Not Dead Yet Supports HB 505

Dear Senate Judiciary Committee Member:

Not Dead Yet is a national disability rights group with members in Montana.  On behalf of our members, I write to say that we urge you to pass HB 505, which is a short and simple bill to prevent legalization of assisted suicide and end the dispute over whether it is legal in Montana.

In the last two years, three other states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide (Idaho, Georgia and Louisiana).  Not Dead Yet of Georgia was involved in the Georgia efforts.  We met with a woman, Sue Celmer, whose ex-husband had been assisted to commit suicide by Final Exit Network.  He had previously battled cancer, but was cancer free when these suicide predators assisted him.  Her story helped convey the urgency of legislation banning assisted suicide.   We hope that Montana will join Georgia and the other two states to protect older people, our families and ourselves.

Why HB 505 is Needed Now

By Margaret Dore, Esq.

A.  Baxter is Confusing

The Baxter case did not legalize physician-assisted suicide. Suicide proponents, including Dr. Stephen Speckart, have conceded the lack of legality.[1]  Baxter is, however, confusing with even lawyers unable to agree on its meaning.[2] 

B.  The Confusion has Allowed Suicide Proponents to Claim that Assisted Suicide is Legal

This confusion has allowed suicide proponents to claim that assisted suicide is legal.  Indeed, they have convinced the Board of Medical Examiners to issue a statement implying that assisted suicide is legal.  This is "Position Statement No. 20," also called "Board Advisory No. 20." [3]

C.  Suicide Proponents are Recruiting Doctors; Doctors and the Public are at Risk

Suicide proponents have been actively recruiting doctors to perform assisted suicides with the false assurance that it is legally safe to do so.[4]  A doctor so recruited could find himself sued or even convicted of a homicide.  On the other hand, the present confusion could frustrate a civil and/or criminal action by an aggrieved party, such as a son and daughter outraged that the doctor has caused their father's suicide.

With the present situation, it’s hard to know legally what will happen.  Meanwhile, there is no assurance that any such suicide will be voluntary and/or not the product of abuse or coercion, for example, in the inheritance situation.  There is no assurance that the victim will not be a person with many quality years left to live, if only he or she had not been steered to suicide.

D.  The Solution
 
If instead, the law is clarified that physician-assisted suicide is not legal, there will be a clear tool for law enforcement, the medical profession and other interested parties to protect citizens from the negative consequences of assisted suicide legalization  (pressure, steerage, people throwing their lives away,  etc.).

HB 505 does this by clarifying Montana’s existing prohibition against “aiding or soliciting suicide” in 45-5-105.  The bill states:

 "A person who purposely aids or solicits another person to commit suicide, but such suicide does not occur, including physician-assisted suicide, commits the offense of aiding or soliciting suicide."[5]

E.  Tell Your Senator to Vote "Yes" on HB 505

This is why HB 505 is needed now, to stop the confusion to protect both doctors and the public.  Tell your Senators to vote "Yes" on HB 505!

Footnotes

[1]  In 2009, Dr. Speckart testified in support of SB 167, which had sought to legalize assisted suicide in Montana.  He said:  "[M]ost physicians feel significant dis-ease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision."  See transcript at  http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/speckart-transcript.pdf
Senator Anders Blewett made a similar concession, stating:  “[U]nder current law, ... there’s nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution.”   See transcript at http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf
[2]  See e.g. The Montana Lawyer, November 2011, Cover Story:  "The aid-in-dying debate: Can a physician legally help a patient to die in Montana?  Court ruling still leaves the issue open to argument, (with pro-con articles by Senator Anders Blewett and Senator Jim Shockley with Margaret Dore, available at  http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mt-lawyer-cover-story_001.pdf
[3]  The current version of "Position Statement No. 20" is available at http://bsd.dli.mt.gov/license/bsd_boards/med_board/pdf/physician_aid_in_dying.pdf  
[4]  See letter from Stephen Speckart and George Risi, to all active Montana doctors, dated March 5, 2012 (falsely stating that “no basis exists [under Baxter] to prosecute a physician for providing aid in dying [physician-assisted suicide]”).  Available at http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/risispeckart_ltr_001.pdf  This letter attaches the original version of "Position Statement No. 20"  
[5]  HB 505 can be viewed here:  http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billpdf/HB0505.pdf 

Why Do So Many Disability Groups Oppose Physician Assisted Suicide?

by:  James D. McGaughey, Executive Director,

Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities. 

(Adapted from an article that originally appeared in the

International Social Role Valorization Journal in 2010.)

http://www.ct.gov/opapd/cwp/view.asp?Q=519546&A=3683 

In 2009, a proposal that would have legalized Physician Assisted Suicide was introduced in the Connecticut General Assembly.  The language of that proposal paralleled legislation being pursued in other states by Compassion and Choices, a successor organization to the Hemlock Society.  When the proposal was withdrawn without a public hearing, Compassion and Choices moved to the Courts, seeking a judicial ruling that provisions of the Connecticut Statutes prohibiting assisting a person to commit suicide should not be applied to physicians who write lethal prescriptions for their patients.  Their lawsuit was dismissed.  Now, in 2013, it appears that another attempt to legalize Physician Assisted Suicide is being made in Connecticut.  While the details of the current proposals are unavailable as of this writing, they will likely be similar to proposals that are being pursued in other states – proposals that have drawn stiff opposition from disability advocates in those states.
 

