Showing posts with label Margaret Dore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Margaret Dore. Show all posts

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Dore Testimony Excerpt Opposing SB 1129 SD 1

Margaret Dore, Esq.
 "[W]ill people be killed by
their heirs and other
perpetrators in a black hole
of  wishful thinking?"
To Chairman Keith-Agaran and members of the Committee:

[The proposed act in SB 1129 SD 1 seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide and allow euthanasia. My memo and documentation opposing the act can be viewed here and here].

The act will encourage people with years or decades to live to throw away their lives.  (See memo, pp 3-6). The act is a recipe for elder abuse, especially for those in the middle class and above in the inheritance situation. (Id., pp. 8-9). The act creates the perfect crime in which the death is allowed to occur in private, without oversight, and the death certificate gives perpetrators a "stay out of jail free card."  (Id., pp. 10-13).

Monday, January 27, 2014

"Is there a way to allow a person to end his life without making someone else a criminal?"

By Margaret Dore, Esq.

A legislator considering an assisted suicide law asked me this question:  "Is there a way to allow a person to end his life without making someone else a criminal?"

This was my (slightly edited) response:

People take their lives all the time.  One of my cousins shot himself and another threw himself in front of a train.  There was no criminality involved.  Also, if people are in pain, palliative care laws allow medical personnel to give patients copious amounts of drugs, including up to sedation, which can hasten the patient's death. This is the principal of double effect.  This is legal.  For more information, read the Affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, page 3, paragraph 13.

There is also palliative care abuse in which no one seems to be held accountable, except for maybe one case in California where doctors relied on a wealthy patient's daughters, who said that their father was really bad off and didn't want treatment, which was not the case.  At least, that's what's claimed by the man's son. See William Dotinga, "Grim Complaint Against Kaiser Hospital," Court House News Service, February 6, 2012.

I've had like 15-20 contacts in the past year by people upset about their family member being suddenly off'd by medical personnel and/or having DNR's put on family members/friends without the patient's consent.  My caregiver friends also talk about guarding their patients in the hospital.  Here are some letters from Montana.  http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/04/dont-give-doctors-more-power-to-abuse.html

Here's a letter from Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. The letter talks about doctors being quick with the morphine and also regarding the conduct of an adult son shortly after our assisted suicide law was passed ("an adult child of one of our clients asked about getting the pills [to kill the father].  It wasn't the father saying that he wanted to die").  http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/07/dear-montana-board-of-medical-examiners.html  Here's a letter from a wife about how she was afraid to leave her husband alone after a doctor pitched assisted suicide to her husband. http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/01/i-was-afraid-to-leave-my-husband-alone.html

There is also the issue that people who say they want to die don't mean it, as with any suicide.  See http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/what-people-mean-when-they-say-they.html

I've had two clients whose fathers signed up for the Oregon/Washington assisted suicide acts.  With the first case, one side of the family wanted the father to use the act and the other side didn't.  He spent the last months of his life torn over whether of not he should kill himself.  His daughter was also traumatized.  He died a natural death.  There is a Swiss study that you might be interested in, that 1 out of 5 family members were traumatized by witnessing the legal assisted suicide of a family member.  See http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/family-members-traumatized-eur-psych-2012.pdf

In my other case, the father had two suicide parties and it's not clear that it was voluntary.  My client, his son, was told that his dad had said "You're not killing me, I'm going to bed").  Regarding the next day, my client was told that his dad was already high on alcohol when he drank the lethal dose.  But then the person telling him this changed his story.  In Montana, Senator Jeff Essman, made a relevant observation regarding this point:
"[All] the protections [in Oregon's law] end after the prescription is written.  [The proponents] admitted that the provisions in the Oregon law would permit one person to be alone in that room with the patient. And in that situation, there is no guarantee that that medication is self-administered.
So frankly, any of the studies that come out of the state of Oregon's experience are invalid because no one who administers that drug . . . to that patient is going to be turning themselves in for the commission of a homicide."
Senate Judiciary Hearing on SB 167 on February 10, 2011

I, however, doubt that a person in Oregon could be prosecuted.  If you read the act carefully, there is no requirement of patient consent to administration of the lethal dose, and to the extent that's ambiguous, there's the rule of lenity.  In Washington State, prosecutors are required to report assisted suicide deaths as "Natural" - no matter what - at least, that's what the regulation says:  http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDAMedCoroner.pdf   How can you prosecute someone for homicide if the death is required to be reported as "Natural?"

