Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Lawsuit Filed to Stop California Assisted Suicide Law!

The Life Legal Defense Foundation filed a lawsuit today challenging California's assisted suicide law.

The civil rights lawsuit alleges Equal Protection violations of individuals labeled terminally ill and was filed by five doctor and by the American Academy of Medical Ethics (AAME),
 
The Act decriminalizes physician-assisted suicide and instantly removes criminal law, elder abuse, and mental-health legal protections from any individual labeled terminally ill.  By contrast, non-labeled Californians have legal protection that makes it a felony to aid, advise, or encourage another to commit suicide.

The lawsuit asks the court to uphold civil and criminal laws that should apply equally to all Californians, including laws that protect people from self-harm and elder abuse laws.

To see a copy of the plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order, click here.

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 [John Kelly, pictured here] -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.