Catching up #2: Ari Ne'eman in HuffPo: Health Care Reform and the Disability Community

Ari Ne'eman has a long essay on the Huffington Post on health care reform and the concerns of the disability community. Ari is the founding President of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (ASAN). He is also - full disclosure alert - a friend and colleague of mine - although we have yet to meet face-to-face.

The following are excerpts from his essay, "Health Care Reform and the Disability Community":

As we speak, Congress is deliberating on vast and important changes to the system of health care in the United States. This issue is one of crucial importance to all Americans, but of particular interest to those Americans who interact with public health insurance more than almost any other group -- people with disabilities. Ranging from veterans with disabilities who receive care through the Veteran's Administration health care system to the many low-income disabled adults who are eligible for Medicaid, the disability community interacts with the public health care infrastructure in the United States in a wide variety of ways. As we consider how to reform, streamline and expand that infrastructure through any of a variety of means, it is incumbent upon us to remember the key issues for making sure that health care reform doesn't leave disabled adults and youth behind.

He goes on to list four key issues in health care reform that relate to the disability community. Here is part of item 4:

Stop discrimination in the provision of care: Too often, people with disabilities are denied necessary -- sometimes even life-saving -- medical care because of assumptions that non-disabled people make about our quality of life. For many people, disability is still considered a fate worse than death instead of a part of the human experience. As a result, it has been disabled people who are pushed over the side first when resources become scarce. As recently as last year, a task force including doctors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services issued guidelines stating that, in the event of a flu pandemic or similar emergency, people with intellectual disabilities as well as those with chronic health conditions may be excluded from care.

The eugenic impulse that views people with disabilities as "burdens on society" or "life unworthy of life" is still regrettably alive and well within our health care system. Just last week, Disability Rights Wisconsin, the state's protection and advocacy system for people with disabilities, filed suit against the University of Wisconsin hospital as a result of their decision to withhold medication and basic nourishment from two patients with intellectual disabilities who had pneumonia. These individuals were not in a persistent vegetative state, were not dying and one even asked for food. The decision to refuse anti-biotics, nutrition and fluids for a treatable medical condition was made by hospital officials based on their determination of "quality of life" for the individuals in question. Health care reform must include non-discrimination protections that prevent these types of atrocities by health care providers.

You can read the rest of his analysis here. --Stephen Drake

Catching up #1: Chris Hilderbrant on Max Baucus and "Palatable" Health Care Reform

After a few days away, I'm playing catch-up again. So I have a few blog entries to refer people to. There is some excellent writing happening in our community.

First up is a post by Chris Hilderbrant. In the interest of full disclosure, Chris is the Director of Advocacy at the Center for Disability Rights (CDR). CDR provides material support to NDY - by providing me with an office, phone, access to internet and other important things that are essential to NDY's work.

The latest blog entry by Chris on the CDR blog is directly relevant to NDY and should cause concern about what things are - and aren't - being targeted as priorities in the discussions on healthcare reform. Here are excerpts from "Chairman Baucus, what's on your political palate?":

For three hours Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus led discussions on how to reform health care and how to pay for that reform. Single-payer health insurance advocates stood and walked out in silent protest. Others shouted to interrupt the opening remarks of Chairman Baucus (some later re-entered the room in different clothes!). Chairman Baucus pleaded with the remaining audience members to allow the hearing on healthcare reform to proceed. He indicated that he’d meet with people personally rather than have further interruptions of the hearing. As an ADAPT members with a certain prowess for interrupting bureaucratic proceedings, I had been considering a one person protest for the Community Choice Act… but, now I’ll be contacting his office to set up the meeting he promised me.

For three hours, a variety of Senators and healthcare experts discussed options. And for three hours, not one person said anything about long term services and supports (long term care, by another name).

Sadly, the closest that the hearing came to a mention of long term services and supports (LTSS) was when they engaged in a discussion of “the high cost of dying.”

