Time to strengthen assisted suicide law

http://helenair.com/news/opinion/readers_alley/time-to-strengthen-assisted-suicide-law/article_b8257dd0-45be-11e2-b96a-0019bb2963f4.html

December 13, 2012, Independent Record

I have several concerns about the practice of assisted suicide, which has been rejected by most states and is currently legal in only two states (Washington and Oregon). 1) The potential for elder abuse is very real. Patients in Oregon with a “terminally ill” diagnosis have been refused treatment and steered toward assisted suicide. Patients can be pressured by a relative, who can even administer the dose. 2) A “terminally ill” diagnosis can be wrong. Some patients recover with treatment and may live a long time. 3) Montana already has a high suicide rate and state policy is directed at lowering that rate. The suicide rate in Oregon has increased since their law was passed.

Please tell your legislators to clarify and strengthen our law against assisted suicide.

Ruth Plesner
Victor

Recipe for Elder Abuse

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/assisted-suicide-recipe-for-elder-abuse/article_261d7ce0-3e1f-11e2-8f87-001a4bcf887a.html

December 04, 2012 7:45 am

Brad Williams (letter, Nov. 28) is correct, assisted suicide is not legal in Montana (Associated Press, Nov. 16). The Montana Supreme Court decision, Baxter v. State, merely gives doctors a potential defense to prosecution for homicide.

In the 2011 legislative session, Sen. Anders Blewett and I introduced competing bills in response to Baxter, neither of which passed. His bill sought to legalize assisted suicide; mine sought to eliminate the defense.

During the hearing on Blewett's bill, he conceded that assisted suicide was not legal under Baxter. He said: "under the current law ... there's nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution."

Similar statements were made by others. For example, Dr. Stephen Speckart testified: "most physicians feel significant disease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision."

To view a transcript, see:  http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf

Legal assisted suicide is, regardless, a recipe for elder abuse in which heirs are empowered to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives.

Assisted suicide is not legal in Montana. The potential defense to prosecution is, however, a "toe in the door," which could lead to legalization in the future. Tell your legislators that you support reversing the defense to keep assisted suicide out of Montana.

Sen. Greg Hinkle, Thompson Falls

National disability rights group concerned Montana could legalize assisted suicide

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/national-disability-rights-group-concerned-montana-could-legalize-assisted-suicide/article_19f98ef0-38b0-11e2-ab52-0019bb2963f4.html

December 02, 2012

Not Dead Yet is a national disability rights group with members in Montana, some of whom are seniors. On behalf of our members, I write to say that we are extremely concerned that assisted suicide, sometimes euphemistically called "aid in dying," could be legalized in Montana.

It is estimated that there are 21,265 cases of elder abuse annually in Montana, reported and unreported (http://www.eadaily.com/15/elder-abuse-statistics).

Statistically, 90 percent of elder abusers are a family member or trusted other. Similarly, people with disabilities are up to four times more likely to be abused than their same-age nondisabled peers.

In Oregon and Washington, legal assisted suicide has opened new paths of abuse against persons who "qualify" to use these laws. A more obvious problem is a complete lack of oversight when the lethal drug is administered. If an abuser were to administer the drug without the person's consent, who would know?

It is simply naive to suggest that assisted suicide can be added to the array of medical treatment options, without taking into account the harsh realities of elder abuse and the related potential for coercion.

For more information about problems with legalization of assisted suicide, please see www.notdeadyet.org and www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org.Diane Coleman,
President/CEO,
Not Dead Yet,
Rochester, New York

Also published in the Ravalli Republic at
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_f695c2f6-65c7-5194-9276-43365fd08f35.html?print=true&cid=print

Montana has not legalized assisted suicide

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/mailbag/montana-has-not-legalized-assisted-suicide/article_758a6b1d-dc3d-5488-9750-a13b37d7d1ef.html

December 02, 2012 12:00 am

 

A recent AP article which appeared Nov. 16 in most major newspapers in our state incorrectly stated that Montana is the third state to allow assisted suicide, along with Washington and Oregon. Attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman did an extensive analysis of the case and concluded it "did not legalize assisted suicide and it continues to carry both criminal and civil liability for any doctor, institution, or lay person involved." The Montana Lawyer, the official publication of the Montana State Bar concluded the issue is open to argument, confirming that the Legislature needs to clarify the issue this coming session.

