Preventing Abuse and Exploitation: A Personal Shift in Focus

http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/dore-preventing-abuse-and-exploitation-aba.pdf

By Margaret K. Dore, Esq., MBA

The Voice of Experience, American Bar Association

Volume 25, No. 4, Winter 2014

I graduated from law school in 1986.  I first worked for the courts and then for the United States Department of Justice.  After that, I worked for other lawyers, and then, in 1994, I officially started my own practice in Washington State.  Like many lawyers with a new practice, I signed up for court-appointed work in the guardianship/probate context.  This was mostly guardian ad litem work.  Once in awhile, I was appointed as an attorney for a proposed ward, termed an “alleged incapacitated person.”  In other states, a guardianship might be called a “conservatorship” or an “interdiction.”  A guardian ad litem might be called a “court visitor.”

My Guardianship Cases

Most of my guardianship cases were straightforward.  There would typically be a elderly person who could no longer handle his or her affairs.  I would be the guardian ad litem.  My job would be to determine whether the person needed a guardian, and if that were the case, to recommend a person or agency to fill that role.

My work also included private pay cases with moderate estates.  With these cases, I would sometimes see financial abuse and exploitation.  For example, there was an elderly woman whose nephew took her to the bank each week to obtain a large cash withdrawal.  She had dementia, but she could pass as “competent” to get the money.  In another case, “an old friend from 30 years ago” took “Jim,” a 90 year old man, to lunch.  The friend invited Jim to live with him in exchange for making the friend sole beneficiary of his will.  Jim agreed.  The will was executed and he went to live with the friend in a nearby town.  A guardianship was started and I was appointed guardian ad litem.  I drove to the friend’s house, which was dilapidated.  Jim did not seem to have his own room.  I asked him if he would like to go home.  He said “yes” and got in my car.  He was not incompetent, but he had allowed someone else to take advantage of him.  In another case, there was a disabled man whose caregiver had used his credit card to remodel her home.  He too was competent, but he had been unable to protect himself.

In those first few years, I loved my guardianship cases.  I had been close to my grandmother and enjoyed working with older people.  I met guardians and other people who genuinely wanted to help others.

But then I got a case involving a competent man who had been railroaded into guardianship.  The guardian, a company, refused to let him out.  The guardian also appeared to be churning the case, i.e., causing conflict and then billing for work to respond to the conflict and/or to cause more conflict.  I have an accounting background and also saw markers of embezzlement.  I tried to tell the court, but the supervising commissioner didn’t know much about accounting.  She allowed the guardian to hire its own CPA to investigate the situation, which predictably exonerated the guardian.  The guardian had many cases and if what I said had been proved true, there would have been political fallout.  There were also conflicts of interest among the lawyers.

At this point, the scales began to fall from my eyes.  My focus started to shift from working within the system to seeing how the system itself sometimes facilitates abuse.  This led me to write articles addressing some of the system’s flaws.  See e.g., Margaret K. Dore, Ten Reasons People Get Railroaded into Guardianship, 21 AM. J. FAM. L. 148 (2008), available atwww.margaretdore.com/pdf/Dore_AJFL_Winter08.pdf; Margaret K. Dore, The Time is Now: Guardians Should be Licensed and Regulated Under the Executive Branch, Not the Courts, WASH. ST. B. ASS’N B. NEWS, Mar. 2007 at 27-9, available athttp://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/dore-the-time-is-now-ashx.pdf

The MetLife Studies 

In 2009, the MetLife Mature Market Institute released its landmark study on elder financial abuse.  Seewww.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-study-broken-trust-elders-family-finances.pdf  The estimated financial loss by victims in the United States was $2.6 billion per year.

The study also explained that perpetrators are often family members, some of whom feel themselves “entitled” to the elder’s assets.  The study states that perpetrators start out with small crimes, such as stealing jewelry and blank checks, before moving on to larger items or coercing elders to sign over the deeds to their homes, change their wills or liquidate their assets.