Yup, the Senate, in all its gentle wisdom, is showing more interest in how much it costs for seniors and others to stay alive at the very end than they have shown in how seniors and people with disabilities live for the DECADES before we get around to dying.

There's more. All of it worth reading. --Stephen Drake

Disability Rights Wisconsin Sues Over Allegedly Illegal Withholding of Treatment at UW Hospital

Disability Rights Wisconsin(DRW) is suing the UW Hospital for allegedly violating the law in pushing for withholding of life-sustaining treatment in the cases of two individuals with developmental disabilities.

The story about the case was published in the May 14th issue of the Wisconsin State Journal. Thanks to Tim Wheat (the first to send me the link) and others who alerted me to this. A more permanent copy of the story can be found at DRW's website.

Excerpt:

In a case that could have broad legal implications for when some patients are allowed to die, an advocacy group is alleging that doctors at UW Hospital broke the law by withholding treatment from two developmentally disabled patients with apparent cases of pneumonia.

The guardian of one patient, who survived, at first went along with and then later disagreed with the decision to withhold care, the lawsuit by Disability Rights Wisconsin alleges. The parents of the other patient, who died, pushed for the withdrawal of treatment, according to the group’s complaint filed Thursday in Dane County Circuit Court.

One medical ethicist said the case could help to clarify a difficult question in state law: How much power do families and guardians have to make medical decisions for vulnerable patients such as children and the developmentally disabled?

Disability Rights contends state law prevents parents and guardians from withholding treatment from patients who can’t make that decision for themselves unless they are in a “persistent vegetative state,” a condition the group says did not apply to the two patients in the lawsuit.

But a spokeswoman for UW Hospital said the hospital acted in the best interests of both patients and tried to follow the wishes of their families.

“What is at stake in this case is no less than patients’, parents’ and families’ ability to make private health care decisions in the best interests of the patient,” spokeswoman Lisa Brunette said in a statement.

Disability Rights is suing to change hospital practices and to recover the $4,700 it spent investigating the cases, plus legal costs. Attorney Mitch Hagopian said he worried some UW Hospital doctors may be too quick to suggest withdrawing treatment from a developmentally disabled person they perceive to have a low quality of life.

“It’s a great medical institution. They provide great care to their patients,” Hagopian said. “All we want is for them to provide that same great care to developmentally disabled people who are not dying.”(emphasis added)

One has to wonder just how much of this is happening in hospitals across the country, under the radar. Just this last February, the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania announced a Superior Court decision clarifying protections for people with developmental disabilities and their right to life-sustaining treatment.

Considering these two cases, it is as good a time as any to invite people to acquaint - or reacquaint - themselves with the "STATEMENT OF COMMON PRINCIPLES ON LIFE-SUSTAINING CARE AND TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES."

Excerpt:

• People with disabilities are entitled to exercise their rights to life-sustaining care and treatment and to self-determination and autonomy.
• Absent clear and convincing evidence of the desires of people with disabilities to decline life-sustaining care or treatment, such care and treatment should not be withheld or withdrawn unless death is genuinely imminent and the care or treatment is objectively futile and would only prolong the dying process.
• For the limited number of people who have lifelong cognitive disabilities and who have never had the ability to exercise self-determination regarding life-sustaining care and treatment, such care and treatment should not be withheld or withdrawn unless death is genuinely imminent and the care or treatment is objectively futile and would only prolong the dying process.
• When doubt exists as to whether to provide life-sustaining care and treatment a presumption must always be made in favor of providing such care and treatment.

Please check out the entire statement - endorsements can still be made - both individual and organizational. And from the looks of things, the statement is more relevant than ever. --Stephen Drake

Breaking News: Four Final Exit Network Members Busted on "Conspiracy to Commit Murder" Charges in Arizona

The Phoenix New Times, which was the only newspaper to cover the initial investigation into the death of Jana Van Voorhis, reports that four members of the Final Exit Network have been arrested. Van Voorhis had minor physical complaints, but had a long history of struggles with psychological and emotional issues.