Your readership needs to know that there are problems inherent in passing a law that would allow a physician to kill their patient. People need to understand that we are talking about a physician writing a prescription for the express purpose of one taking their own life. The very oath that physicians take in stepping into this profession states that they "shall do no harm." Their purpose is to cure, to heal, to provide comfort and care at the end of life, but not to aid in facilitating the end of that life through active means. Physicians are fallible human beings and often are wrong in their prognosis concerning how long a patient will survive their illness. Often, it is depression that prompts one to think that life is not worth living or perhaps the feeling that because of their illness they are a burden to their family. The whole matter is a recipe for elder abuse.

I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight and hope that The Gazette will continue to report on this vital topic.

David W Hafer, DDS, MS
Dayton

Assisted suicide may not bring peace to either terminally ill or their families

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_68d5ea27-25d1-5654-b61e-ca2c67d0c68d.html?print=true&cid=print

 

November 30, 2012 6:15 am  

 

This letter is a follow up to your recent (Nov. 16) article on assisted suicide and the Montana Medical Board.

 

A study was recently released in Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal (“Death by request in Switzerland: Posttraumatic stress disorder and complicated grief after witnessing assisted suicide,” B. Wagner, J. Muller, A. Maercker; European Psychiatry 27 (2012) 542-546, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/family-members-traumatized-eur-psych-2012.pdf). The study found that 1 out of 5 family members or friends present at an assisted suicide were traumatized. These persons “experienced full or sub-threshold (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) related to the loss of a close person through assisted suicide.”

This study is consistent with what I have observed with my law practice clients whose parents participated in the Washington/Oregon death with dignity acts (assisted suicide). With one client, one branch of the family wanted the parent to use the lethal dose, while the other did not. The parent spent much of his final days traumatized and struggling over the decision of whether or not to kill himself. This was instead of making the best of the time that he had left. My client was also traumatized. In that case, the parent did not use assisted suicide and died a natural death.

With another case, it’s unclear that the parent’s assisted-suicide death was voluntary. My client lives with that memory.

Legal assisted suicide is sold as a peaceful and loving death. It may be anything but.

Margaret Dore, Seattle WA

Senator Jim Shockley: Assisted suicide not legal

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_155276c2-3c08-11e2-a232-001a4bcf887a.html

Brad Williams is correct that assisted-suicide is not legal in Montana. (Legalization could lead to abuse). The Montana Supreme Court's assisted-suicide case, Baxter v. State, limited its holding to giving doctors who assist a suicide a potential defense if those doctors are charged with homicide for the death of their patients. There are several steps that the doctor must demonstrate to perfect the defense.

Baxter did not invalidate our homicide statutes. Baxter did not overrule our case law allowing family members to sue an attending physician for negligence, malpractice, or wrongful death.

As an attorney in private practice, I did my share of wills, probates and estates. I observed that some heirs did not care as much for the elderly as they did for the elderly person's assets.

With the legalization of assisted-suicide, heirs would be encouraged to suggest, cajole or coerce older people to kill themselves, i.e., before such persons are able to change their wills, give their money to charity or simply spend it. Legal assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse.

Jim Shockley
Senate District 45

Assisted suicide makes it easier to cover up elder abuse, even murder

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_3fafcdd7-df10-5c31-baa6-d51d57078f77.html?print=true&cid=print

November 29, 2012

 

Re: Assisted Suicide and Elder Abuse

 

This letter responds to your recent AP article about assisted-suicide (Associated Press, Nov. 16). I write to emphasize elder financial abuse as a reason to keep assisted suicide out of Montana.

The landmark 2009 report by MetLife Mature Market Institute describes elder financial abuse as a crime “growing in intensity.” (See www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-study-broken-trust-elders-family-finances.pdf, p.16.) The perpetrators are often family members, some of whom feel themselves “entitled” to the elder’s assets (Id, pp. 13-14.) The report states that they start out with small crimes, such as stealing jewelry and blank checks, before moving on to larger items or coercing elders to sign over the deeds to their homes, change their wills or liquidate their assets (Id, p. 14.) The report states that victims “may even be murdered” by perpetrators (Id., p. 24.)

