Wednesday, August 10, 2016

New Mexico Supreme Court States Assisted Suicide Is Not A Civil Right, Euthanasia Inevitable


Annette Hanson, MD
Originally published July 7, 2016 in Clinical Psychiatry News, updated July 9, 2016, by Annette Hanson, MD

New Mexico [has become] the latest state to throw out a challenge to a law banning physician assisted suicide. In Morris v. Brandenburg, proponents of the right-to-die movement claimed that medical aid-in-dying was a fundamental right, meaning that any law which restricted the right should be presumed to be invalid unless the state had a compelling reason for the restriction. In a unanimous decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that there was no such right under that state's constitution, and that even if the right had existed the state had several compelling reasons to restrict it

Friday, July 1, 2016

New Mexico Upholds Assisted Suicide Prohibition!

New Mexico Supreme Court
Today, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld a criminal statute prohibiting "assisting suicide" as constitutional when applied to "physician aid in dying," meaning physician-assisted suicide. The 5-0 decision states in part:
[W]e agree with the legitimate concern that recognizing a right to physician aid in dying will lead to voluntary or involuntary euthanasia because if it is a right, it must be made available to everyone, even when a duly appointed surrogate makes the decision, and even when the patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication. . . .
[The] statute is neither unconstitutional or its face nor as it is applied to Petitioners. . . . [W]e reverse the district court's contrary conclusion and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. [pp. 31 & 57]

Friday, May 23, 2014

Oregon Doctor Finds Fault with State's Law

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2011/10/04/oregon_doctor_finds_fault_with_states_law/  
  +
I am a doctor practicing medicine in Oregon and Washington, where physician-assisted suicide is legal. I disagree with Scot Lehigh that these suicides are not like other suicides in which “a healthy person [takes] his life for reasons of despair, depression, or hopelessness’’ (“Death with dignity in Mass.,’’ Op-ed, Sept. 23).

First, doctors can be wrong. So, what looks like a few months to live can be years. For a good article on this subject, see Nina Shapiro’s January 2009 "Terminal Uncertainty" in the Seattle Weekly.

Second, despair, depression, and hopelessness are a part of assisted suicide. A few years ago, a patient of mine who was undergoing cancer treatment with a specialist became depressed, and expressed a wish for assisted suicide.

In most jurisdictions, suicidal ideation is interpreted as a cry for help. In Oregon, the only help my patient got was a lethal prescription intended to kill him.  Don’t make our mistake. Keep assisted suicide out of Massachusetts.

Dr. Charles J. Bentz
Portland, Ore.
The writer is an associate professor of medicine in the division of general medicine and geriatrics at Oregon Health & Science University.

What People Mean When They Say They Want to Die

(originally published as a Statement for the BBC)

For a print version, click here.  

by William Toffler, MD
______________________________________________

There has been a profound shift in attitude in my state since the voters of Oregon narrowly embraced assisted suicide 11 years ago.  A shift that, I believe, has been detrimental to our patients, degraded the quality of medical care, and compromised the integrity of my profession.  

Since assisted suicide has become an option, I have had at least a dozen patients discuss this option with me in my practice.  Most of the patients who have broached this issue weren't even terminal.  

One of my first encounters with this kind of request came from a patient with a progressive form of multiple sclerosis.  He was in a wheelchair yet lived a very active life. In fact, he was a general contractor and quite productive.  While I was seeing him, I asked him about how it affected his life.  He acknowledged that multiple sclerosis was a major challenge and told me that if he got too much worse, he might want to “just end it.” “ It sounds like you are telling me this because you might ultimately want assistance with your own assisted suicide- if things got a worse,” I said.  He nodded affirmatively, and seemed relieved that I seemed to really understand. 

I told him that I could readily understand his fear and his frustration and even his belief that assisted suicide might be a good option for him. At the same time, I told him that should he become sicker or weaker, I would work to give him the best care and support available. I told him that no matter how debilitated he might become, that, at least to me, his life was, and would always be, inherently valuable. As such, I would not recommend, nor could I participate in his assisted-suicide.  He simply said, "Thank you."

The truth is that we are not islands.  How physicians respond to the patient’s request has a profound effect, not only on a patient's choices, but also on their view of themselves and their inherent worth.

When a patient says, "I want to die"; it may simply mean, "I feel useless." 

When a patient says, "I don't want to be a burden"; it may really be a question, "Am I a burden?" 

When a patient says, "I've lived a long life already"; they may really be saying, "I'm tired.  I'm afraid I can't keep going."

And, finally, when a patient says, "I might as well be dead"; they may really be saying, "No one cares about me." 

Many studies show that assisted suicide requests are almost always for psychological or social reasons.  In Oregon there has never been any documented case of assisted suicide used because there was actual untreatable pain.[6]  As such, assisted suicide has been totally unnecessary in Oregon.  

Sadly, the legislation passed in Oregon does not require that the patient have unbearable suffering, or any suffering for that matter.  The actual Oregon experience has been a far cry from the televised images and advertisements that seduced the public to embrace assisted suicide.  In statewide television ads in 1994, a woman named Patty Rosen claimed to have killed her daughter with an overdose of barbiturates because of intractable cancer pain.  This claim was later challenged and shown to be false.  Yet, even if it had been true, it would be an indication of inadequate medical care- not an indication for assisted suicide. 

Astonishingly, there is not even inquiry about the potential gain to family members of the so-called "suicide" of a "loved one." This could be in the form of an inheritance, a life insurance policy, or, perhaps even simple freedom from previous care responsibilities. 

Most problematic for me has been the change in attitude within the healthcare system itself. People with serious illnesses are sometimes fearful of the motives of doctors or consultants.  Last year, a patient with bladder cancer contacted me.  She was concerned that an oncologist might be one of the "death doctors."  She questioned his motives—particularly when she obtained a second opinion from another oncologist which was more sanguine about her prognosis and treatment options.  Whether one or the other consultant is correct or not, such fears were never an issue before assisted suicide was legalized.  

In Oregon, I regularly receive notices that many important services and drugs for my patients-even some pain medications-won't be paid for by the State health plan.  At the same time, assisted suicide is fully covered and sanctioned by the State of Oregon and by our collective tax dollars.

I urge UK leaders to reject the seductive siren of assisted suicide.  Oregon has tasted the bitter pill of barbiturate overdoses and many now know that our legislation is hopelessly flawed.  I believe Great Britain, the birthplace of Dame Cicely Saunders, and the Hospice movement, and a model to the rest of the world, deserves better.