In 2011, Met Life released another study available atwww.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/mmi-elder-financial-abuse.pdf, which described how financial abuse can be catalyst for other types of abuse and which was illustrated by the following example.  “A woman barely came away with her life after her caretaker of four years stole money from her and pushed her wheelchair in front of a train.  After the incident the woman said, “We were so good of friends . . . I’m so hurt that I can’t stop crying.”

Failure to Report

A big reason that elder abuse and exploitation are prevalent is that victims do not report.  This failure to report can be for many reasons.  A mother being abused by her son might not want him to go to jail.  She might also be humiliated, ashamed or embarrassed about what’s happening.  She might be legitimately afraid that if she reveals the abuse, she will be put under guardianship.

The statistics that I’ve seen on unreported cases vary, from only 2 in 4 cases being reported, to one in 20 cases.  Elder abuse and exploitation are, regardless, a largely uncontrolled problem.

A New Development: Legalized Assisted Suicide

Another development relevant to abuse and exploitation is the ongoing push to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in the United States.  “Assisted suicide” means that someone provides the means and/or information for another person to commit suicide.  If the assisting person is a physician who prescribes a lethal dose, a more precise term is “physician-assisted suicide.”  “Euthanasia,” by contrast, is the direct administration of a lethal agent with the intent to cause another person’s death.

In the United States, physician-assisted suicide is legal in three states:  Oregon, Washington and Vermont.  Eligible patients are required to be “terminal,” which means having less than six months to live.  Such patients, however, are not necessarily dying.  One reason is because expectations of life expectancy can be wrong.  Treatment can also lead to recovery.  I have a friend who was talked out of using Oregon’s law in 2000.  Her doctor, who did not believe in assisted suicide, convinced her to be treated instead.  She is still alive today, 13 years later.

Oregon’s law was enacted by a ballot measure in 1997.  Washington’s law was passed by another measure in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.  Vermont’s law was enacted on May 20, 2013.  All three laws are a recipe for abuse.  Onw reason is that they allow someone else to talk for the patient during the lethal dose request process.  Moreover, once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight over administration.  Even if the patient struggled, who would know? [See e.g., http://www.choiceillusion.org/2013/11/quick-facts-about-assisted-suicide_11.html]

Here in Washington State, we have already had informal proposals to expand our law to non-terminal people.  The first time I saw this was in a newspaper article in 2011.  More recently, there was a newspaper column suggesting euthanasia “if you couldn’t save enough money to see yourself through your old age,” which would be involuntary euthanasia.  Prior to our law being passed, I never heard anyone talk like this.

I have written multiple articles discussing problems with legalization, including Margaret K. Dore, "Death with Dignity”: What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King Co. B. ASS’N, B. BuLL., May 2009, available at  www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm; Margaret K. Dore, Aid in Dying: Not Legal in Idaho; Not About Choice, 52 THE ADVOCATE [the official publication of the Idaho State Bar] 9, 18-20 (Sept. 2013) available at www.margaretdore.com/pdf/Not_Legal_in_Idaho.pdf  

My Cases Involving the Oregon and Washington Assisted Suicide Laws

I have had two clients whose parents signed up for the lethal dose.  In the first case, one side of the family wanted the father to take the lethal dose, while the other did not.  He  spent the last months of his life caught in the middle and traumatized over whether or not he should kill himself.  My client, his adult daughter, was also traumatized.  The father did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death.

In the other case, it's not clear that administration of the lethal dose was voluntary.  A man who was present told my client that the father refused to take the lethal dose when it was  delivered (“You’re not killing me.  I’m going to bed”), but then took it the next night when he was high on alcohol.  The man who told this to my client later recanted.  My client did not want to pursue the matter further.

Conclusion

In my guardianship cases, people were financially abused and sometimes treated terribly, but nobody died and sometimes we were able to make their lives much better.  With legal assisted suicide, the abuse is final.  Don’t make Washinton’s mistake.