With legal assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington state, perpetrators are instead able to take a “legal” route by getting an elder to sign a lethal dose request. Once the prescription is filled, there is no supervision over administration. The elder could be cajoled or coerced into taking the lethal dose, for example, while under the influence of alcohol. The lethal dose could be administered while the elder slept. If he awoke and struggled, who would know?

Alex Schadenberg,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition,
London, Ontario, Canada,

A Recipe for Elder Abuse

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_3281ea75-6f64-5731-9764-fda7272c9deb.html

Dear Editor:

I agree with the (Nov. 21) letter by Dr. David Hafer, that legal assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse.

I am a physician with a high percentage of older patients. I have had the painful misfortune of personally observing countless instances of elder abuse. The motive is usually financial gain.

Legalization of assisted suicide will give perpetrators yet another weapon. This is especially a concern because assisted-suicide proponents have targeted our state. I fear for my patients.

Annie Bukacek, Kalispell

Assisted suicide a bad proposition

http://helenair.com/news/opinion/readers_alley/assisted-suicide-a-bad-proposition/article_0ca98042-3537-11e2-957f-001a4bcf887a.html?print=true&cid=print

Letter to the Editor:

November 23, 2012 12:00 am

 

I have been following assisted suicide issues in various states for several years. Who could have ever imagined that a free society would come to this?

Last year, many of us attended a meeting where we heard from lawyers and doctors from Washington and Oregon speak out about assisted suicide in their states. Their true accounts of elder abuse, suicide parties, fraud, theft, legal wrangling and what can only be called murder were very unsettling.

I sat there stunned and sick inside, thinking of all the misdeeds that had been done under the guise of mercy.

Friends, do we want to bring this type of debacle to our great state? I think not. Assisted suicide is not legal in Montana — though some would like us to think otherwise. Let us work together and take steps to keep it out. As a member of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide, I ask you to join us in our opposition to this barbaric practice. Many vulnerable folks are counting on us to get this one right.

Mrs. Garnett Rope

Vaughn

Assisted Suicide not legal in state, needs clarification

http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/mailbag/our-readers-speak-assisted-suicide-not-legal-in-state-needs/article_6d1ca724-337f-11e2-9eee-001a4bcf887a.html

November 21, 2012 12:15 am  •  by David W. Hafer

A recent Associated Press article, which appeared last Friday in most major newspapers in our state, incorrectly stated that Montana is the third state to allow assisted suicide, along with Washington and Oregon.

Attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman did an extensive analysis of the case and concluded it “did not legalize assisted suicide and it continues to carry both criminal and civil liability for any doctor, institution, or lay person involved.”  [Click here to see Jackson/Bowman article]

The Montana Lawyer, the official publication of the Montana State Bar concluded the issue is open to argument, confirming that the Legislature needs to clarify the issue this coming session. [Click here for link to Montana Lawyer article, with this headline:  "The aid-in-dying debate: Can a physician legally help a patient die in Montana? Court ruling still leaves the issue open to argument"]

Margaret Dore to Speak at Deaconess Hospital, Bozeman, Sept 12th, 7pm

To view event flyer, click here.

"Assisted Suicide:  Whose Choice?"

A Presentation by Margaret Dore, Esq.

Margaret Dore

Margaret Dore is President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide.  She is also an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal and patient choice is not assured.  The law instead invites patient coercion and elder abuse.  The Washington law  also devalues people with disabilities.  Ms. Dore is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court.  She was an amicus curie in Montana's Baxter case.  For more information, see www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org  

Ms. Dore will discuss assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon and how those laws are a recipe for abuse.  She will compare the situation in Washington and Oregon to proposals seeking to legalize assisted suicide in Montana.

To the Board: "Why do you think Montana has such a high rate of suicide?"

To: DLI BSD Medical Examiners

Subject: Against Assisted suicide

We agree with Montanans Against Assisted Suicide.  Please vacate statement No. 20. Senator Blewitt and Dr Speckert admit it is illegal, so how can the Board make it legal?  This puts everyone at risk especially the elderly and special needs people.  Why do you think Montana has such a high rate of suicide?  Our young people see how human beings are not regarded with real honor and respect and figure if life gets hard, suicide is an option.  This will also add to elder abuse.

Sincerely Jerry and Virginia Geier

To Board: Assisted suicide "kills the very person under the physician's care"

To: DLI BSD Medical Examiners
Subject: Position Statement No 20

To whom it may concern,

Please vacate position statement no. 20 as assisted suicide is neither legal, consistent with established American Medical Association statements, the Hippocratic oath, puts the vulnerable and elderly at risk, and kills the very person under the physician’s care.

