Saturday, November 21, 2015

California's New Assisted Suicide Law: Whose Choice Will it Be?

http://jurist.org/hotline/2015/10/margaret-dore-physician-assisted-suicide.php

JURIST Guest Columnist Margaret Dore argues that a new law to legalize assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse and family trauma, and that it will encourage people with years to live to throw away their lives...

California has passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide, which is scheduled to go into effect during 2016. "The End of Life Option Act" was sold as giving patients choice and control at the end of life. The bill, in fact, is about ending the lives of people who are not necessarily dying anytime soon and giving other people the "option" to hurry them along. The bill is a recipe for elder abuse and family trauma.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Choice is an Illusion News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 22, 2015

Contact: Margaret Dore, Esq.
206-697-1217

To view pdf, click here

San Francisco, CA -- Opponents of the assisted suicide bill on Governor Jerry Brown's desk spoke out at a San Francisco news conference today to expose how AB2X-15 encourages people with years to live to throw away their lives and is a recipe for elder abuse, in which "qualifying" individuals may be legally murdered for their money.

"The bill is sold as giving people an 'end of life option,'" said Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, a national expert on assisted suicide and euthanasia, who spoke at the San Francisco news conference led by Bay Area political leader Frank Lee.  "The bill is instead about ending the lives of people who aren't necessarily dying anytime soon, and giving other people the 'option' to hurry them along.  Governor Brown should veto this bill, which fails to assure choice and opens the door to lethal abuse."

The bill applies to people with a "terminal disease," which is defined as having a medical prognosis of less than six months to live. "Such persons can, in fact, have years to live," said Dore. "The more obvious reasons are misdiagnosis and the fact that predicting life expectancy is not an exact science. Doctors can sometimes be very wrong."

ABX2-15 is based on laws in Oregon and Washington State. "In Oregon, which has nearly identical terminal disease criteria, 'eligible' persons include young adults with chronic conditions such as insulin-dependent diabetes," Dore said. "Such persons, with appropriate medical care, can have years, even decades, to live."

Dore, an attorney in Washington State, explained "In my law practice, I started out working in guardianships, wills and probate, and saw abuse of all kinds, especially where there was money involved (where there's a will, there are heirs)." Dore elaborated, "And it didn't have to be that much money. The middle class and the poor were also victims."

"The Oregon and Washington laws were enacted by ballot measures in which voters were promised that 'only' the patient would be allowed to self-administer the lethal dose. The Oregon and Washington laws don't say that anywhere --and the California bill is just as bad," said Dore. "These laws create the perfect crime. Your heir can help sign you up, and once the lethal dose is in the home, there is no oversight over administration. If you resisted, who would know?"

"Another way to look at it," Dore said, "is that these laws allow two people to be present at the death. One leaves alive and the other leaves dead, and the one that leaves alive is allowed to inherit from the dead person. What happened?"

Dore concluded, "ABX2-15 creates the perfect crime."

For documentation, see:

1.  Dore memo to Governor Jerry Brown.  To view memo attachments, click here.
2.  Margaret Dore, " Why ABX2-15 Must be Vetoed," Choice Illusion, September 20, 2015, and
3.  Margaret K. Dore, "' Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009,

   - 00 -

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Why ABX2-15 Must be Vetoed

ABX2-15 seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The bill is a recipe for elder abuse in which a "qualifying" individual may be legally murdered for the money.  For more detail, see this memorandum and its attachments.  

KEY POINTS

1. ABX2-15 applies to people with a "terminal disease," which is defined as having a medical prognosis of less than six months to live. (Memo, p.9). Such persons can, in fact, have years, even decades, to live. The more obvious reasons being misdiagnosis and the fact that predicting life expectancy is not an exact science. (Id., pp. 11-12). Doctors can sometimes be widely wrong. (Id.).

2. In Oregon, which has a nearly identical definition of “terminal disease,” eligible persons include young adults with chronic conditions such as insulin dependent diabetes. (Memo, p. 9-11). Such persons, with appropriate medical care, can have years, even decades, to live. 

3. ABX2-15 allows the patient's heir, who will financially benefit from his/her death, to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. (Memo, p. 7). This is an extreme conflict of interest.

4. Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. Not even a witness is required when the lethal dose is administered. If the patient protested or even struggled against administration, who would know? (Memo, pp. 8-9).

5. Assisted suicide can be traumatic for family members as well as patients. (Memo., pp. 12-13)

6. If California follows Washington State, the death certificate is required to be falsified to reflect a natural death. (Memo, pp. 16-18). The significance is a lack of transparency and an inability to prosecute for murder even in a case of outright murder for the money. Id. 