Here in Washington, we have already had some informal proposals to expand the scope of our assisted suicide act.  One in particular disturbed me.  A Seattle Times column suggested euthanasia as a solution for people unable to support themselves, which would be involuntary euthanasia.  See Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," March 8, 2012, which states:
"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)
So, if you worked hard and paid taxes all your life and then your company pension plan goes belly up, this is how you want society to pay you back?

As a Democrat, I see us as looking out for the little guy, not passing laws to protect perpetrators, healthcare systems, etc. from legitimate claims.  I hope that you will vote against any effort to legalize assisted suicide/euthanasia.

Thank you for writing me back.

Margaret Dore

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Elder Abuse is not a Trend that Anyone Should Follow

Bradley Williams to the New England Journal of Medicine:

Your article, "Redefining Physicians’ Role in Assisted Dying," is based on two false premises, that legalizing physician-assisted suicide is a trend, and that the only thing stopping this trend is opposition by the medical establishment and physicians. Hence, the article proposes removing physicians from the process by putting a government bureaucracy in charge of assisted suicides. Talk about 1984 and Big Brother watching you.

The article omits that Idaho, Louisiana and Georgia recently strengthened their laws against assisted-suicide.[1] The article also omits that the Attorney General of Hawaii recently issued a opinion against assisted-suicide.[2] The article wrongly implies that a court case in my state, Montana, legalized assisted-suicide. That case merely gives doctors a potential defense to a homicide charge.[3][4]

There are just two states where assisted suicide is legal, Oregon and Washington. In these states, legalization has created new paths of elder abuse.[5] This is not a "trend" that anyone should follow.

To learn more about problems with legal assisted-suicide, see: www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org

Bradley D. Williams
Coordinator
Montanans Against Assisted Suicide &
For Living with Dignity

www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org
610 North 1st St., Suite 5-285
Hamilton, MT 59840

bradley@montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org

* * *

[1] Margaret Dore, "US Overview," "‘Choice’ is an Illusion," July 30, 2012, available at http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/us-overview.html (regarding Idaho, Louisiana and Georgia and linking to source documentation)
[2] Id. (regarding Hawaii)
[3] Greg Jackson & Matt Bowman, "Analysis of Implications of the Baxter Case on Potential Criminal Liability," Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity, April 2010, available at http://montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Analysis-of-Baxter.pdf
[4] Senator Jim Shockley and Margaret Dore, "No, physician-assisted suicide is not legal in Montana: It's a recipe for elder abuse and more," The Montana Lawyer, November 2011 (1 of 2 pro-con articles featured in the issue’s cover story) , available at http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/montana-lawyer-article.html
[5] Id.

Friday, August 31, 2012

New England Journal of Medicine Article Misleading


Dear Editor:

I am a lawyer in Washington State, one of two states where assisted-suicide is legal.  The other state is Oregon, which has a similar law.  Lisa Lehmann's article, "Redefining Physicians' Role in Assisted Dying," is misleading regarding how these laws work.

First, the Oregon and Washington laws are not limited to people in their "final months" of life.[1,2]  Consider for example, Jeanette Hall, who in 2000 was persuaded by her doctor to be treated rather than use Oregon's law.  She is alive today, twelve years later.[3]

Second, these laws are not "safe" for patients.[4][5]  For example, neither law requires a witness at the death.  Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for the patient's heir, or someone else who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent.  Even if he struggled, who would know?  

