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
Showing posts with label aid in dying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aid in dying. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Efforts to legalize assisted suicide may be one cause for high suicide rates
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_bd36263c-c0e8-5bef-b57b-a7eafe75a77b.html?print=true&cid=print
Dec. 4, 2012
Your article, “Cowboy culture’ factor in Montana’s high suicide rate” (Nov. 25-27), discusses possible reasons for that high rate. A reason I did not see discussed is the active and ongoing push to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Montana.
I am a doctor in Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. In Oregon, physician-assisted suicide means that a physician facilitates a patient’s suicide by providing a lethal prescription. In Oregon, our law also allows family members to participate in the suicide, for example, by helping with the lethal dose request process and by picking up the lethal dose at the pharmacy. Physician-assisted suicide is sometimes called “aid in dying.“
Oregon’s overall suicide rate, which excludes suicide under our assisted suicide act, is 35 percent above the national average. This rate has been “increasing significantly” since 2000. Just three years prior, in 1997, Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide. This statistical correlation is consistent with a suicide contagion in which the normalization of one type of suicide encouraged other suicides.
In 2011, a bill similar to Oregon’s law was proposed and defeated in the Montana Legislature. I understand that another bill will be proposed this coming legislative session. With this active promotion of physician-assisted suicide, there is the possibility of a normalization process similar to what appears to have taken place in Oregon. If so, this is another factor in Montana’s high rate of suicide.
I hope that you will encourage your legislators to keep assisted suicide out of Montana. Don’t make our mistake.
William L. Toffler,
Professor of family medicine,
Oregon Health & Science University,
National director and board member,
Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation,
Portland, Ore.
Your article, “Cowboy culture’ factor in Montana’s high suicide rate” (Nov. 25-27), discusses possible reasons for that high rate. A reason I did not see discussed is the active and ongoing push to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Montana.
I am a doctor in Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. In Oregon, physician-assisted suicide means that a physician facilitates a patient’s suicide by providing a lethal prescription. In Oregon, our law also allows family members to participate in the suicide, for example, by helping with the lethal dose request process and by picking up the lethal dose at the pharmacy. Physician-assisted suicide is sometimes called “aid in dying.“
Oregon’s overall suicide rate, which excludes suicide under our assisted suicide act, is 35 percent above the national average. This rate has been “increasing significantly” since 2000. Just three years prior, in 1997, Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide. This statistical correlation is consistent with a suicide contagion in which the normalization of one type of suicide encouraged other suicides.
In 2011, a bill similar to Oregon’s law was proposed and defeated in the Montana Legislature. I understand that another bill will be proposed this coming legislative session. With this active promotion of physician-assisted suicide, there is the possibility of a normalization process similar to what appears to have taken place in Oregon. If so, this is another factor in Montana’s high rate of suicide.
I hope that you will encourage your legislators to keep assisted suicide out of Montana. Don’t make our mistake.
William L. Toffler,
Professor of family medicine,
Oregon Health & Science University,
National director and board member,
Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation,
Portland, Ore.
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
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
December 02, 2012 12:00 am
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
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Assisted suicide may not bring peace to either terminally ill or their families
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
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
Saturday, December 1, 2012
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
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
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Legal assisted suicide Orwellian and discriminatory
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_10cd3eb4-39cb-11e2-b954-0019bb2963f4.html?print=true&cid=print
November 28, 2012
Dear Editor:
I am confused by the ongoing dispute about whether we should legalize assisted suicide in Montana. I am a medical doctor whose patients include incarcerated persons. Law enforcement, jails and prisons are mandated to monitor for signs of depression and suicidal ideation, and to identify, intervene and/or initiate treatment. We are told that our failure to do so would be a significant breach of an inmate's civil rights. Yet according to proponents of assisted suicide, patients also have a right to receive a doctor's assistance with the suicide. This makes no sense.