Margaret K. Dore (margaretdore@margaretdore.com) JD, MBA, is an attorney in private practice in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  She is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and the Washington State Court of Appeals.  She worked for a year with the U.S. Department of Justice and is president of Choice is an Illusion, www.choiceillusion.org, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia. 

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

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20120419/KAMLOOPS0101/120419759/-1/kamloops01/assisted-suicide-debate-deals-with-abuse-compassion

April 19, 2012

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."

Wanda Morris, head of the Canadian charity Dying With Dignity, advocated for the right to choose to end life humanely.

"These are individuals who want to live, but they are individuals facing a horrific death," she said. "The fundamental difference is choice. Choice is important in Canada. Why is it, at the time of life when we're facing our toughest decision we could ever make, that choice is taken away?"

The issue has long been debated in Canada, where two years ago Parliament easily defeated a bill that would have permitted assisted suicide and euthanasia. Recently the subject has made headlines again with two court high-profile court cases in B.C. and Quebec.

"Autonomy is such a critical value, it is a cornerstone of modern medicine," Morris continued. "Nothing can be done without consent. And yet here, at the end of life, I'm not given that choice."

Dore said she agrees that people should have the right to choose how they die, but the U.S. laws don't give that. Four days after the Washington State law passed, the adult son of a care facility resident showed up asking how "to get them pills," she said.

"Who's choice?," she asked rhetorically. An adult child can administer the lethal dose with no one else to tell whether it was a matter of consent. "There is no oversight over administration."

Morris insisted that the law her organization has long pushed for would only apply to individuals with six months or less to live. Dore countered that such a restriction does not apply in the U.S. and pointed to a case where an Oregon woman, who was talked out of suicide by her doctor, remains thankful she has survived another 12 years.

There was a $5.4-million lobby for assisted suicide in Washington, a machine that was up against a volunteer group, she said.

"In Canada and the U.S., there is a very significant funder in this debate and it is the Catholic church," Morris said.

Opponents of assisted suicide argue from dogmatic positions and cannot be satisfied, she said.

"Excuse me, but I never said anything about Catholic dogma," Dore replied.

She warned that Canada, having rejected the idea in Parliament, is facing the possibility of legislating it through the courts with the Carter and Leblanc court cases.

"We have a blank slate and we can write in whatever controls we want to protect the weak and the vulnerable," Morris said.

New York Times: Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse

April 10, 2012 

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/10/why-do-americans-balk-at-euthanasia-laws/assisted-suicide-laws-are-a-recipe-for-elder-abuse

Margaret Dore, a lawyer in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal, is the president of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit organization opposed to assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide means that one person provides the means or information for another person to commit suicide. In Oregon and Washington, assisted-suicide laws were passed by ballot measures. No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.

The Oregon and Washington acts apply to "terminal" patients, defined as patients predicted to have no more than six months to live. Doctor prognoses, however, can be wrong. Moreover, treatment can lead to recovery. My friend Jeanette Hall was adamant that she would "do" Oregon's act. She had been diagnosed with cancer and was given six months to a year to live. Her doctor convinced her to be treated. That was nearly 12 years ago.

Proponents tout assisted suicide as providing "choice" over the timing of one's death. But choice under the Oregon and Washington acts cannot be assured. For example, neither act requires witnesses at the death. Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created 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. Even if he struggled, who would know?

Assisted suicide is a concept contrary to public safety and a recipe for elder abuse.  Americans are right to be skeptical of these laws.

A Better Response Would be to Repeal Washington's Act as a Fraud on the Voters

On November 16, 2011, an article appeared in a Washington State newspaper arguing for expansion of Washington's physician-assisted suicide act to direct euthanasia and to persons without a terminal disease.[1]  The author, Brian Faller, candidly admitted:  "To improve the chances of passage, the Death with Dignity Act was written to apply only to the choices of the terminally ill who are competent at the time of their death."[2]  Now, he shows the other side's true colors.