Proponents of legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide argue that it’s all about compassion and personal autonomy.  Citing examples of individuals who have ended, or who apparently want to end their lives by taking lethal doses of prescribed drugs, they propose adoption of the euphemistic term “assistance with dying”, and suggest Physician Assisted Suicide be seen as a compassionate alternative to suffering intractable pain or endless, intrusive, de-dignifying medical interventions.  If all we hear is their side of the story it seems reasonable enough.  After all, shouldn’t we have the option of avoiding an ignoble end?  Shouldn’t our doctors be able to prescribe drugs that will do the job quietly and professionally?  Isn’t this a matter of personal choice? What’s wrong with just having the option?  

Leading disability rights groups see plenty of problems with it. A number of well respected organizations, including the National Council on Disability, the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, the World Institute on Disability, Justice For All, TASH (formerly called The Association of the Severely Handicapped), the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), and grass roots groups such as ADAPT and Not Dead Yet have all adopted positions opposing legalization of assisted suicide.  In fact, members of many of these groups have been teaming up with local independent living centers and state-level advocacy coalitions to challenge the state-by state campaign to promote Physician Assisted Suicide.

" I support House Bill 505, which clearly states that assisted suicide is not legal"

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20130313/OPINION/303130037/On-our-minds-Fires-suicide-bill-breweries

My husband, Dr. James E. Mungas, was a respected physician and surgeon here in Great Falls. He developed amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and I took care of him. His mind was clear and thought processes unimpaired. He was against assisted suicide and euthanasia.

I needed to travel out of town for a day and a half. We agreed he would stay at a local care facility in my absence. Once there, nurses began administering morphine. After the first dose, my husband knew that he had been overdosed and typed out a message to call respiratory therapy. None came that day. Over the next few days, he struggled to breathe and desperately struggled to remain conscious to communicate, but the nurses kept pushing the morphine button and advised our children to do the same. My children and I did not understand the extent morphine would repress the respiratory system until later.  This was neither palliative care nor managing pain; this was hastening death. He was effectively euthanized against his will. He did not get his choice. It is traumatic, still, to realize his last communications were attempts to get help.

As illustrated by my husband's case, doctors and nurses already misuse or abuse the power they have. The stakes are too high to consider expanding their power by legalizing assisted-suicide. The recent guest column by Dr. Stephen Speckart and other doctors claims that assisted suicide is already legal. For that reason, I support House Bill 505, which clearly states that assisted suicide is not legal.

— Carol Mungas,
Great Falls

Oregon's New Report Consistent with Elder Abuse

By Margaret Dore, Esq.

Oregon's assisted suicide statistics are out for 2012.[1]

This annual report is similar to prior years.  The preamble implies that the deaths were voluntary (self-administered), but the information reported does not address that subject.[2]

Oregon's assisted suicide law allows the lethal dose to be administered without oversight.[3]  This creates the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent, for example, when the patient is asleep.  Who would know?

The new Oregon report provides the following demographics:  

"Of the 77 DWDA deaths during 2012, most (67.5%) were aged 65 years or older; the median age was 69 years.  As in previous years, most were white (97.4%), [and] well-educated (42.9% had at least a baccalaureate degree) . . . ."[4]  Most (51.4%) had private health insurance.[5]

Typically persons with these attributes are seniors with money, which would be the middle class and above, a group disproportionately victims of financial abuse and exploitation.[6]

As set forth above, Oregon's law is written so as to allow the lethal dose to be administered to patients without their consent and without anyone knowing how they died.  The law thus provides the opportunity for the perfect crime.  Per the new report, the persons dying (or killed) under that law are  disproportionately seniors with money, a group disproportionately victimized by financial abuse and exploitation.

Oregon's new report is consistent with elder abuse.

Footnotes:

[1]  The new report can be viewed here: http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year15.pdf and http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/year-15-2012.pdf
[2]  Id.
[3]  Oregon's law can be viewed here:  http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx
[4]  Report cited at note 1.
[5]  Id.
[6]  See "Broken Trust:  Elders, Family, and Finances," a Study on Elder Financial Abuse Prevention, by the MetLife Mature Market Institute, the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, and the Center for Gerontology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 2009.

Pass HB 505 - Rick Blevins, MD

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013303120037

The Montana Legislature is considering the question of physician-assisted suicide. The Senate has rejected an Oregon-style bill that would have legalized such a practice. The House has passed House Bill 505, which will end the confusion about assisted suicide in Montana. I am in favor of this bill and wish to clarify misconceptions expressed in a Viewpoint article published March 4.


HB 505 seeks to clarify the relevant law, which has been misinterpreted as a result of the Montana Supreme Court Baxter decision of 2009. This decision did not legalize physician assisted suicide, contrary to claims made by authors of the Viewpoint article. The court only stated that a patient’s consent, if given, may be used as a legal defense. Lawyers are scratching their heads about the meaning and the ramifications of this decision which is why the Legislature should act to provide needed clarity.


HB 505 only addresses the aiding or solicitation of suicide, including physician-assisted suicide. It specifically “does not include end of life palliative care in which a dying person receives medication to alleviate pain that may incidentally hasten the dying person’s death or any act to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment” authorized by the Montana Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. The quotes are directly from the text of HB 505.

Please contact your senators and tell them to end the confusion. Please tell them to vote “yes” on HB 505.— Rick Blevins, M.D.,