Respectfully submitted,
Samuel J. Reck, MD

Board: "Please do not go down Washington's path"

Subject: Position Statement No. 20

To the Board of Medical Examiners:

I am an attorney in Bellevue, Washington.

My law practice emphasizes elder law and probate matters. I am writing to urge you to VACATE Position Statement No. 20.

Instances of elder abuse have risen significantly in recent years. Assisted suicide provides an easy cover for an abuser who coerces a vulnerable adult into “signing up” rather than “burdening” the expectant heir. Warning signs of financial abuse often go unrecognized by physicians and others.

You are undoubtedly aware that assisted suicide is unfortunately legal in Washington. I support the position of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide. Please do not go down Washington’s path.

Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.

Theresa Schrempp
theresas@lawyerseattle.com
Sonkin & Schrempp, PLLC
12715 Bel Red Rd Ste. 150
Bellevue WA 98005
425 289.3444 direct

To Board: " The representatives of the people did not chose legalization"

Subject: Statement 20

July 19, 2012

Dear Members of the Montana Board of Medical Examiners,

Please add my name to those requesting that you vacate Position Statement Number 20. During the last legislative session Senator Anders Blewett stated that suicide was not legal in Montana. His Senate Bill 167 died in committee. The representatives of the people did not chose legalization.

Assisted suicide is too often legalized elder abuse. Suicide is already a problem in our state.

Representative Janna Taylor
House District 11

"The Board is both misleading physicians and endangering patients"

To the Montana Board of Medical Examiners:

Not Dead Yet is a national disability rights group with members in Montana. This letter is to urge you to rescind the position statement that the Board of Medical Examiners formulated entitled "Physician Aid in Dying" (Position 20).

First, it is incorrect to state that the Baxter decision will "...shield a physician from liability for acting in accordance with a patient's end-of-life wishes if an adult, mentally competent terminally ill patient consents to the physician's aid-in-dying." The Montana Supreme Court merely stated that if the physician can show that he/she acted in accordance with a person's wishes and consent, then such consent can be raised as a defense to a charge of homicide against the physician. Once raised, a judge or jury may or may not find the defense valid after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.

For example, a judge or jury could reasonably expect a doctor who assists in a patient’s suicide to take practical steps to ensure that the patient’s request to die is voluntary and not coerced by others who might benefit from the death financially or by being relieved of care giving responsibilities. The potential for coercion is fraught with risks for physicians.

It is estimated that there are 21,265 cases of elder abuse annually in Montana, reported and unreported. http://www.eadaily.com/15/elder-abuse-statistics/ Statistically, 90% of elder abusers are a family member or trusted other. Similarly, people with disabilities are up to four times more likely to be abused than their same-age nondisabled peers.

A relative who is willing to abuse an elder or disabled person might be equally willing to bring up assisted suicide as an option for an ill relative. An abuser might take their relative to visit the doctor to request assisted suicide. An abuser might pick up the lethal prescription at the pharmacy. Even if the abuser went so far as to administer the drugs without the person’s actual consent at the time of death, who would know?

It is simply naïve to suggest that assisted suicide can be added to the array of medical treatment options, on a par with palliative care, without taking into account the harsh realities of elder abuse and the related potential for coercion. The Montana Supreme Court overlooked the public policy implications of elder abuse in its analysis, but in individual cases this issue is likely to become a factor that physicians could only ignore at their peril.

In stating that physicians have a shield against liability for assisted suicide when either a judge or a jury may view a case very differently, the Board is both misleading physicians and endangering patients.

We urge the Board to reconsider and rescind its position on assisted suicide.

Sincerely,

Diane Coleman, JD, MBA
President/CEO
Not Dead Yet

Position Statement No. 20 Must be Vacated as a Matter of Law

On July 6, 2012, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide (MAAS) filed documents with the Montana Medical Examiner Board for the purpose of vacating Position Statement No. 20, titled "Physician Aid in Dying."  The documents filed included: "Summary of Legal Arguments Requiring Position Statement No. 20 to be Vacated as a Matter of Law," which states: 


"Position Statement No. 20 puts physicians and/or the public at risk by encouraging them to engage in illegal and tortious conduct that could result in their being charged with a crime and/or sued.  Statement No. 20 also puts vulnerable people at risk of being killed or steered to suicide by their heirs or  predators.  With these circumstances, the Board’s enactment of Statement No. 20 violates its duty to protect the public (and puts the Board itself at risk of liability)."


