemed eligible for MAID would still be transferred to other facilities.” (Emphasis added)

A current check of the Covenant website on MAiD shows no change in policy.

The Canadian “Slippery Slope” Continues

In January, 2020 the Halifax Group, published “MAiD Legislation at a Crossroads: Persons with Mental Disorders as Their Sole Underlying Medical Condition” that supported MAiD not only for non-dying persons ” experiencing enduring, intolerable and irremediable suffering from physical conditions” but also for persons who have “a mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition.” (Emphasis added)

This month, The Expert Advisory Group responded to the Halifax group, warning that the Canadian medical suicide law is the “most permissive in the world”.

The Effect of MAiD on Doctors and Nurses

Last year, The Canadian Catholic Nurses joined the National Association of Catholic Nurses in opposing the American Nurses Association’s draft position for neutrality on physician-assisted suicide (unfortunately later approved) and gave a chilling look at what may be our future if legalized assisted suicide is not opposed:

“Our association formed in 2018 primarily in response to Canadian nurses’ moral distress regarding the nation-wide legalization of medically induced death.

Professional associations and licensing bodies across Canada endorsed the legal changes, requiring conscientious objectors to participate in “Medical Assistance in Dying” by “effective referral” to facilitate access at the patient’s request. Faith-based health care facilities are pressured to participate. Nurse practitioners are trained and qualified to prescribe and administer lethal doses of medication to patients that they or others deem eligible for euthanasia.”

and

The Canadian experience with assisted suicide and euthanasia provides evidence for your continued resistance to the practice.

Unlike Oregon, Canada has not experienced a growth in palliative care along with the rapid expansion of induced death. Instead, we experience ongoing demands for access to lethal injections for new categories of patients, including “mature minors;” those who write advanced directives; and those whose mental illness is the sole condition underlying their request.”

A 2018 study “Medical assistance in dying (MAiD): Canadian nurses’ experiences” stated that:

“It is vital to understand how MAiD is influencing nurses in the Canadian context to ensure a smooth transition of this end‐of‐life care option across settings and communities. ” (Emphasis added)

The study acknowledges some nurses’ “moral distress” but describes “how participating in, or declining to participate in MAiD is shaping the participants’ perceptions of nursing as a profession“. The authors suggest promoting concepts like “Providing holistic care without judgment, Advocating choice, Supporting a good death” to positively reinforce that MAiD was “not a significant departure from their professional goals”. (Emphasis added)

(Ironically, 77% doctors in Laval, Canada refused to provide MAiD 18 months after legalization with the most common reason that MAiD was “too much of an emotional burden to bear”.)

Conclusion

Last year it was reported that “More than one in every 100 deaths in Canada is administered by a doctor“ but that even this number is likely higher because parts of Canada currently do not report such deaths.

The numbers are also likely to get higher as the Canadian euthanasia laws expand the eligibility criteria and health care professionals worry about losing their jobs if they refuse to participate.

Unfortunately, most of the US mainstream media ignores the Canadian euthanasia experience while approvingly reporting on the increasing number of US states legalizing physician-assisted suicide.

What all of us need to understand is that the legalized killing of any patient ultimately leads to the destruction not only of the patient but also of a trustworthy health care system and a truly safe and civilized society.

Assisted suicide bills are not what they appear to be.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assisted suicide may not be a peaceful death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even this statement does not refer to self-ingestion.

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

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

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

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

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