From the article:

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced a few minutes ago that investigators from his office have busted four people on murder charges in the 2005 "assisted suicide" death of a seriously mentally ill Phoenix woman.

New Times broke the news of this unusual and tragic case in 2007 in an extensive piece we called "Death Wish."

The four defendants -- who include retired Scottsdale resident Frank Langsner, a retired college professor -- have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

Langsner and Wye Hale-Rowe, another so-called "exit guide" from the Final Exit Network (a national assisted suicide outfit based in Georgia), also are facing manslaughter charges.

Phoenix police records (and reporting by New TImes) showed Langsner and Hale-Rowe, both in their 80s, were present when 58-year-old Jana Van Voorhis (seen in the photo in her younger days) killed herself by inhaling helium through a hose, with an oxygen-eliminating hood snugly over her head.

Langsner and Hale-Rowe (a retired family therapist and great-grandmother from Aurora, Colorado) then staged the scene at Van Voorhis' Phoenix condo to make it look as if the woman had just gone to sleep in her bed and died of unknown causes.

In its literature, Final Exit calls itself "the only organization in the United States willing to help individuals who are not `terminally ill'--six months or less to live--hasten their deaths. No other organization in the U.S. has the courage to make this commitment."

All of the evidence suggests that Jana Van Voorhis, however, was not suffering from a terminal illness when she died, but had suffered from chronic mental illness.

The New Times promises "more on this one soon."

I look forward to it. So far, the coverage coming out of Arizona has been much more professional than the coverage coming out of Atlanta and Chicago. --Stephen Drake

Seattle Elder Law Attorney Discusses What Lawyers Should Be Telling Clients About "Death With Dignity" Act

Margaret Dore has been doing strong work exposing the pitfalls and logical fallacies that are embedded in the framework of Washington State's "Death With Dignity" law. She does so from the perspective of a lawyer who specializes in Elder Law.

Recently, the King County Bar Association published her analysis of the newly-passed assisted suicide legislation in Washington State, titled "What Do We Advise Our Clients?"

Here is the brief description of Ms. Dore given in the article:

Margaret Dore is a Seattle attorney admitted to practice in 1986. She is the immediate past chair of the Elder Law Committee of the ABA Family Law Section. She is a former chair of what is now the King County Bar Association Guardianship and Elder Law Section.

Readers here might also want to know that she authored and submitted an amicus brief in support of the Montana attorney general's appeal of a lower court decision legalizing assisted suicide.

Below is the entire article from Ms. Dore, reproduced in accordance with the guidelines listed by the publication:

May 2009 Bar Bulletin

‘Death with Dignity’:

What Do We Advise Our Clients?

By Margaret Dore

A client wants to know about the new Death with Dignity Act, which legalizes physician-assisted suicide in Washington.¹ Do you take the politically correct path and agree that it’s the best thing since sliced bread? Or do you do your job as a lawyer and tell him that the Act has problems and that he may want to take steps to protect himself?

Patient “Control” is an Illusion

The new act was passed by the voters as Initiative 1000 and has now been codified as Chapter 70.245 RCW.

During the election, proponents touted it as providing “choice” for end-of-life decisions. A glossy brochure declared, “Only the patient — and no one else — may administer the [lethal dose].”² The Act, however, does not say this — anywhere. The Act also contains coercive provisions. For example, it allows an heir who will benefit from the patient’s death to help the patient sign up for the lethal dose.

How the Act Works

The Act requires an application process to obtain the lethal dose, which includes a written request form with two required witnesses.³ The Act allows one of these witnesses to be the patient’s heir.⁴ The Act also allows someone else to talk for the patient during the lethal-dose request process, for example, the patient’s heir.⁵ This does not promote patient choice; it invites coercion.

Interested witness

By comparison, when a will is signed, having an heir as one of witnesses creates a presumption of undue influence. The probate statute provides that when one of the two required witnesses is a taker under the will, there is a rebuttable presumption that the taker/witness “procured the gift by duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence.”⁶

Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. The death is not required to be witnessed by disinterested persons. Indeed, no one is required to be present. The Act does not state that “only” the patient may administer the lethal dose; it provides that the patient “self-administer” the dose.