Monday, September 14, 2015

Contact the Governor now to stop assisted suicide/euthanasia.

Outright Lies to Trusting Legislators Gets California Bill to Governor's Desk.  Tell Jerry Brown to Veto ABX2-15 Now!

  • Call 916-445-2841!
  • Fax 916-558-3160 
  • Use this form to send an e-mail to Governor Brown:  https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php  (US Mail will be too slow)

On Friday, September 11th, ABX2-15 passed the Senate just weeks after its initial introduction during a special session called for another purpose. During its short and expedited life, proponents ran roughshod on the facts to induce busy legislators to vote yes. This was evident during the final floor debate in the Senate where proponents repeatedly stated or implied the following, which are not true:

1.  That the bill is limited to people who are actively dying and in pain. The bill doesn't say this anywhere. The bill, instead, applies to people with a "terminal disease" defined as having a prediction of less than six months to live. (Memo, pp.9 -12). Such persons can, in fact, have years, even decades, to live.  (Id.) In Oregon, which has a nearly identical definition, "eligible" persons include young adults with chronic conditions such as insulin dependent diabetes. (Id).

2.  That the bill is "one of the strongest bills regarding patient protections." The bill, however, doesn't even require a witness when the lethal dose is administered.[1] If the patient protested or struggled, who would know?[2] In addition, the bill's various legal "requirements" are not actually "required." This is because participants are merely held to a "good faith" standard.[3] This standard is not defined in the bill, but common meanings include that participants need not comply with legal technicalities when they have honest intent.  See, for example, this legal dictionary definition:
[Good faith means] honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fufill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled.  (Emphasis added).[4] 
For these and other reasons, tell Jerry Brown to veto ABX2-15. For more information, see: Dore letter discussing why the Baker amendments did not fix the bill's problemsDore memo why the financial cost of ABX2-15 could be "enormous"; and a formal memo regarding the bill generally, including "key points," an index, a formal memo and an appendix.

* * *
[1]  See ABX2-15 in its entirety.
[2]  Id.
[3]  ABX2-15, Sections 443.19(d), 443.14(b), 443.14(d)(1) and 443.15(c).
[4]  "Hill" citation at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/good+faith

Friday, September 11, 2015

Governor Brown must veto assisted suicide legislation.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                           

September 11, 2015       

Contact: Margaret Dore
206-697-1217

Sacramento, CA -- In light of today's final passage of assisted suicide legislation by the California State Senate, a national expert on assisted suicide and euthanasia made the following comments.

"The legislation passed today is a wolf in sheep's clothing," said Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusionregarding ABX2-15, which seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide (and euthanasia) in California. "The bill is deceptively written to make it look as if there are substantial patient protections; there are not. The bill is sold as giving people choice and control at the end of life: Instead, it's stacked against the patient and applies to people with years, even decades, to live."

"In my law practice, I started out working in guardianships, wills and probate, and saw abuse of all kinds, especially where there was money involved (where there's a will, there are heirs)," Dore explained. "ABX2-15 sets up the perfect crime: your heir can actively participate in signing you up for the lethal dose and once the lethal dose is in the home, there's no oversight --not even a witness is required. If you resisted or even struggled, who would know?"

Dore concluded, "The ball is now in the governor's court to protect the people of California by vetoing ABX2-15. As a lawyer and a former attorney general, Jerry Brown has the expertise to see the bill for what it really is.  He has all the right reasons to veto this deceptive and unsafe legislation.

For documentation, see www.choiceillusion.org and www.californiaagainstassistedsuicide.org

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Assisted Suicide Bill Narrowly Passes Assembly.

NEWS RELEASE

For the original print version, please click here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 9, 2015

Contact: Margaret Dore
206-697-1217

Sacramento, CA – In light of today’s narrow passage of assisted suicide legislation by the California State Assembly, a national expert on assisted suicide and euthanasia points out a fundamental flaw with today’s floor debate.

“The assemblymembers didn’t focus on the bill’s language,” said Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, regarding ABX2-15, which is modeled on similar laws in Oregon and Washington State.  "The bill is sold as giving people choice and control at the end of life. Yet the bill’s language is stacked against the patient and applies to people with years, even decades, to live.”


“The bill applies to people with a ‘terminal disease,’ which is defined as having less than six months to live.  Most people thinks this means ‘dying,’” Dore said.  "However, in Oregon, which uses a nearly-identical definition of terminal disease, an 18-year-old with insulin-dependent diabetes is ‘eligible’ for assisted suicide.  Doctors are often wrong at predicting life expectancy.  Sadly, this bill encourages people with years, even decades, to live to throw away their lives.”