On the one hand, you have a group of people (prisoners) who suffer from situational depression due to their circumstances. Suicide attempts in this population are not rare. On the other hand, you have a group of people (persons diagnosed with a terminal diagnosis) who suffer from situational depression due to their circumstances. Why is one group entitled to protection and the other is not? Is it because with the second group, you call it "aid in dying" because people are dying anyway? They may not be dying anyway. Doctors diagnoses can be wrong. I have seen patients in my own practice live longer than expected. What about an older inmate? Would he be entitled to protection or a lethal dose? This all strikes me as very Orwellian and also discriminatory to people labeled terminal. I thought freedom from discrimination was a constitutional right.
I have seen suicidal people get better and rebuild lives that looked pretty grim. I do not agree that doctors or anyone else should be steering people to suicide in Montana. I hope that our legislature will clarify once and for all that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.
Carley C. Robertson, Havre
November 28, 2012
Dear Editor:
I am confused by the ongoing dispute about whether we should legalize assisted suicide in Montana. I am a medical doctor whose patients include incarcerated persons. Law enforcement, jails and prisons are mandated to monitor for signs of depression and suicidal ideation, and to identify, intervene and/or initiate treatment. We are told that our failure to do so would be a significant breach of an inmate's civil rights. Yet according to proponents of assisted suicide, patients also have a right to receive a doctor's assistance with the suicide. This makes no sense.
On the one hand, you have a group of people (prisoners) who suffer from situational depression due to their circumstances. Suicide attempts in this population are not rare. On the other hand, you have a group of people (persons diagnosed with a terminal diagnosis) who suffer from situational depression due to their circumstances. Why is one group entitled to protection and the other is not? Is it because with the second group, you call it "aid in dying" because people are dying anyway? They may not be dying anyway. Doctors diagnoses can be wrong. I have seen patients in my own practice live longer than expected. What about an older inmate? Would he be entitled to protection or a lethal dose? This all strikes me as very Orwellian and also discriminatory to people labeled terminal. I thought freedom from discrimination was a constitutional right.
I have seen suicidal people get better and rebuild lives that looked pretty grim. I do not agree that doctors or anyone else should be steering people to suicide in Montana. I hope that our legislature will clarify once and for all that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.
Carley C. Robertson, Havre
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,
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,
Assisted Suicide is not legal
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012311260039&nclick_check=1
In the Nov. 16 Tribune article, Brad Williams is correct; assisted-suicide is not legal in Montana. 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 'dis-ease,' 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
In the Nov. 16 Tribune article, Brad Williams is correct; assisted-suicide is not legal in Montana. 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 'dis-ease,' 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
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Assisted suicide prompts some terminally ill patients to give up on life prematurely
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_e05fa28b-dd72-5688-a321-654cc86fc213.html?print=true&cid=print
(Scroll down to listen to radio ad featuring Jeanette Hall and Paul Gorsuch MD - 03 23 13)
November 28, 2012
In 2000, I was diagnosed with cancer and told that I had six months to a year to live. I knew that our law had passed, but I didn’t know exactly how to go about doing it. I did not want to suffer, and I did not want to do radiation. I wanted Stevens to help me, but he didn’t really answer me.
Instead, he encouraged me to not give up and ultimately I decided to fight the cancer. I had both chemotherapy and radiation. I am so happy to be alive!
It is now 12 years later. If Stevens had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. I thank him and all my doctors for helping me choose “life with dignity.” Assisted suicide should not be legal.
Thank you so much.
Jeanette Hall,
King City, Oregon
Listen to Radio ad with Jeanette Hall and Paul Gorsuch MD
(Scroll down to listen to radio ad featuring Jeanette Hall and Paul Gorsuch MD - 03 23 13)
November 28, 2012
Thank you for publishing the letter by Dr. Ken Stevens describing how he talked his patient out of doing assisted suicide in Oregon (Missoulian, online only). I am that patient and he did save my life.
In 1997, I voted for the initiative that legalized assisted suicide in Oregon.
In 1997, I voted for the initiative that legalized assisted suicide in Oregon.
In 2000, I was diagnosed with cancer and told that I had six months to a year to live. I knew that our law had passed, but I didn’t know exactly how to go about doing it. I did not want to suffer, and I did not want to do radiation. I wanted Stevens to help me, but he didn’t really answer me.