In any case, this is my response:

Dear Editor:

I am an attorney who has written multiple articles about our physician-assisted suicide act. I am also President of Choice is an Illusion, a non-profit corporation opposed to assisted-suicide. I disagree with Brian Faller that our physician-assisted act should be expanded to include direct euthanasia. A better course would be to repeal that act as a fraud on the voters.

Our assisted-suicide act was enacted as Initiative 1000 in 2008 and went into effect in 2009. During the election, proponents claimed that its passage would assure individuals control over their deaths. The act is instead a recipe for elder abuse. Key provisions include that a patient’s heir, who will benefit financially from his death, is allowed to actively assist him to sign up for the lethal dose. Specifically, an heir is allowed to be one of two witnesses on the lethal dose request form. In the context of a will, the same situation would create a presumption "duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence." (RCW 11.12.160(2)).

There are also no witnesses required at the death. Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for someone else, including an heir, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent. Even if he struggled, who would know?

The idea that our act promotes patient control or individual liberty is untrue. Our act instead puts older people and others in the cross-hairs of abuse. For more information, please see www.choiceillusion.org and click on the page for Washington State.

* * *

[1]  Brian Faller, "Perhaps it's time to expand Washington's Death with Dignity Act, The Olympian, November 16, 2011, available at http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/16/1878667/perhaps-its-time-to-expand-washingtons.html

[2]  Id.

"No, physician-assisted suicide is not legal in Montana: It's a recipe for elder abuse and more"

By State Senator Jim Shockley and Margaret Dore

Published in The Montana Lawyer

The State Bar of Montana[1]

Introduction

There are two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon and Washington.  These states have statutes that  give doctors and others who participate in a qualified patient’s suicide immunity from criminal and civil liability.  (ORS 127.800-995 and RCW 70.245). 

In Montana, by contrast, the law on assisted suicide is governed by the Montana Supreme Court decision, Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234 (2009).  Baxter gives doctors who assist a patient’s suicide a potential defense to criminal prosecution.  Baxter does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal and civil liability.  Under Baxter, a doctor cannot be assured that a suicide will qualify for the defense.  Some assisted suicide proponents nonetheless claim that Baxter has legalized assisted suicide in Montana.

Legalizing assisted suicide in Montana would be a recipe for elder abuse.  The practice has multiple other problems.

What is physician-assisted suicide?

The American Medical Association (AMA) states: “Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act.”  (Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.211).  For example, a “physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide.”  (Id.)

The Baxter decision

Baxter found that there was no indication in Montana law that physician-assisted suicide, which the Court termed “aid in dying,” is against public policy.  (354 Mont. at 240, ¶¶ 13, 49-50).  Based on this finding, the Court held that a patient’s consent to aid in dying “constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician.”  (Id. at 251, ¶ 50).

Baxter, however, overlooked elder abuse.  The Court stated that the only person “who might conceivably be prosecuted for criminal behavior is the physician who prescribes a lethal dose of medication.”  (354 Mont. at 239, ¶ 11).  The Court thereby overlooked criminal behavior by family members and others who benefit from a patient’s death, for example, due to an inheritance.

Baxter also overlooked caselaw imposing civil liability on persons who cause or fail to prevent a suicide.  See Krieg v. Massey, 239 Mont. 469, 472-3 (1989) and Nelson v. Driscoll, 295 Mont. 363, ¶¶ 32-33 (1999).  Baxter is, regardless, a narrow decision in which doctors cannot be assured that a suicide will qualify for the defense.  Attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman provide this analysis:

If the idea of suicide itself is suggested to the patient first by the doctor or even by the family, instead of being on the patient's sole initiative, the situation exceeds "aid in dying" as conceived by the Court.  If a particular suicide decision process is anything but "private, civil, and compassionate," . . . , the Court's decision wouldn't guarantee a consent defense.  If the patient is less than "conscious," is unable to "vocalize" his decision, or gets help because he is unable to "self-administer," or the drug fails and someone helps complete the killing, Baxter would not apply. . . .