“In my law practice, I started out working in guardianships, wills and probate, and saw abuse of all kinds, especially where there was money involved (where there's a will, there are heirs),” Dore explained.  “The California bill sets up the perfect crime: your heir can actively participate in signing you up for the lethal dose and once the lethal dose is in the home, there’s no oversight --not even a witness is required. If you resisted or struggled, who would know?"

“The Assembly got caught up in the concept of the bill, when the devil was in the details of the bill text,” Dore said.  “Hopefully, when it goes to the Senate, there will be a closer examination of the text and the raft of problems in the bill. Governor Brown should ready his veto pen for this deceptive legislation.”

For documentation, see www.choiceillusion.org and www.californiaagainstassistedsuicide.org

"Baker" Amendments Unenforceable. Bill Still Allows Non-voluntary and Involuntary Patient Killing Behind Closed Doors.

To view a pdf version, please click here.
September 7, 2015

Dear Assemblymembers:

On September 3, 2015, ABX2-15 was amended at the request of Assemblymember Baker with the goal of assuring voluntary patient consent to administration of the lethal dose. The amendments create a “final attestation form” and two new felonies. The amendments, while well meaning, do not achieve their intended goal.  Indeed, ABX2-15 still allows non-voluntary and involuntary patient killing behind closed doors.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

No on ABX2-15: A Response to Comments Made at Recent Committee Hearings.

1.  New Mexico no longer allows physician-assisted suicide.

2.  Under ABX2-15, requiring the patient to meet alone with the doctor as a protection against undue influence, is not necessarily a safeguard.  See § 443.5(a)(4).  Consider, for example, if the doctor, himself or herself, has an interest in seeing the patient gone. For example, if the doctor botched the patient’s case and wants to eliminate the liability by eliminating the patient.

3. ABX2-15 protects patients by providing that doctors may be sanctioned by their licensing board or agency. See § 443.16(c). Doctors, however, are notoriously bad at policing themselves. For an extreme example, there is the case of Michael Swango MD, who thrill-killed his patients. When hospital administrators became aware of a potential problem, they simply let him go, leaving him free to get another job and start killing again.  See James B. Stewart, “ Blind Eye: How the Medical Establishment Let a Doctor Get Away with Murder,” 1999.

4.  Under ABX2-15, a bad doctor like Swango would be additionally aided by “blanket immunity.“ See Committee Staff Analysis for the Assembly Committee on Public Health and Developmental Services, p. 17 (“the bill provides blanket immunity for health care providers ... even in instances where their actions are grossly negligent”).

Monday, September 7, 2015

John B. Kelly: Second Thoughts Against ABX2-15

Assemblymember:

I hope you will have second thoughts about legalizing assisted suicide in California. Now especially that the California Medical Association secured the removal of any liability clause from  AB2x 15, in the words of the committee staff’s analysis (see page 17), “wanton misconduct” and “gross negligence” will go unpunished.

The replacement clause, that professional licensing boards “may sanction” professional misconduct, is toothless. As we have seen across society, self-interested institutions cannot be trusted to police themselves. Please see the case of Wendy Melcher, who was illegally injected with lethal drugs by two Oregon nurses, completely outside the scope of the law. The nurses were not referred for prosecution, but were secretly dealt with by the state nursing board. The nurses continue to practice today. 

In important ways assisted suicide laws are like death penalty laws: innocent people inevitably lose their lives. A strong consensus is now emerging against the death penalty because mistakes (witness misidentification, false confession) and abuse of the system (prosecutorial and police misconduct) lead to wrongful convictions and executions.

Mistakes and abuse in the medical system are common. People who are misdiagnosed (see John Norton), people who would respond to more treatment (Jeanette Hall), or who would live years longer  (some participants in Oregon have lived almost 3 years after being judged “terminal”) will be led to tragically “choose” death. Assisted suicide programs have offered lethal drugs to patients with severe depression (Michael Freeland) and to people denied treatment (Barbara Wagner). And because not all families are loving or financially secure, innocent people will be bullied or worse by abusive families and beneficiaries.

Saturday, September 5, 2015

The Financial Cost of ABX2-15 Could Be "Enormous."

Below please find a memo submitted to the California Assembly Finance Committee by Margaret Dore, Esq., on September 3, 2015. To view the original document as a pdf, please click here.
_________

I.  INTRODUCTION

ABX2-15 seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide in California. In Oregon, which has a similar law, government reports show an increase in other (conventional) suicides and suicide attempts, the financial cost of which is “enormous.”

If California enacts ABX2-15, the financial cost could also be “enormous.”  ABX2-15 should be rejected.