To view the above document in its entirety, read the text below or click here to read the hard copy filed with the Board.  Other documents filed with the Board included a cover letter and a proposed order. 


The Text: 


1.  On March 16, 2012, the Board adopted a revised version of  Position Statement No. 20, which refers to “aid in dying” as a “medical procedure or intervention.”[1]


2.  The term, “aid in dying,” means assisted suicide and euthanasia.[2]


3.  On December 31, 2009, the Montana Supreme Court issued Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234 (2009), which addressed a narrow form of “aid in dying.”  Baxter did not legalize “aid in dying,” although that fact is disputed by some proponents.[2]


4.  Position Statement No. 20 implies that “aid in dying” is confined to “end-of-life” matters.[4]  In Baxter, however, the plaintiffs sought to legalize assisted suicide for people who were not necessarily at the “end of life,” for example, an 18 year old who is insulin dependent.[5] 


5.  In the last [2011] legislative session, a bill seeking to legalize aid in dying, SB 167, was defeated.[6]


6.  The Medical Examiner Board derives its power from the Administrative Procedure Act, §§ 2-4-101 to 2-4-711, MCA, and other statutes such as § 37-1-307, MCA, which defines the authority of Boards in general.[7]  These statutes do not grant the Medical Examiner Board authority to interpret the meaning of a court decision such as Baxter.[8]  These statutes do not grant the Board the power to enact new legislation, for example, to legalize “aid in dying” as a medical procedure or intervention.


7.  Interpreting court decisions and enacting legislation are the province of the Judiciary and the Legislature, not the Board.  With these circumstances, the Board had no authority to adopt Position Statement No. 20, which effectively interpreted Baxter and/or effectively enacted new legislation to legalize “aid in dying.”  Position Statement 20 is null and void.

8.  The Board’s lack of authority is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and requires Position Statement No. 20 to be vacated to the extent that it purports to legalize “aid in dying” and/or refers to “aid in dying” as an “end-of-life” matter.


9.  Position Statement No. 20 is also invalid and/or void in its entirety because it is a “rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act, which was adopted without attempting to comply with rulemaking procedures.[9]


10.  Position Statement No. 20 is also invalid and/or void in its entirety because there was no oral argument scheduled for members of the public to speak prior to its enactment.  § 2-4-302(4), MCA  states: “If the proposed rulemaking involves matters of significant interest to the public, the agency shall schedule an oral hearing.”  (Emphasis added).  A matter is of “significant interest to the public” if the agency knows it “to be of widespread citizen interest.”  In the case at hand, the record is overflowing with citizen input including more than 3000 signatures opposed to assisted suicide.[11]  The Board knew of “widespread citizen interest” as a matter of law.  The Board adopted Position Statement No. 20 without previously scheduling oral argument for the public.  For this reason also, the statement is null and void.  


11. Position Statement No. 20 is also null and void because it purports to expand a physician’s scope of practice to include “aid in dying.”  This is the function of the Legislature, not the Board.  Board of Optometry v. Florida Medical Association, 463 So.2d 1213, 1215 (1985).


12.  Position Statement No. 20 puts physicians and/or the public at risk by encouraging them to engage in illegal and tortious conduct that could result in their being charged with a crime and/or sued.  Statement No. 20 also puts vulnerable people at risk of being killed or steered to suicide by their heirs or  predators.  With these circumstances, the Board’s enactment of Statement No. 20 violates its duty to protect the public (and puts the Board itself at risk of liability).


13.  For the above reasons, Position Statement No. 20 is null and void as a matter of law.  It must be vacated and removed from the Board’s website." 