No doctor can prevent these human contingencies from occurring in a given case . . . in order to make sure that he can later use the consent defense if he is charged with murder.

“Analysis of Implications of the Baxter Case on Potential Criminal Liability,” Spring 2010, at  http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html


The 2011 Legislative Session

The 2011 legislative session featured two bills in response to Baxter, both of which failed: SB 116, which would have eliminated Baxter’s potential defense; and SB 167, which would have legalized assisted suicide by providing doctors and others with immunity from criminal and civil liability.

During a hearing on SB 167, the bill's sponsor, Senator Anders Blewett, said:  “[U]nder current law, ... there’s nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution.”  ( http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf ).  Dr. Stephen Speckart made a similar statement: "[M]ost physicians feel significant dis-ease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision."  (Id. at p.2)

Legalization would create new paths of abuse

In Montana, there has been a rapid growth of elder abuse.  Elders' vulnerabilities and larger net worth make them a target for financial abuse.  The perpetrators are often family members motivated by an inheritance.  See e.g.  www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-study-broken-trust-elders-family-finances.pdf .

Preventing elder abuse is official Montana state policy.  See e.g., 52-3-801, MCA.  If Montana would legalize physician-assisted suicide, a new path of abuse would be created against the elderly, which would be contrary to that policy.  Alex Schadenberg, Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, International, states:

With assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon, perpetrators can . . . take a 'legal' route, by getting an elder to sign a lethal dose request.  Once the prescription is filled, there is no supervision over the administration. . . . [E]ven if a patient struggled, “who would know?

http://www.isb.idaho.gov/pdf/advocate/issues/adv10oct.pdf, p. 14.

“Terminally Ill” Does Not Mean Dying

Baxter’s potential defense applies when patients are "terminally ill," which Baxter does not define.  In Oregon, “terminal” patients are defined as those having less than six months to live.  Such persons are not necessarily dying.  Doctors can be wrong.  Moreover, treatment can lead to recovery.  Oregon resident, Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer and told that she had six months to a year to live, said:

I wanted to do our [assisted suicide] law and I wanted my doctor to help me.  Instead, he encouraged me to not give up . . .  I had both chemotherapy and radiation. . . .

It is now 10 years later.  If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. 

http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_aeef3982-9a98-11df-8db2-001cc4c002e0.html 

Legal physician-assisted suicide empowered the Oregon Health Plan, not individual patients 

Once a patient is labeled “terminal,” an easy argument can be made that his or her treatment should be denied.  This has happened in Oregon where patients labeled “terminal” have not only been denied coverage for treatment, they have been offered assisted-suicide instead.

The most well known cases involve Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.  (KATU TV, at http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html , ABC News, at http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=5517492  Ken Stevens, MD, at pp. 16-17, at http://choiceillusionoregon.blogspot.com/p/oregons-mistake-costs-lives.html).  The Oregon Health Plan refused to pay for their desired treatments and offered to pay for their suicides instead.  Neither Wagner nor Stroup saw this as a celebration of their “choice.”  Wagner said: “I’m not ready to die.”  Stroup said: “This is my life they’re playing with.”
            
Stroup and Wagner were steered to suicide and it was the Oregon Health Plan doing the steering.  Oregon’s law empowered the Oregon Health Plan, not individual patients.

Oregon’s studies are invalid

Oregon’s statute does not require a doctor to be present when the lethal dose is administered.  (ORS 127.800-995).  During a hearing on SB 167, Senator Jeff Essmann made a related point, as follows:

[A]ll 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 Transcript, February 10, 2011, p.15, at http://www.margaretdore.com/pdf/senator_essmann_sb_167_001.pdf

Public confusion

In Montana, the moving force behind legalizing assisted suicide is Denver-based Compassion & Choices.  On September 15, 2011, that organization’s president published an article on Huffington Post claiming that under Baxter physicians in Montana are “safe from prosecution.”  ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-coombs-lee/aid-in-dying-montana_b_960555.html )  This is clearly not the case and  propaganda.  A physician relying on her advice could be charged with homicide.