Third, the fact that persons using Oregon's law are "more financially secure" than the general population is consistent with elder financial abuse, not patient safety.  Do not be deceived. 

* * *

[1]  Margaret K. Dore, "Aid in Dying: Not Legal in Idaho; Not About Choice," The Advocate, official publication of the Idaho State Bar, Vol. 52, No. 9, pages 18-20, September 2010, available at http://www.margaretdore.com/pdf/Not_Legal_in_Idaho.pdf.
[2]  Kenneth Stevens, MD, Letter to the Editor, "Oregon mistake costs lives," The Advocate, official publication of the Idaho State Bar, Vol. 52, No. 9, pages 16-17, September 2010, available athttp://www.margaretdore.com/info/September_Letters.pdf 
[3]  Ms. Hall corresponded with me on July 13, 2012.
[4]  See article at note 1.  See also Margaret Dore, "Death with Dignity": A Recipe for Elder Abuse and Homicide (Albeit Not by Name)," at 11 Marquette Elder's Advisor 387 (Spring 2010), original and updated version available at http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/the-oregon-washington-assisted-suicide.html 
[5]  Blum, B. and Eth, S.  "Forensic Issues: Geriatric Psychiatry." InKaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, Seventh Edition, B. Sadock and V. Sadock editors.  Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, pp. 3150-3158, 2000. 

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Dore v Morris: Assisted suicide debate deals with abuse, compassion

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20120419/KAMLOOPS0101/120419759/-1...

Lawyer cautions against legislating through courts

By Mike Youds, Daily News Staff Reporter
 
Margaret Dore (L) and Wanda Morris (R)
A right to medically assisted suicide may sound compassionate and just, but beware the details when it comes to the act itself, a U.S. lawyer warned Wednesday in a debate at TRU.

Margaret Dore shared some of her experiences with assisted suicide in Washington State, where the practice became legal through a ballot measure four years ago.


 "A lot of people think this is a great idea until they start thinking and reading about how you do it," she told an audience of about 30 people in the Irving K. Barber Centre.

In effect, laws in Washington and Oregon empower people who may choose to abuse the responsibility, Dore said.

"Your heir can be there to help you sign up. Once the legal dose leaves the pharmacy, there is no oversight whatsoever."

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Assisted Suicide is Not "Already Legal"

By Margaret Dore 

Assisted suicide proponents have a new claim, that physician-assisted suicide, termed, "aid in dying," is already legal in Hawaii.  The claim, contained in a brief prepared by Kathryn Tucker, is based in part on a 1909 statute.[1]  The claim fails for the reasons set forth below.

A.  Hawaii's Manslaughter Statute Applies 

Tucker argues that Hawaii's manslaughter statute, providing that an individual commits manslaughter if "[t]he person intentionally causes another person to commit suicide," does not apply to "aid in dying" because aid in dying is not "suicide."[2]  Just last year, in Blick v. Connecticut, Tucker made a similar argument that was summarily rejected by the trial court.[3]  The trial judge stated:

"[T]he legislature intended the [manslaughter] statute to apply to physicians who assist a suicide . . ." [4]

B.  The 1909 Statute

Tucker's brief states:

"Hawaii law . . . contains a unique provision that gives physicians broad discretion when treating terminally ill patients: '[W]hen a duly licensed physician or osteopathic physician pronounces a person affected with any disease hopeless and beyond recovery and gives a written certificate to that effect to the person affected or the person’s attendant nothing herein shall forbid any person from giving or furnishing any remedial agent or measure when so requested by or on behalf of the affected person.'"[5]

She further states:  "Added in 1909, the purpose of this provision was to give terminally ill patients the option to obtain treatment that had not yet been approved by the government."[6]

C.  Bills Have Repeatedly Failed

In Hawaii, bills to enact physician-assisted suicide have repeatedly failed and/or been defeated in the Legislature since at least 2002.[7] This fact alone is sufficient to defeat Tucker's claim that the above statute has somehow already legalized assisted suicide.  Consider for example, Lawrence v. Lawrence, 105 Wn.App. 683, 687-8, 20 P.3d 972 (2001).  The Washington State Court of Appeals held that the "friendly parent concept" was not the law because bills to enact it had been rejected by the legislature.  In Hawaii, bills to enact physician-assisted suicide have repeatedly failed and/or been rejected in the legislature.  For this reason alone, physician-assisted suicide is not the law of Hawaii.

