Final Exit Network Billboard "Improved" by Billboard Liberation Front

(Note - The image above is of the Final Exit Network (FEN) billboard in San Francisco that says "My Life  My Death  My Choice."  Below those words the old website address has been replaced by the web address for Phillip Morris, manufacturer of Marlboro cigarettes and other tobacco products.)

Some things are just too good to be true.

Once in a while, though, you get pleasantly surprised.

A few days ago, I heard that the Final Exit billboard in San Francisco had been the victim of some "creative vandalism" from a group called the "Billboard Liberation Front."  I held off, just in case this was a hoax.

Well, it's a hoax, all right, but it's FEN and Phillip Morris, leading manufacturers of cigarettes, who are the victims.

Up above is a picture of the new and greatly improved billboard.

Here is the press release from the Billboard Liberation Front:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 27, 2010
San Francisco

The Billboard Liberation Front (BLF) is honored to announce a new marketing partnership with Philip Morris (PM) that finally brings together the rugged sense of American independence with your most important choice as a consumer: your death. The message of “My Life. My Death. My Choice.” informs and empowers the consumer to choose, as their god given right, how they want to die. Philip Morris brings this message to the consumer to remind them that some rights are inalienable in life as they are in death.

“We’ve always said that the only two things in life that are unavoidable are death and taxes,” commented Michael E. Szymanczyk, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Philip Morris. “This campaign drives home that message where, if you are gonna die, might as well do it on your terms. Just like our Marlboro Men did.”

According to Patrick B. Smelt, Chief of Marketing, “This bold message of independence and demanding life and death on your terms fits with the current zeitgeist of anti-establishmentarianism and post-post-modern rage at the repressive state demanding a healthier you and your environment.”

The BLF was honored to accept this exciting challenge. “We have no comment on President Obama’s health care reform, but many consumer of Philip Morris’s products do. We felt that this campaign picks up on a widespread rage that some nameless, faceless bureaucrat might give them cheaper health care, preventative treatment, and maybe deny them the sweet release we are all seeking,” said Rico T. Spoons, BLF Director of Offense as he idly drew a razorblade across his wrists. “This oppressive political climate and fascist approach towards health raises the comforting question of ‘how will you end it all?’ I like to think that we are just giving some poor folks a reminder that Philip Morris will always be there to help kill you.”

All former Marlboro Men, Wayne McLaren, David McLean and Dick Hammer, were unavailable for comment due to their rugged, manly choice of death by lung cancer.

The improvement can be viewed on Howard at Van Ness.

It's nice to see some creative anarchy alive and well - and we especially appreciate the choice of targets this time around.

Connecticut: No Appeal in 'Aid in Dying' Case

Good news and appropriate headline from the Hartford Courant:

No Appeal in 'Aid in Dying' Case

I'd like to think that the editors at the paper used the scare quotes on purpose.  Superior Court Judge Julia Aurigemma consistently framed the term that way in her decision to dismiss the case.  The article gives an indication of why it's extremely appropriate in covering this case:

The plaintiffs in a lawsuit aimed at making it legal for doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives will not appeal a judge's decision to dismiss the case.

Fairfield County physicians Gary Blick and Ronald Levine filed the lawsuit last year asking the court to declare that a state law against assisting suicide would not apply to doctors who prescribed lethal medication to mentally competent, terminally ill patients who asked for it. Doing so would not be suicide, their lawsuit argued, but "aid in dying."

In response,  Judge Aurigemma used the term "aid in dying" every time she used in her long memorandum dismissing the case.  In essence, Aurigemma ruled that the legislature had visited the issue of physician-assisted suicide a number of times - and had never passed an exemption.  The term 'aid in dying' was treated by the judge - rightly - as having no legitimacy, since it was in fact just a substitute term for an issue the legislature had already visited under a more established name.

More from the article:

In a statement Thursday, Kathryn Tucker, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the decision not to appeal was based on Connecticut's "unusually strict" sovereign immunity laws.

"But the question posed in this case remains," said Tucker, legal director of Compassion & Choices, a national end-of-life-care advocacy group that backed the lawsuit. "It is essential for Connecticut physicians to know whether providing aid in dying subjects them to criminal prosecution. At present, patients are unsure if they will be able to access aid in dying should they confront an unbearable dying process."

A couple of things on this 'spin' from the organization I tend to think of as "Conflation & Con Jobs":

I doubt that Connecticut is "unusually strict" when it comes to sovereign immunity.  Most states have measures of immunity in place.  My guess is that they wrote this off since pretty much every argument they made was written off - including their attempt at a judicial sanction of "aid in dying" as a legitimate and distinct type of medical "care."

C&C attorney Kathryn Tucker says it's "essential" for physicians and patients to know if handing out lethal prescriptions to patients for the purpose of suicide will subject them to prosecution.  This is pure posturing on Tucker's part.  The court gave her the answer to that question - physicians can be prosecuted in those circumstances.

Get real.  Not liking the answer is NOT the same as "not knowing."  --Stephen Drake

Widow Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Final Exit Members in Georgia

Billboards or no, troubles continue to mount for the Final Exit Network (FEN):

From blogger Greg Land -

Widow sues 'Final Exit Network' over its role in husband's death:

10:07 am, June 23rd, 2010
 
The widow of a Forsyth County man who died two years ago with the assistance of the Final Action Network, an assisted suicide organization, has filed a wrongful death and negligence suit against the group and four members already facing criminal charges that they helped John D. Celmer, 54, commit suicide with the aid of an “exit hood” connected to a helium tank.