Conclusion  

Baxter is a flawed decision that overlooked elder abuse.  Baxter has created confusion in the law, which has put Montana citizens at risk.  Neither the legal profession nor the medical profession has the necessary guidance to know what is lawful. 


Legalizing assisted suicide is bad public policy.  Doctors’ diagnoses can be wrong and legalization is a recipe for abuse.  Legalization would also allow the state government to encourage citizens to kill themselves.  This is an area where the government does not belong.  Montana consistently has one of the highest suicide rates in the nation.   Montana doesn’t need the “Oregon Experience.”


Legislation should be enacted to overrule Baxter and clearly declare that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.  
      

* * *

Senator Jim Shockley, of Victor, is a Republican State Senator, probate lawyer, and an adjunct instructor at the University of Montana School of Law. 

Margaret Dore is an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted-suicide.  (www.choiceillusion.org)  She is a Democrat.  

* * *

[1] To read this article as published in The Montana Lawyer and the opposing article by Senator Anders Blewett, go here:

http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/November%202011%20mt%20lawyer.pdf              

Don't be fooled by assisted-suicide bill

http://www.lowellsun.com/editorials/ci_19137188
The Lowell Sun
Updated: 10/18/2011 09:27:53 AM EDT

This letter responds to Marie Donovan's article about the proposed Massachusetts death-with-dignity act, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide in your state (" 'Death with Dignity Act' renews end-of-life debate"). I am an attorney in Washington state, one of just two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal. The other state is Oregon. I am also president of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide as an issue of public safety (www.choiceillusion.org).

In both Washington and Oregon, assisted-suicide laws were passed via highly financed sound-bite, ballot-initiative campaigns. No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature -- despite more than 100 attempts. This year, a bill was defeated in the New Hampshire House, 234 to 99.

The proposed Massachusetts act is a recipe for elder abuse. Key provisions include that an heir, who will benefit financially from a patient's death, is allowed to actively help sign the patient up for the lethal dose. See e.g., Section 21 allowing one of two witnesses on the lethal-dose request form to be an heir (http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/Government/2011-Petitions  ).

Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight over administration. The proposed act does not require that a doctor or anyone else be present at the time of death. This creates the opportunity for an heir, or another person who will benefit from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without the patient's consent. Even if he struggled, who would know?

Donovan's article prominently features a discussion of religion. In Washington state, proponents used similar discussions and even religious slurs to distract voters from the pitfalls of legalization. What the proposed law said and did was all but forgotten.

Do not be deceived. /11-12.pdf
MARGARET DORE
Choice is an Illusion
Seattle, Wash.

Physician-Assisted Suicide: Not Legal in Montana; A Recipe for Elder Abuse and More

For a print version of this article, go here.

By Margaret Dore

A. Introduction

 Proponents claim that physician-assisted suicide is legal in Montana. This is untrue. A bill that would have accomplished that goal was defeated in the 2011 legislature.

Legal physician-assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse. It empowers heirs and others at the expense of older people. It empowers health care providers at the expense of patients.  In Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide is legal, legalization is statistically correlated to an increase in other suicides.

Washington State’s Assisted Suicide Report: No Information About Consent

By Margaret K. Dore, Esq.[1]

On March 10, 2011, Washington State issued a formal report about its physician-assisted suicide act.[2] The report does not address whether the people who died under the act did so on a voluntary basis. The information provided is inherently unreliable.

A. Washington’s Act

Washington’s assisted suicide act was enacted via a ballot initiative in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.[3]

During the election, proponents claimed that the act’s passage would assure individuals control over their deaths. The act, however, has significant gaps so that such control is not assured. For example, the act allows a person’s heir, who will benefit financially from the death, to assist in signing the person up for the lethal dose.[4]