II.  DISCUSSION

A.  In Oregon, Other (Conventional) Suicides Have Increased with the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide.

In Oregon, physician-assisted suicide has been legal for 17 years.[1] According to the Oregon Health Authority, the number of physician-assisted suicides has been small, but is steadily increasing.[2] This increase is statistically correlated with an increase in other (conventional) suicides.  Consider the following:
∙Oregon's assisted suicide act went into effect “in late 1997.”[3]
∙By 2000, Oregon's conventional suicide rate was "increasing significantly."[4]
∙By 2007, Oregon's conventional suicide rate was 35% above the national average.[5]
∙By 2010, Oregon's conventional suicide rate was 41% above the national average.[6]
This documented increase in conventional suicides, correlated with a steady increase in physician-assisted suicides, is consistent with a suicide contagion in which the legalization of physician-assisted suicide has encouraged other suicides.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

ABX2-15 Talking Points

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

INTRODUCTION

On August 17, 2015, proponents unveiled Bill No. ABX2-15, which seeks to legalize "aid in dying," a term that means assisted suicide and euthanasia.

"Assisted suicide" means that a person assists another person's suicide.  If a physician is involved, the practice may be called "physician-assisted suicide." "Euthanasia" means the direct administration of a lethal agent with the intent to cause another person's death.

ABX2-15, is in substance an old bill (SB 128) that failed due to a lack of support. A detailed analysis of ABX2-15 can be viewed by clicking here and  here.

TALKING POINTS

1.  ABX2-15 Is a Recipe for Elder Abuse. 
  • The patient's heir, who will financially benefit from his/her death, is allowed to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. See memo, p. 6. This fact alone does not meet the "stink test."

HTML Version: Vote "NO" on ABX2-15.

Below, find an html version of Margaret Dore's legal/policy memo opposing ABX2-15. To view the original memo, click here.  If the memo is too large for your computer, click here and here to view it as two smaller documents.

MEMORANDUM

TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

VOTE "NO" ON ABX2-15.  (NO ASSISTED SUICIDE)

UPDATED AUGUST 26, 2015

* * *

OVERVIEW

ABX2-15, the “End of Life Option Act,” seeking to legalize physician-assisted suicide in California is a recipe for elder abuse. The bill is not limited to people who are dying. Indeed, “eligible” persons can have years, even decades, to live.

In Oregon, which has a similar law, that state’s Medicaid program uses coverage incentives to steer people to suicide. If ABX2-15 is enacted, California’s Medicaid program, as well as private insurers, will be able to engage in this same conduct. Do you want this to happen to you or your family?

The bill has a myriad of other problems.  Please vote “No” on ABX2-15.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Updated Materials Against ABX2-15

To view a new materials against ABX2-15, click here and here for a memo and its appendix as separate documents.

Overview 

ABX2-15, the “End of Life Option Act,” seeking to legalize physician-assisted suicide in California is a recipe for elder abuse.  The bill is not limited to people who are dying.  Indeed, “eligible” persons can have years, even decades, to live.

In Oregon, which has a similar law, that state’s Medicaid program uses coverage incentives to steer people to suicide.  If ABX2-15 is enacted, California’s Medicaid program, as well as private insurers, will be able to engage in this same conduct.  Do you want this to happen to you or your family?

The bill has a myriad of other problems.  Please vote “No” on ABX2-15.

Monday, August 24, 2015

California's ABX2-15: Governor Not Impressed; Bill Is But A "New Number With the Same Song."

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

On August 17, 2015, the deceptively named Compassion & Choices unveiled its "new" deceptively named End of Life Option Act to great fanfare in a press credentialed only press conference.

Governor Jerry Brown has already weighed in that the present special session "is not the appropriate venue to consider the issue."

The new bill, ABX2-15, is in substance an old bill (SB 128) that was unable to make it out of committee.

ABX2-15 has some new provisions and puts some of the old bill's provisions in a different order. ABX2-15 is in substance the same bill as the old bill. Key points include:
  • ABX2-15 applies to patients with a "terminal disease." In Oregon, which has a similar law, such persons include young adults with chronic conditions such as insulin dependent diabetes and chronic lower respiratory disease. People living with HIV/AIDS, who are dependent on their medication to live, also qualify as "terminal." Such persons can have years, even decades, to live. 
  • Once a person is "labeled 'terminal,' an easy justification can be made that his or her treatment or coverage should be denied in favor of someone more deserving."[1] In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, patients are not only denied coverage for treatment, they are offered assisted suicide instead.[2] Well known cases are Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.[3]
  • The bill remains a recipe for elder abuse in which the patient's heir, who will financially benefit from his or her death, is allowed to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. This fact alone does not meet the "stink test." 
  • Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. Not even a witness is required at the death. If the patient struggled, who would know?
  • The death certificate is required to be falsified to reflect a natural death. The significance is a lack of transparency and an inability to prosecute for murder even in a case of outright murder for the money.