* * *

[1]  The revised statement [titled Physician Aid in Dying] says: "The Montana Board of Medical Examiners has been asked if it will discipline physicians for participating in  aid-in-dying.  This statement reflects the Board’s position on this controversial question. [paragraph break] The Board recognizes that its mission is to protect the citizens of Montana against the unprofessional, improper, unauthorized and unqualified practice of medicine by ensuring that its licensees are competent professionals.  37-3-101, MCA.  In all matters of medical practice, including end-of-life matters, physicians are held to professional standards.  If the Board receives a complaint related to physician aid-in-dying, it will evaluate the complaint on its individual merits and will consider, as it would any other medical procedure or intervention, whether the physician engaged in unprofessional conduct as defined by the Board’s laws and rules pertinent to the Board."  [To view the statement of the Board's website, click here.] 
[2]  Model Aid-in-Dying Act, § 1-102(3), at www.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/euthan.html  Note the letters “euthan” in the link. 
[3]  See Greg Jackson Esq. and Matt Bowman Esq., “Analysis of Implications of the Baxter Case on Potential Criminal Liability,” Spring 2010 (“the Court's narrow decision didn't even "legalize" assisted suicide”), available at http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html; statement by Dr. Stephen Speckart conceding that assisted suicide is not legal under Baxter (“[M]ost physicians feel significant dis-ease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision"), at [the following link with a similar statement by Senator Anders Blewett] http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf; statement by Senator Anders Blewett conceding that a doctor who assisted a suicide could be prosecuted under the Baxter decision (“under current law, ... there’s nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution”), at http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf; and The Montana Lawyer, November 2011 (featuring pro-con articles by Senator Blewett and Senator Jim Shockley), available at http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/November%202011%20mt%20lawyer.pdf.
[4]  Id.
[5]  See opinion letter from attorney Theresa Schrempp and Dr. Richard Wonderly to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, October 22, 2009 (attaching the plaintiffs’ interrogatory answers with a definition of “terminally ill adult patient” broad enough to include “an 18 year old who is insulin dependent”).  (Attached hereto at B-1 to B-3). [To view, click here]
[6] See Detailed bill information page, attached hereto at B-4. [To view, click here]
[7]  For more information about the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes, see Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, pp. 1-2, pp. 8-10.  A copy of the Act and other statutes are attached thereto at A-1 through A-28
[8]  Id.
[9]  See Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, pp. 8-10. [To view citation, use link at note 7, above]
[10]  § 2-4-102(12)(a). 
[11]  Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, p. 3; attachments at A-37 to A-45.  [To view citations, use links at note 7, above]

"The Board's reckless action puts ordinary Montanans at risk, especially the elderly and the disabled"

Dear Board of Medical Examiners:

The new Position 20 is worse than the old position 20. First, we are talking about physician assisted suicide. I don't find "aid in dying" a helpful term to explain what's really going on -- suicide. But the so-called "aid in dying" without definition could include direct euthanasia! (See Charlton letter, memo and attachments, click here and here) The Board's reckless action puts ordinary Montanans at risk, especially the elderly and the disabled.


Also, the Board has no jurisdiction. It is not above the law. As a citizen who believes in the integrity of government, I request that Position Statement No. 20 be vacated due for the reasons set forth in Mr. Charlton's letter and memo. 


Cort Freeman
Butte, Montana

False & Misleading "Aid in Dying" Letter

To view a copy of Mr. Charlton's letter, dated June 20 2012, as sent, click here.


Dear Physician:

I represent Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.  You may have received a letter from Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, dated June 5, 2012.  The letter claims that assisted suicide, referred to as "aid in dying," is legal under the Baxter decision issued by the Montana Supreme Court on December 31, 2009.  This is untrue.  I urge you to read the materials below or contact your own counsel for advice regarding the court's decision in Baxter.


The letter states: “Physicians [under Baxter] can provide prescriptions to such patients without fear that doing so could give rise to criminal or disciplinary sanction."  This statement is contrary to Baxter, which merely gives doctors a defense to prosecution.  Baxter states:

Request to Retract Solicitation Letter

On April 6, 2012, attorney Craig Charlton wrote Dr. George Risi and Dr. Stephen Speckart requesting a retraction of their solicitation letter encouraging other doctors to engage in assisted suicide contrary to state law.

The letter was sent via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and Regular U.S. Mail.  To date, neither Dr. Risi nor Dr. Speckart have responded.  A web version of the letter is set forth below.  For the original print version, click here. 

Dear Dr. Risi and Dr. Speckart:

I represent Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.  We are in receipt of the enclosed letter signed by you, which was mailed to doctors in Montana.  I am putting you on notice that the letter exists, that it has been widely distributed, and that the letter has false and misleading information.