D.  False and "Malarky"

Tucker argues that "aid in dying" should emerge in Hawaii as a practice governed by a developing standard of care due to the influence of Oregon, Washington and Montana.[8]  This is similar to an argument she made last year in The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar.[9]  She claimed that "aid in dying" was already legal in Idaho due to the law of Oregon, Washington and Montana.[10]  In The Advocate's next issue, a former Chief Justice and other lawyers denounced her reasoning as "false" and "malarkey."[11] 

E.  Matters Not Addressed

Tucker's brief does not address address language in the Hawaiian Pain Patient's Bill of Rights, which states:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to: . . .  prohibit the discipline or prosecution of a licensed physician for: . . . Causing, or assisting in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual  . . ."[12]

Her brief also fails to address Hawaii caselaw, which imposes a duty of care to prevent suicide on a defendant with actual custody of a suicidal person.[13]  In other words, civil damages can be imposed for failing to prevent a suicide in Hawaii.[14] 

* * *
Margaret Dore is President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposing assisted suicide and euthanasia.  She is also an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  For more information, see www.ChoiceIllusion.orgwww.margaretdore.com

* * *
[1]  See e.g. Kathryn Tucker, "End-of-life Law and Policy in Hawaii Aid in Dying," as of September 20, 2011, available at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/tucker-brief_0011.pdf 
[2]  Tucker, note 1 above, Section II.B. ("Criminal Prohibitions Governing End-of-Life Care").
[3]  http://www.choiceillusionconnecticut.org/p/connecticut-2.html, paragraph 3.
[4]  Id., paragraph 4.
[5]  Tucker, note 1 above, Section II.A. ("Hawaii Law Empowers Patients to Make Autonomous End-of-Life Treatment Decisions")
[6]  Id.
[7]  Tucker concedes that bills to legalize physician-assisted suicide have been proposed and failed since 2002.  See Tucker, note 1 above, second paragraph.  Just this year, Senate Bill 803 bill was voted down in Committee, 4 to 0.
[8]  Tucker, note 1 above, Sections titled:  "Aid in Dying Should be Governed by Standard of Care," "Aid in Dying in Other States" and "Conclusion:  Aid in Dying Can and Should Emerge as an End-of-Life Option in Hawaii as a Practice Governed by Standard of Care."
[9]  See Kathryn Tucker & Christine Salmi, "Aid in Dying: Law, Geography and Standard of Care in Idaho, 53 The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, No. 8, 42-45 (2010).
[10]  Id.
[11]  Hon. Robert E. Bakes et al, Letters to the Editor, 53 The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, No. 9, 15-17 (2010).
[12]  Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 327H-2.
[13]  See e.g., Schwenke v. Outrigger Hotels, 122 Hawai'i 389, 392 (2010).
[14]  Id.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Assisted Suicide is Not "Already Legal"

Kathryn Tucker, Director of Legal Affairs for the mainland assisted suicide organization,  Compassion & Choices, claims that assisted suicide is already legal in Hawaii.[1]  Her claim, based in part on a 1909 statute, fails for the reasons set forth below.

A.  Hawaii's Manslaughter Statute Applies

Tucker argues that Hawaii's manslaughter statute, providing that an individual commits manslaughter if "[t]he person intentionally causes another person to commit suicide," does not apply to "aid in dying" because aid in dying is not "suicide."[2]  Just last year, in Blick v. Connecticut, Tucker made a similar argument that was summarily rejected by the trial court.[3]  The trial judge stated:

"[T]he legislature intended the [manslaughter] statute to apply to physicians who assist a suicide . . ." [4]B.  The 1909 Statute