ABX2-15 is but a new number with the same song. Don't be fooled.

To view a detailed legal/policy analysis of ABX2-15, please click on the following links: Executive summary and indexMemo; and Appendix/Attachments.

* * *

[1] Opinion Letter by Richard Wonderly MD and Attorney Theresa Schrempp, available athttps://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/schrempp_wonderly_opn_ltr1.pdf
[2] Id.
[3] Id.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Memo to the California State Assemblymembers: Vote "No" on SB 128.

The original pdf version of this memo has an executive summary and index, which can be viewed here. The attachments can be viewed here.

I. INTRODUCTION.

I am an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.[1] Our law is based on a similar law in Oregon. Both laws are similar to the proposed California bill, SB 128.[2] 

Enactment of SB 128 will create new paths of elder abuse. “Eligible” patients will include people with years, even decades, to live.  

I urge you to reject this measure. Do not make Washington’s and Oregon’s mistake.

Saturday, August 1, 2015

California's Prohibition Against Assisted Suicide Is Constitutional

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

A California trial court has upheld the constitutionality of that state's criminal statute prohibiting assisted suicide, which states:
Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony.
Penal Code § 401

The court's reasoning is contained in a 19 page "Ruling on Demurrer," filed on July 24, 2015. The ruling uses the term, "Aid in Dying" to mean physician-assisted suicide.  The term also means euthanasia. The court states in part:
Since "Aid in Dying" is quicker and less expensive, there is a much greater potential for its abuse, e.g,, greedy heirs-in-waiting, cost containment strategies, ímpulse decision-making, etc. Moreover, since it can be employed earlier in the dying process, there is a substantial risk that in many cases, it may bring about a patently premature death. For example, consider that a terminally ill patient, not in pain but facing death within the next six months, may opt for “Aid in Dying”' instead of working through what might have been just a transitory period of depression. Further, "Aid in Dying" creates the possible scenario of someone taking his life based upon an erroneous diagnosis of a terminal illness illness, which was, in fact, a mis-diagnosis that could have been brought to light by the passage of time. After all, doctors are not infallible.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

"Big Business" and Assisted Suicide

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA*

Assemblyman Roger Hernandez was recently quoted as concerned that big business would use California's assisted suicide proposal, SB 128, to "guide people in that direction," meaning early death via a lethal overdose.

This is a valid concern.

I am an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. Our law is based on a similar law in Oregon. Both laws are similar to SB 128, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in California.

In Oregon, it is well documented that Oregon's Medicaid program uses coverage incentives to steer people to suicide.  See Affidavit of Oregon doctor, Ken Stevens, pp 3-4 at https://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/dr-stevens-affidavit_001.pdf  With legal assisted suicide, private health plans have this same ability.  Dr. Stevens states:
If assisted suicide is legalized in [your state], your government health plan could follow a similar pattern.  Private health plans could also follow this pattern.  If so, these plans would pay for you and/or your family to die, but not to live.  (Emphasis added).
Id, ¶16.

Dr. Stevens also notes that the mere presence of legal assisted suicide steers people to suicide, which was the case with his patient Jeanette Hall.  Her cancer treatment was fully covered, but with the existence of Oregon's law, she nonetheless became adamant that she would kill herself.  Dr. Stevens convinced her to be treated instead.  (Affidavit, ¶¶ 5-9).  She is alive today, fifteen years later.

As for Assemblyman Hernandez's specific "big business concern," in 2013, a Montana State Senator made a similar observation:
I found myself wondering, Where does all the lobby money come from?  If it really is about a few terminally ill people who might seek help ending their suffering, why was more money spent on promoting assisted suicide than any other issue in Montana?
Could it be that convincing an ill person to end their life early will help health insurance companies save a bundle on what would have been ongoing medical treatment?  How much would the government gain if it stopped paying social security, Medicare, or Medicaid a few months early? [it could actually be years earlier].  How much financial relief would pension systems see?  Why was the proposed law to legalize assisted suicide [SB 220] written so loosely?  Would vulnerable old people be encouraged to end their life unnecessarily early by those seeking financial gain? 
http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/06/beware-of-vultures-senator-jennifer.html

Finally, there is the expansion issue. In Washington State, we have had informal "trial balloon" proposals to expand our law to non-terminal people. For me, the most disturbing one was in the Seattle Times, which is our largest paper. A column suggested euthanasia as a solution for people without funds in their old age, which could be any of us, say if the company pension plan went broke.**

Assemblyman Hernandez is right to be concerned about what could happen to his constituents if SB 128 is passed.