“Self-administer”

In an Orwellian twist, the term “self-administer” does not mean that administration will necessarily be by the patient. “Self-administer” is instead defined as the act of ingesting. The Act states, “‘Self-administer’ means a qualified patient’s act of ingesting medication to end his or her life.”⁷

In other words, someone else putting the lethal dose in the patient’s mouth qualifies as “self-administration.” Someone else putting the lethal dose in a feeding tube or IV nutrition bag also would qualify. “Self-administer” means that someone else can administer the lethal dose to the patient.

No witnesses at the death

If, for the purpose of argument, “self-administer” means that only the patient can administer the lethal dose himself, the patient still is vulnerable to the actions of other people, due to the lack of required witnesses at the death.

With no witnesses present, someone else can administer the lethal dose without the patient’s consent. Indeed, someone could use an alternate method, such as suffocation. Even if the patient struggled, who would know? The lethal dose request would provide an alibi.

This situation is especially significant for patients with money. A California case states, “Financial reasons [are] an all too common motivation for killing someone.”⁸ Without disinterested witnesses, the patient’s control over the “time, place and manner” of his death, is not guaranteed.

If one of your clients is considering a “Death with Dignity” decision, it is prudent to be sure that they are aware of the Act’s gaps.

What to Tell Clients

1. Signing the form will lead to a loss of control

By signing the form, the client is taking an official position that if he dies suddenly, no questions should be asked. The client will be unprotected against others in the event he changes his mind after the lethal prescription is filled and decides that he wants to live. This would seem especially important for clients with money. There is, regardless, a loss of control.

2. Reality check

The Act applies to adults determined by an “attending physician” and a “consulting physician” to have a disease expected to produce death within six months.⁹ But what if the doctors are wrong? This is the point of a recent article in The Seattle Weekly: Even patients with cancer can live years beyond expectations¹⁰. The article states:

Since the day [the patient] was given two to four months to live, [she] has gone with her children on a series of vacations . . . .

“We almost lost her because she was having too much fun, not from cancer,” [her son chuckles].¹¹

Conclusion

As lawyers, we often advise our clients of worst-case scenarios. This is our obligation regardless of whether it is politically correct to do so. The Death with Dignity Act is not necessarily about dignity or choice. It also can enable people to pressure others to an early death or even cause it. The Act also may encourage patients with years to live to give up hope. We should advise our clients accordingly.

Margaret Dore is a Seattle attorney admitted to practice in 1986. She is the immediate past chair of the Elder Law Committee of the ABA Family Law Section. She is a former chair of what is now the King County Bar Association Guardianship and Elder Law Section. For more information, visit her website at www.margaretdore.com.

1 The Act was passed by the voters in November as Initiative 1000 and has now been codified as RCW chapter 70.245.

2 I-1000 color pamphlet, “Paid for by Yes! on 1000.”

3 RCW §§ 70.245.030 and .220 state that one of two required witnesses to the lethal-dose request form cannot be the patient’s heir or other person who will benefit from the patient’s death; the other may be.

4 id.

5 RCW § 70.245.010(3) allows someone else to talk for the patient during the lethal-dose request process; for example, there is no prohibition against this person being the patient’s heir or other person who will benefit from the patient’s death. The only requirement is that the person doing the talking be “familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating.”

6 RCW § 11.88.160(2).

7 RCW § 70.245.010(12).

8 People v. Stuart, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 129, 143 (2007).

9 RCW § 70.245.010(11) & (13).

10 Nina Shapiro, “Terminal Uncertainty,” Washington’s new “Death with Dignity” law allows doctors to help people commit suicide - once they’ve determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they’re wrong? The Seattle Weekly, January 14, 2009. http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-14/news/terminal-uncertainty.

11 id.