Instead, he encouraged me to not give up and ultimately I decided to fight the cancer. I had both chemotherapy and radiation. I am so happy to be alive!
It is now 12 years later. If Stevens had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. I thank him and all my doctors for helping me choose “life with dignity.” Assisted suicide should not be legal.
Thank you so much.
Jeanette Hall,
King City, Oregon
Listen to Radio ad with Jeanette Hall and Paul Gorsuch MD
Monday, November 26, 2012
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
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
Sunday, November 25, 2012
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:
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
Letter to the Editor:
November 23, 2012 12:00 am
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
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Assisted Suicide is Not Legal in Montana
This letter, by attorney Craig Charlton, responds to a prior letter claiming that assisted suicide is legal. Mr. Charlton, attorney for Montanans Against Assisted Suicide, states:
Dear Physician . . .
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 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:
"We therefore hold that under § 45-2-211, MCA, a terminally ill patient's consent to physician aid in dying constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician when no other consent exceptions apply."[1]
You may also be interested in this analysis of Baxter by attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman:
"[T]he Court's narrow decision didn't even ‘legalize’ assisted suicide. . . . After Baxter, assisted suicide continues to carry both criminal and civil liability risks for any doctor, institution, or lay person involved."[2]
Please note that [Compassion & Choices'] "aid in dying" letter omits any discussion of a doctor’s potential civil liability for wrongful death and/or malpractice. Baxter did not overrule Montana case law imposing civil liability on doctors who cause or fail to prevent a suicide. See Krieg v. Massey, 239 Mont. 469, 472-3 (1989) and Nelson v. Driscoll, 295 Mont. 363, Para 32-33 (1999). Other cases include Edwards v. Tardif, 240 Conn. 610, 692 A.2d 1266 (1997)(affirming a civil judgment against a physician who had prescribed an "excessively large dosage" of barbiturates to a suicidal patient who then killed herself with the barbiturates).
For another example, see William Dotinga, "Grim Complaint Against Kaiser Hospital," at http ://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/06/43641.htm This case is relevant to Baxter given that patient consent is the linchpin to Baxter's defense to prosecution. Moreover, even if a doctor avoids prosecution, there is civil liability. . . .
Letter from Craig Charlton to Montana Physicians, dated June 20, 2012. To see a print copy of the entire letter, click here.
* * *
[1] Baxter v. Montana, 354 Mont. 234, para. 50, 224 P.3d 1211 (2009).
[2] To see the entire Jackson/Bowman analysis, go here: http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Montana's Constitution Does Not Include a "Right to Die"
By Margaret Dore
In 1972, Montana held its Constitutional Convention. The Bill of Rights Committee was charged with drafting a declaration of rights to be included in the constitution. On February 2, 1972, the Committee received "Delegate Proposal 103," which proposed a right to die.[1]
On February 3, 1972, the Committee held a hearing on the "right to die."[2] Therein, "Mrs. Joyce Franks presented the theory to the Committee that all persons should be able to choose his own death with dignity."[3] She also submitted a seven page document titled "Bill of Rights Speech."[4] In this document, she proposed wording for a constitutional right to die and also discussed her father and the right to die in terms of physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.[5]
Other persons also submitted testimony.[6]
On February 9, 1972, the Bill of Rights Committee rejected Proposal #103, the "Right to Die."[7]
On February 12, 1972, Joe Roberts appeared before the Committee in support of the right to die.[8] His written remarks noted the reason for the Committee's rejection of the right to die, as follows:
"[T]he consensus of the delegates I have talked to indicated that while they were sympathetic to Mrs. Frank's personal tragedy, they were afraid of the implications of stating broadly a Right to Die in the Montana Constitution.[9]
On March 18, 1972, the Committee's "Declaration of Rights" was adopted by the full convention without the right to die.[10]
Today, the Committee's Declaration of Rights is Article II of the Montana Constitution.[11]
With this history, there is no right to die in the Montana Constitution: it was proposed; advocated by Mrs. Franks and other persons; and rejected.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Laws Against Assisted Suicide are Constitutional
By Margaret Dore
This article describes why laws against physician-assisted suicide are constitutional in Montana. See below.