Don't let California make Washington and Oregon's mistake.  Urge your legislators to vote "NO" on SB 128.

///
               
* Margaret Dore is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and the Washington State Court of Appeals.  She is a former Chair of the Elder Law Section of the ABA Family Law Committee.  She also worked for a year with the United States Department of Justice.  She is president of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia.  To learn more, see www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org

**  Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," The Seattle Times, March 8, 2012 ("After Monday's column, . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.") (Emphasis added). https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/jerry-large_001.pdf

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

SB 128 Defeated!

SB 128 Defeated!

The bill did not have the votes to go forward in Committee, and is reportedly dead for the year.

Special thanks to Nina Rhea, Mike Hodas and everyone else who went the extra mile to defeat the bill.

THANK YOU!

Margaret Dore

Monday, June 22, 2015

SB 128 Questions & Answers

For more detailed information
click on these links to see a
 memo and attachments by
attorney Margaret Dore.
See also this press release.


1.  What does SB 128 do?

SB 128 seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

2.  What is physician-assisted suicide?

In the context of SB 128, a doctor writes a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of a patient's suicide. Other people, such as family members, are allowed to assist the suicide, for example, by: suggesting suicide to dad; picking up the lethal dose at the pharmacy; and handing the lethal dose to dad for the purpose of his committing suicide.  

3.  What is euthanasia?

Euthanasia is the direct administration of a lethal dose by someone else to cause another person's death.

4.  How does SB 128 create the perfect crime?

Older people with money are already at risk of abuse and even death at the hands of their family members and other predators wanting an inheritance, life insurance, etc.  With SB 128, there is the creation of the perfect crime:

  • The death is allowed to occur in private, without witnesses.  Even if the person struggled, who would know?
  • After the person dies, the death certificate is REQUIRED to reflect a natural death.*
  • Death benefits under a will or due to life insurance are required to be paid out as if the person had died of a terminal disease.*

5.  Why is it true that people eligible for assisted suicide/euthanasia may have years, even decades, to live? 

SB 128 applies to people with a “terminal disease,” which is defined in terms of a doctor’s determination of less than six months to live. In real life, such persons can have years, even decades to live.  This true for many reasons, including:

  • The six months to live determination is made without treatment.  People with chronic conditions, such as insulin dependent diabetes, are “terminal” for the purpose of assisted suicide because they are dependent on insulin to live:  Without insulin, they will with reasonable medical certainty die in less that six months.
  • Predicting life expectancy is not an exact science so that doctors are sometimes wrong, and sometimes way wrong.
  • Treatment can lead to recovery.

*  Recent amendments to SB 128 did not eliminate the requirement that the death certificate be falsified to reflect a terminal disease.  Rather they moved the requirement to the fine print.  See memo, pp 6-8.  

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

California Assembly Health Committee: Vote NO on SB 128

I am an attorney from Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  Enclosed please find a memo and attachments in opposition to SB 128.  Points include:
  • SB 128 will legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia for young adults with chronic conditions such as diabetes.
  • There is a complete lack of oversight when the lethal dose is administered (even if the patient struggled, who would know?)
  • The bill requires falsification of the death certificate, which will prevent legal recourse and justice to patients and their families harmed by the bill.
If SB 128 becomes law, people with years, even decades to live, will be encouraged to throw away their lives; patients and their families will be traumatized. 

SB 128, as written, will allow the perfect crime.  Even if you like the concept of assisted suicide and euthanasia, SB 128 is the wrong bill.

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, PS
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org
1001 4th Avenue,  Suite 4400
Seattle, WA  98154

206 389 1754

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Sign Our Petition!

Sign our petition against SB 128:

1.  Click this link to print a petition.

2.  Print the petition from the link above, sign it, get your friends and neighbors to sign it, and fax the completed petition to 206 389 1530.

3.  For any questions, contact:  contact.turnoutcalifornia@gmail.com

YOUR ACTION WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE - THANK YOU!