All rights reserved. All the content of this web site is copyrighted and may be reproduced in any form including digital and print for any non-commercial purpose so long as this notice remains visible and attached hereto.

Patients' Rights Bill Stalled in Texas - Bill Backed by Disability Advocates, Right to Life and ACLU

This blog has visited the topic of futile care policies more than once. These policies allow hospitals to overrule advanced directives and/or the wishes of family members in removing/refusing life-sustaining treatment to someone unable to express his or her wishes.

Of all the states, Texas has given hospitals the most power in these situations. And the hospitals, safely protected by statute, have been aggressive in implementing their power to overrule families in "futile care" cases.

There have been repeated efforts to try to provide more protections to patients and families in Texas. Right now, it looks like the protection is allocated solely to the medical providers (or, I guess, "non-providers" might be more accurate).

Here's the latest from the Dallas Morning News:

AUSTIN, Texas – Those who want to extend the time some hospital patients may live before their life support is cut off are worried that their proposal is running into a wall at the Capitol.

Legislation by state Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, would require life-sustaining treatment to continue for patients whose condition is deemed futile by doctors until a transfer to another medical facility can be arranged, if their family requests it.

Currently, hospitals can stop life support after 10 days in certain cases if the patient is terminally or irreversibly ill and cannot express treatment wishes.

"No other state in the country has a law that Draconian," Hughes said. "The balance of power is completely shifted against the patients and the families."

Hughes' bill is being pushed by Texas Right to Life, a group best known for its anti-abortion views. Groups for the disabled, including the Coalition of Texans With Disabilities and Not Dead Yet of Texas, also back Hughes' proposal, as does the American Civil Liberties Union.

Got that? NDY, the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities, Texas Right to Life and the American Civil Liberties Union all back this bill.

That's a broad base of support if I've ever see one. But the bill isn't going anywhere.

That's because the Texas Medical Association and the Texas Hospital Association, among others, oppose the bill.

I doubt those organizations could claim to represent as many constituents as the combined supporters of RTL, the disability coalition, NDY and the ACLU - I will bet that the TMA and THA give lots of money to political candidates in Texas. That's the simplest, if cynical explanation for the current standstill.

And it doesn't bode well for the future in Texas. --Stephen Drake

More bloggers on Vicious Attacks on Ari Ne'eman

Yesterday, I wrote about the vicious attack on Ari Ne'eman, president of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), by John Best - Best is a guy that seems to spend whatever free time he has spewing vile comments and barely veiled threats at people who don't "hate autism" - that includes any supporter of neurodiversity. But he saves his most hateful stuff for the people who are autistic and have the audacity to say they're happy with the way they are.

I already shared a link to Turning Trolls into Stone, a post with some good constructive suggestions about responding. It's on the blog Whose Planet Is It Anyway?

Here are some other bloggers alerting others to the attack (apologies ahead of time to anyone I missed):

lastcrazyhorn at Odd One Out writes as someone who is already way too familiar with John Best in her post Death Threats on Ari Ne'eman.

Ms. Cripchick has written a letter to Newsweek on cripchick's webblog.

At Wood's Rules, Virginia Wood expresses sympathy for John Best's situation but cuts him no slack when it comes to his behavior.

Kassiane at The Rettdevil's Rants writes about the "Latest Mercury Malicia Target." (This is my first encounter with the word "malicia" - I love it.)

That's it for now. Good reading. --Stephen Drake

President of ASAN Under Attack - Including Death Threats

Before I write more about this, I feel compelled to share a couple of things in the interest of full disclosure.

First, I am a survivor of childhood hydrocephalus and have a neurological profile that fits what is called nonverbal learning disabilities (NLD). There's enough overlap between NLD and Asperger's that many workshops and groups lump them together as "spectrum disorders."

Second, I am a fan and supporter of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN). I consider Ari Ne'eman, president of ASAN, a friend.

Over the past few years, ASAN has risen in prominence in the disability rights community - and in terms of the media. This is due, IMO, to the group's political savvy, clear message, and a message of realistic hope to individuals with autism and their families.