A. Physician-Assisted Suicide
A. Physician-Assisted Suicide
The American Medical Association defines "physician-assisted suicide" as follows: "[A] physician facilitates a patient’s death "by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act (e.g., the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide)."[1]
Physician-assisted suicide is also called assisted suicide and "aid in dying," a term which also means euthanasia.[2]
B. Assisted Suicide is Not Legal in Montana
In Montana, the law on assisted suicide is governed by statutes and case law.[3] The most recent case law is Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234, 224 P.3d 1211 (2009), which gives doctors who assist a patient's suicide a defense to a homicide charge. Baxter states:
"We therefore hold that under § 45-2-211, MCA, a terminally ill patient's consent to physician aid in dying constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician when no other consent exceptions apply."[4]
Under Baxter, this defense fails if the patient's consent cannot be shown.[5] In that case, prosecution for homicide can go forward.[6]
Baxter did not overrule Montana case law imposing civil liability on persons who cause or fail to prevent another person's suicide. See Krieg v. Massey, 239 Mont. 469, 472-3 (1989) and Nelson v. Driscoll, 295 Mont. 363, ¶¶ 32-33 (1999). Other relevant case law includes Edwards v. Tardif, 240 Conn. 610, 692 A.2d 1266 (1997) (affirming a civil judgment against a doctor who had prescribed an ”excessively large dosage” of barbiturates to a suicidal patient who then killed herself with the barbiturates).
Attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman state: "After Baxter, assisted suicide continues to carry both criminal and civil liability risks for any doctor, institution, or lay person involved."[7] In short, Baxter did not legalize assisted suicide."
C. Clarifying Legislation Would be Constitutional
Some assisted suicide proponents, nonetheless, claim that assisted suicide is legal under Baxter.[8] With this situation, clarifying legislation is needed. Some proponents, however, counter that any such legislation would be unconstitutional. This is untrue. See below.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Update on Board: Thank You Letter Received
As described in an earlier post, on July 20, 2012, the Montana Board of Medical Examiners denied Montanans Against Assisted Suicide and other members of the public a requested hearing on Position Statement No. 20. The Board voted to instead thank interested persons in writing. A copy of the letter sent to Montanans Against Assisted Suicide can be viewed here. Montanans Against Assisted Suicide anticipates a further legal challenge.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Board Denies Hearing on Legal Issues; Legal Challenge Anticipated
On May 7, 2012, the Montana Board of Medical Examiners voted to postpone consideration of whether Position Statement No. 20 should be vacated.[1] Position Statement No. 20 concerns "aid in dying," a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia.[2] The reasons given for the delay included "to allow additional time for public input."[3]
On July 6, 2012, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide filed additional "public input" including a letter and a legal memorandum titled: "Summary of Legal Arguments Requiring Position Statement No. 20 to be Vacated as a Matter of Law."[4] The letter requested twenty minutes oral argument.[5]
On July 20, 2012, the Board held the postponed hearing. The Board acknowledged that it had received the above documents and also acknowledged the presence of Cory Swanson, attorney for Montanans Against Assisted Suicide. The Board did not allow Mr. Swanson to speak.
The Board did, however, allow a presentation by a DLI staff attorney on position papers generally. The Board asked him a few questions and voted to have their staff thank people in writing for their input. The exact text will be posted once we get it.
Montanans Against Assisted Suicide anticipates a further legal challenge.
[1] See Board of Medical Examiner Minutes for May 7, 2012, Item #5.
[2] See “Model Aid-in-Dying Act,” published in the Iowa Law Review at http://www.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/euthan.html Note the letters “euthan” in the link.
[3] See note 1 at Item #4 (Comments by Craig Charlton and Anne O'Leary; the quote is from Ms. O'Leary).
[4] To see letter, click here. To see legal memorandum, click here.
[5] See letter in note 5.