Choice is an Illusion

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

"Medical killing is already occurring in California and elsewhere, which is causing much suffering and tearing families apart"

Dear Senators,
I am writing to urge you to vote "NO" on SB 128, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Medical killing is already occurring in California and elsewhere, which is causing much suffering and tearing families apart. 
California cases are documented at this website link to the Kaiser papers: http://kaiserpapers.org/abt.html
Another case in point is my mother who died a horrible death by medically supervised dehydration.  See here.
Meanwhile, attorney Margaret Dore reports on two cases in her recent press release involving legal assisted suicide, in which both patients and their families were traumatized: the second case implies an actual murder.  See here.
It's time to stop the madness. Please send a strong statement by voting NO.
What happens in California will likely affect the rest of the world. I urge you to please vote against SB 128.
Thank you,
Kate Kelly, B.A., B.Ed.
Northwest Territories, Canada

Monday, June 1, 2015

Dr. Bill Toffler: "I hope that California does not repeat Oregon’s mistake."

Dear Senator,

I have been a professor of family medicine and a practicing physician in Oregon for more than 30 years. I write to provide some insight on the issue of assisted suicide, which is legal in Oregon, and which has been proposed for legalization in California (SB 128, which seeks to pass an Oregon-style assisted suicide bill).

Oregon’s law applies to “terminal” patients who are predicted to have less than six months to live.  In practice, this idea of “terminal” has recently become stretched to include people with chronic conditions, such as “chronic lower respiratory disease” and “diabetes”.  Persons with these conditions are considered terminal if they are dependent on their medications, such as insulin, to live.  They are unlikely die in less than six months unless they don’t receive their medications.  Such persons, with treatment, could otherwise have years or even decades to live.

This illustrates a great problem with our law — it encourages people with years to live, to throw away their lives.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Attorney slams California suicide bill

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Attorney slams California suicide bill

Dore: “Even if you like the concept of assisted suicide, SB 128 is the wrong bill.”

Contact: Margaret Dore (206) 697-1217


Seattle, WA -- Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought assisted suicide legalization efforts in many states and now California, made the following statement after the California Senate Appropriations Committee passed SB 128 on May 28, sending the assisted suicide bill to the Senate floor.

"SB 128 is sold as giving people an 'end of life option,’” Dore said. “The fact is this bill is about ending the lives of people who aren’t necessarily dying anytime soon, and giving other people the ‘option’ to hurry them along."

Dore, an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal, explained, “In my law practice, I started out working in guardianships, wills and probate, and saw abuse of all kinds, especially where there was money involved (where there's a will, there are heirs). Then, in 2008, I got dragged to a meeting about our assisted suicide law and saw the perfect crime: your heir could help sign you up, and once the lethal dose was in the house, there was no oversight. Not even a witness is required. If you struggled, who would know?"

Saturday, May 23, 2015

SB 128: The Promise of Patient Choice and Control is False; the Potential Cost is Enormous.

This is a memo to the California State Senate. To view the original hard copy version, please click here.  To view the attachments, click here. A web version below.

Thank you for your interest. Please tell your Senators to vote NO on SB 128.

Margaret Dore. Esq., MBA
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org

I.  INTRODUCTION 

I am an attorney in Washington State where physician-assisted suicide is legal.[1] Our law is modeled on a similar law in Oregon. Both laws are similar to the proposed bill, SB 128.[2]

SB 128 seeks to legalize both physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, which it terms “aid-in-dying.” The term, aid-in-dying, is traditionally a term for euthanasia.[3] “Eligible” patients may have years, even decades, to live.

The bill is also promoted as assuring patient choice and control, which is false. I urge you to reject this measure. Do not make Washington and Oregon’s mistake.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Assisted Suicide: How One Woman Chose to Die, Then Survived

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/18/assisted-suicide-how-one-woman-chose-to-die-then-survived/

Kelsey Harkness / 
In 1994, Jeanne Hall, a resident of King City, Ore., voted in favor of Ballot Measure 16, which for the first time in the United States, would allow terminally ill patients to end their own lives through physician-assisted suicide.

“I thought, hey, I wouldn’t want anyone to suffer,” Hall told The Daily Signal. “So I checked it. Then it became legal.”

That day at the ballot box, Hall never could have predicted that more than 15 years later, she would be diagnosed with inoperable colon cancer.

Doctors gave Hall, who was 55 at the time, two options: She could get radiation and chemotherapy and attempt to fight the cancer, or she could take a lethal dose of barbiturates to end her life.

“I was calling it over,” she said. “I wasn’t going to do chemo. When I heard what might take place in radiation "I wasn’t going to do it. I looked for the easy way out.”

Without treatment, Hall was given six months to a year to live, and therefore qualified for physician-assisted suicide through Oregon’s Death With Dignity law.

“She was terminal because she was refusing treatment,” Dr. Kenneth Stevens, one of Hall’s two cancer doctors, told The Daily Signal. “It’s like a person could be considered terminal if they’re not taking [their] insulin or [other] medications.”