In brief, ASAN and its supporters in the neurodiversity movement advocate an alternative to the "cure or stomp every trace of difference out of the individual approach." (Note: these are my words, not those of ASAN's) They believe that every person with autism or other neurological condition can have a good life, with the right supports - and that the world can become a less hostile place for those who are different.

If you think the topic is a little out of the way for NDY, think again. Three-year-old Katie McCarron was killed by her mother in 2006. Katie had autism and court testimony revealed that Karen - Katie's mother - wasn't happy with any progress her daughter made. In fact, nothing short of Katie somehow being "normal" would satisfy her. Obviously, the vast majority of parents of kids with autism don't kill their kids, but some who do are in that unrealistic and dismal place that Karen McCarron was.

The current storm was triggered by the news that Ari Ne'eman and the neurodiversity movement is to be featured in this week's Newsweek.

On the popular "cure autism" site, Age of Autism, a response was made by a college student with Aspergers who disagrees with the neurodiversity movement in the form of an "open letter," and contains some familiar moves:

• He complains about the lack of a dissenting voice, ignoring the immense ammount of unchallenged coverage that the "autism is a curse that must be cured" has received;
• He mischaracterizes positions promoted by the neurodiversity movement;
• He relies on his individual voice serving to nullify the collective voice of a growing movement.

All that is mild, though, compared to the posts on "Hating Autism" (and everyone who has it, apparently). The blog is written by John Best, who writes by the name "foresam."

His reaction to the news about the Newsweek article was to write a blog post titled: Ask Newsweek to Kill Ari Ne'eman. To be fair, the post itself refers to "killing" the article:

I hear that Newsweek is going to run another article allowing the sadist, Ari Ne'eman, to lie to the world about autism. Before that comes out, I think it's useful for sane people to ask Newsweek to kill this article, or, at least allow us equal space to tell the truth about the horror of autism.

But John Best doesn't end there. The really disturbing, creepy, scary and violent part comes in a comment he submitted later on:

I believe that everyone associated with Neurodiversity should be put to death for the propaganda they perpetrate against curing horribly disabled children. They are part of the lies told by vaccine makers and politicians who continue to cause autism intentionally.

I believe that autism is the greatest crime in the history of the planet and that anyone who has been involved with it in any way deserves to die, preferably slowly and with great pain. So, while I don't suggest that anyone should shoot Ari Ne'eman in the head, I do think he deserves a trial for his role in this atrocity. I hope the outcome of that trial would be death.

You know, if I ever wrote anything remotely this incendiary about pro-euthanasia people - or even the Final Exit Network "special forces," I'd be vilified by foes and allies would find various ways to distance themselves from me - fast. My guess is that this won't hurt John Best at all and may even increase his support. Hate, like misery, loves company.

For more outrage, and a constructive way to retaliate, please check out Turning Trolls Into Stone at Whose Planet Is It Anyway?

Later today, you can check out my personal blog for some more discussion of the "cure" issue and my personal take on it. --Stephen Drake

HUMOR: Seniors apprehensive about graduation, possible euthanasia (LSU)

For the past couple of days, I've had to prepare for presentation (more about that later) by pouring over the press reports from the months following the murder of Katie McCarron. Unlike most of my work, there's little in the way of emotional distance - even now - as I read over the events of 2006. It makes me sad and angry at the same time. It's not a good combination.

So, today, for my benefit, I'm turning to something a little lighter. Hot off the press from the Tiger Weekly, the student newspaper of Louisiana State University, is a fun little piece that made me smile today. OK, I even giggled at one point.

With students all over the country graduating this month, the U.S. is eager to observe the effects of a new law which eliminates 30 percent of the graduating student population.

President Obama's 2009 Job Market Fairness Act serves to create a less stressful environment for new graduates who would otherwise struggle in the current recession.

This year, the bottom 15 percent and top 15 percent of all graduating classes will be removed from the job market via lethal injection, giving mediocre college graduates a better chance at employment on their own merits.