On July 6, 2012, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide filed additional "public input" including a letter and a legal memorandum titled: "Summary of Legal Arguments Requiring Position Statement No. 20 to be Vacated as a Matter of Law."[4] The letter requested twenty minutes oral argument.[5]
On July 20, 2012, the Board held the postponed hearing. The Board acknowledged that it had received the above documents and also acknowledged the presence of Cory Swanson, attorney for Montanans Against Assisted Suicide. The Board did not allow Mr. Swanson to speak.
The Board did, however, allow a presentation by a DLI staff attorney on position papers generally. The Board asked him a few questions and voted to have their staff thank people in writing for their input. The exact text will be posted once we get it.
Montanans Against Assisted Suicide anticipates a further legal challenge.
* * *
[1] See Board of Medical Examiner Minutes for May 7, 2012, Item #5.
[2] See “Model Aid-in-Dying Act,” published in the Iowa Law Review at http://www.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/euthan.html Note the letters “euthan” in the link.
[3] See note 1 at Item #4 (Comments by Craig Charlton and Anne O'Leary; the quote is from Ms. O'Leary).
[4] To see letter, click here. To see legal memorandum, click here.
[5] See letter in note 5.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
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]
"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]
Monday, July 2, 2012
"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
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
Saturday, June 30, 2012
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:
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:
Friday, June 29, 2012
"He made the mistake of asking for information about assisted suicide"
Dear Board of Medical Examiners:
We are disturbed to hear that the Board has been asked to legalize assisted suicide in Montana. We are writing to express our extreme objection to this development.
Our brother, Wes Olfert, recently died in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. When he was first admitted to the hospital, he made the mistake of asking for information about assisted suicide. We say a mistake, because this set off a chain of events that interfered with his care and caused him unnecessary stress in what turned out to be the last months of his life.
By asking the question, he was given a "palliative care" consult by a doctor who heavily and continually pressured him to give up on treatment before he was ready to do so. It got so bad that Wes actually became fearful of this doctor and asked us and a friend to not leave him alone with her.
Justified or not, Wes was afraid that the doctor would do something to him or have him sign something if she would find him alone. In fact, even though he was on heavy doses of narcotic pain medications and not in a clear state of mind to sign documents without someone to advocate for him, this palliative care MD actually did try to get him to sign a DNR or “Do Not Resuscitate” form without his Durable POA or any family member present. Fortunately, his close friend / POA arrived at that moment in time to stop this from happening.
Some of the other doctors and staff members seemed to also write Wes off once they learned that he had asked about assisted suicide.
We object to any move by this Board to legalize assisted suicide in Montana.
We also question whether this Board would have the authority to do so. Thank you.
Ron Olfert
Marlene Deakins, RN
Sanders County, MT
We are disturbed to hear that the Board has been asked to legalize assisted suicide in Montana. We are writing to express our extreme objection to this development.
Our brother, Wes Olfert, recently died in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. When he was first admitted to the hospital, he made the mistake of asking for information about assisted suicide. We say a mistake, because this set off a chain of events that interfered with his care and caused him unnecessary stress in what turned out to be the last months of his life.
By asking the question, he was given a "palliative care" consult by a doctor who heavily and continually pressured him to give up on treatment before he was ready to do so. It got so bad that Wes actually became fearful of this doctor and asked us and a friend to not leave him alone with her.
Justified or not, Wes was afraid that the doctor would do something to him or have him sign something if she would find him alone. In fact, even though he was on heavy doses of narcotic pain medications and not in a clear state of mind to sign documents without someone to advocate for him, this palliative care MD actually did try to get him to sign a DNR or “Do Not Resuscitate” form without his Durable POA or any family member present. Fortunately, his close friend / POA arrived at that moment in time to stop this from happening.
Some of the other doctors and staff members seemed to also write Wes off once they learned that he had asked about assisted suicide.
We object to any move by this Board to legalize assisted suicide in Montana.
We also question whether this Board would have the authority to do so. Thank you.
Ron Olfert
Marlene Deakins, RN
Sanders County, MT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)