Thursday, May 14, 2015

An open letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Enactment of SB 128 could cost millions.

I was prepared to testify at the hearing on SB 128, but the opposition was only allowed two speakers and I would have been the third. Below, please find my prepared remarks:

* * * 

Chairman Lara and Members of the Committee:

Enactment of SB 128 will potentially cost California millions of dollars. I say this due to Oregon's experience with a similar law. SB 128 is modeled on that law.

I have prepared a memo with backup documentation, which supports what I'm saying. I have also provided you with individual tabbed copies.

Monday, May 4, 2015

Memo to Senate Appropriations Committee: "Vote 'NO' on SB 128: The financial impact is potentially 'enormous.'"

By Margaret K. Dore, Esq., MBA
To view a pdf version,  please click here.

A. Introduction

SB 128 seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide.  The bill is based on a similar law in Oregon, which was enacted in 1997.  In Oregon, the law is rarely used, but since passage, there has been a significant increase in other (conventional) suicides.  This increase is consistent with a suicide contagion in which legalization and promotion of physician-assisted suicide has led to an increase in other suicides.  Moreover, the financial cost is “enormous.”  A government report from Oregon states:
In 2010 alone, self-inflicted injury hospitalization charges exceeded 41 million dollars.
This Committee must vote NO unless the proponents can show that California will not have a similar increase in conventional suicides. Otherwise, the financial cost in California could be “enormous.”

Sunday, May 3, 2015

"SB 128 has the potential for a large and adverse financial impact on the state of California."

Letter submitted to the Senate Appropriations Committee (edited for the web):

Please accept this cover letter and memo in opposition to SB 128 for the purpose of the May 11th hearing. 

Based on the "Oregon experience," passage of SB 128 has the potential for a large and adverse financial impact on the state of California.  The cover letter explains why as follows:
SB 128 seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide. 
In Oregon, which has had a similar law since 1997, legalization is statistically correlated with an increase in other suicides.  This increase is consistent with a suicide contagion in which the legalization of one type of suicide (physician-assisted) has led to an increase in other (conventional) suicides.  Moreover, the financial cost is "enormous."  A government report from Oregon states:
"In 2010 alone, self-inflicted injury hospitalization charges exceeded 41 million dollars."  (Emphasis added).
Here are the full links:  

https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/dore-ltr-ca-sen-appr-com_001.pdf

https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/sb-128-senate-appropriations-memo-updated.pdf

Thank you for your consideration.

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA, President
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
www.choiceillusion.org 
www.margaretdore.com 
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA  98154

Monday, April 20, 2015

SB 128 Amended

Today, SB 128 was amended and re-referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

See this link for the new text:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_128_bill_20150414_amended_sen_v97.html

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

Friday, April 17, 2015

Problems with SB 128

SB 128 seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in California.

Under the bill, young adults with chronic conditions, such as diabetes, are "eligible" for assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The bill, if passed, will create the following problems:

  • The encouragement of people with years to live to throw away their lives.  
  • The creation of new paths of elder abuse, especially for people with money (in the inheritance context).
  • The empowerment of health care systems to steer patients to suicide, which is well documented in Oregon, one of the few states where assisted suicide is legal. 
  • A likely increase in other "conventional" suicides, including violent suicides by firearms.   

To view documentation regarding these problems, and other problems with legalization, please click here for the text; click here for the attachments.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Protect your healthcare. Don't let legal assisted suicide come to California.

Kenneth Stevens, MD
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article17359709.html#storylink=cpy (fourth
letter down)

I am a doctor in Oregon, one of the few states where assisted suicide is legal. I have been following the progress of California’s assisted-suicide bill [SB 128] with alarm.

Here in Oregon, our Medicaid program steers patients to suicide, which is covered in lieu of treatments for cure or to extend life. Private health plans and providers have this same ability.

I first became involved with the assisted suicide issue shortly before my first wife died of cancer in 1982. We had just made what would be her last visit with her doctor. As we were leaving, he suggested that she overdose herself on medication. I still remember the look of horror on her face. She said “Ken, he wants me to kill myself.”

Protect your health care. Don’t let legal assisted suicide come to California.

DR. KENNETH STEVENS, SHERWOOD, ORE.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Brother pressured and written off

A few years ago, my brother, Wes Olfert, died in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. 

When he was first admitted to the hospital, he made the mistake of asking about assisted suicide.  I 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.  Other doctors and staff members also lost interest in helping him once they learned that he had asked about assisted suicide.

With legal assisted suicide, by brother's choice was not enhanced; he was instead written off and pressured to die.  Assisted suicide should not be legal.

Marlene Deakins, RN
Tuscon Arizona