Studies show that the top 15 percent of college graduates are not as immediately beneficial to the economy as the middle 70 percent, who will spend more money rather than save it. Conversely, the bottom 15 percent are nine times more likely to borrow more money than they can afford. Eliminating both extremes will allow the economy to stabilize within the next year, supporters said.

However, while an online poll indicates the new law has an 80 percent approval rating, many students are outraged by the initiative.

Read the rest of the article here. --Stephen Drake

NDY Files Disability Amicus Brief in Montana with Four Other National Disability Rights Groups

Last week, amicus briefs were filed with the Montana Supreme Court - supporting an appeal by the state Attorney General to reverse a lower court decision that assisted suicide is a "constitutional right" in that state. Due to a variety of factors, NDY was unable to get word out to the media when our brief was filed.

The brief, available in rtf format here, was filed on behalf on Not Dead Yet, ADAPT, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, National Council on Independent Living, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.

Excerpt:

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

The District Court held that the application of the homicide statutes to physician-assisted suicide was unconstitutional because the Plaintiffs had a right in Montana’s Constitution to obtain lethal drugs, what the District Court euphemistically labeled “aid in dying,” a/k/a assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Disability amici curiae, five national disability organizations, with Montana members, support the state’s appeal that Montana’s homicide statutes applied to physician-assisted suicide do not violate any Montana constitutional provisions.
This case does not concern the settled issue of the individual’s right to refuse treatment, even if it might result in death. Certainly, people have a “right to die” by removing life supports and letting nature take its course. This case concerns only whether there is a Montana constitutional right to have active “assistance” in committing suicide. Before this Court is the question of the affirmative involvement of third parties – doctors.
Were this Court to uphold the District Court’s decision, it would also soon face a number of related issues in future cases:

• Why should the Constitutional right be limited to providing only lethal medications? Why not lethal injections? What if the lethal medication does not work quickly enough? Why not assistance smothering the person?
• If such a constitutional right exists, why should a person’s right be limited to “aid” only from doctors? What about family members, friends, assisted suicide advocates?
• Why should it be limited to only people who have a disabling condition that is labeled “terminal?” Why not any disabling condition? Why not a firm decision to commit suicide by any competent person?

Please read the rest of the brief here. --Stephen Drake

Catching Up - Last Week a Busy One for ADAPT

I apologize (again) for the unannounced hiatus here. Last week, I was doing my part to do press work, and get the word out in various fora (with the exception of this one obviously) about the national ADAPT Action in Washington, DC.

NDY allies within the disability community are well aware of our involvement and concern with broader disability rights issues, but it often comes as a surprise to people outside of the community. These are the people who know that NDY has been prominent in the struggle against legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, but really don't have any real knowledge about disability rights issues in general.

Last week, hundreds of disability rights activists were in Washington, DC to demand passage of the Community Choice Act (CCA). In a nutshell, this is a bill designed to improve the quality of the lives of millions of people with disabilities by giving them easier access to support in their own homes rather than being forced into institutions and nursing homes.

A full multimedia account of last week's actions can be located at the ADAPT Action Report.

Once in awhile it's necessary to remind people that we're just one part of a larger disability rights movement that has been working hard to improve the lives of people with disabilities of all ages.

People like Bob Levine, for example. He's a board member of that "special" group of "special" individuals that make up the Final Exit Network (FEN). Among the comments I received was this one from him:

Not dead yet is very good at criticizing anyone trying to help those whose life is so miserable that they not longer want to live but NDY has NOTHING TO OFFER in its place.

Instead of another long harangue it would be good to see something constructive but I'm afraid that is not possible with them. To bad

To Mr. Levine and all the other "special" people at the FEN - I am unaware of anything you have to offer people except a cult-like certainty in your own infallibility, the know-how to operate a helium tank, and the ability to hold a person's hands down to make sure they don't pull their "exit bag" off. --Stephen Drake

PS - I will post and (if possible) reply to other comments that came in tomorrow.