The individual defendants—co-founder Thomas Goodwin of Kennesaw, Claire Blehr of Atlanta, and Lawrence Egbert and Nicholas A. Sheridan, both of Baltimore, Md.—were indicted by a Forsyth County grand jury in March on charges of assisting a suicide, tampering with evidence and racketeering in connection with Celmer’s death.

The civil complaint, filed last week on in Fulton County Superior Court by S. Fenn Little Jr. of Little, Crumley & Chambliss on behalf of Susan Celmer, says that her husband’s cancer was in remission in April 2008 when he contacted the Final Exit Network to inquire about its “exit guide” services. Celmer provided his medical records and filled out a questionnaire and other documents, it says, and on June 19, 2008, defendants Blehr and Goodwin went to Celmer’s home and helped him place the hood over his head, holding his hands as he inhaled the helium and remaining for about 15 minutes “to confirm Celmer was dead.”

The suit says Celmer’s prognosis for recovery was “excellent” at the time of his death, and seeks damages for the value of his life, the loss of companionship for his widow, and punitive damages.

Effort to reach Blehr’s attorney, Robert Rubin of Decatur’s Peters Rubin & Reynolds, was not immediately successful.

The zealots at FEN will probably attempt to describe this as "persecution" and part of a "witch hunt."  Looks like a widow seeking justice to me.  --Stephen Drake

Reporter Succeeds in Getting Two Suicide Prevention Organizations to Comment on Final Exit Network Billboard!

Regular readers of this blog might remember that last September - during Suicide Prevention Week - this blog blasted suicide prevention organizations for their silence on all the positive press coverage of the Final Exit Network (FEN).  The coverage included approval of suicides for people who are old, ill or disabled. For good measure, virtually every story on FEN included the organizations website - where people could get information and contact people who would affirm their desire to off themselves as "rational."

What we concluded was that Suicide Prevention Week didn't apply to people who are old, ill or physically disabled:

Specifically, there is an appalling lack of voiced concern over the promotion of suicide in the populations of old, ill and physically disabled people. For the first few months of this year, there was nationwide coverage of the Final Exit Network - an organization that supports and facilitates the suicides of people with nonterminal disabilities and chronic conditions. Over the course of many months, stories appearing in countless outlets included the URL for the Final Exit Network in their stories. The website provided information on obtaining suicide instructional materials and how to get involved with the Final Exit Network. Most of the articles treated the Network and its "work" sympathetically.

In case you're wondering, suicide prevention groups do get involved in media issues. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Suicide and Mental Health Association International both have sections devoted to media issues. Except for a brief mention of suicide increases related to publication of Derek Humphry's book, Final Exit, there is no acknowledgment that the suicides of old, ill and physically disabled people are being facilitated and then covered in a way that legitimizes them in the press.

Well, things are looking up, a little.

The Bay Citizen "was founded in 2010 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to fact-based, independent reporting on civic and community issues in the San Francisco Bay Area." (This all sounded familiar so I did a quick check of the likeliest source and found that the Chicago Reader's Michael Miner wrote about The Bay Citizen just about a month ago.)

Given the dismal and consistent silence of suicide prevention organizations over the past year, I was extremely surprised when I read the headline of the latest story on FEN's billboards.  Senior writer Katharine Mieszowski wrote the story that broke new ground in coverage of FEN and assisted suicide.  The title that caught my eye was "Suicide-Prevention Experts Decry Ad," with a subtitle that suggests the billboard could send the wrong message to those who are suicidal. 

Here's an excerpt from the story about reactions to the billboard and FEN:

“This is irresponsible and downright dangerous; it is the equivalent of handing a gun to someone who is suicidal,” wrote Lanny Berman, president of the International Association of Suicide Prevention, in an email. “This message, communicated to thousands of vulnerable individuals, suffering from psychic and or physical pain that is treatable, invites a tragic and final solution to problems that most often can be solved with proper evaluation and treatment.”

 These are strong words - and I'm grateful for them.  Berman doesn't seem to be aware, though, that this message has been conveyed through countless op-eds and news articles over the past year, all carrying contact information for the FEN.  And the message those suffering from "psychic or physical pain" when they contact a representative of FEN is the same that is on the billboard.

The representative of a local suicide prevention organization seems to be totally clueless as the scope of FEN's activities and who they think should be facilitated in commiting suicide:

“Regardless of what someone might feel about assisted suicide, I feel the message behind this billboard is confusing and dangerous,” wrote David Paisley, deputy director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, in an email.

“It assumes people will understand that it is a billboard about assisted suicide or they will go to the website,” he wrote. “In reality, most people who see the billboard from the street or car will not go to the website, but are left with a message that could be interpreted very tragically by someone in crisis and acting impulsively.”

Paisley seems to be suffering from severe ignorance in regard to just what FEN will be telling people when they call.  Does he really think that FEN exists to talk old, ill and disabled people out of killing themselves???

Finally, a representative of FEN has the final word - and that final word from Frank Kavanaugh is a lie - a big one:

“We don’t even think that what we do is suicide,” said Kavanaugh. “What we’re about is assistance in dying. We’re dealing with mentally competent people who are rational. People who are suicidal are severely depressed, psychotic, acting impulsively. We would never touch anybody in that kind of a situation.”

That is total crap.  The case in Arizona - in which two FEN members have already entered into plea bargain agreements - involve their facilitation of the suicide of a woman who had no serious physical illness at all, but who had a long history of emotional problems.

Kudo to Ms. Mieszowski.  Out of all the reporters who have covered FEN, she is the only one to have contacted suicide prevention organizations for comment - or at least the first one who has gotten a reply. 

My advice to Lanny Berman and David Paisley: Start learning more about FEN.  This isn't about a "mixed message" or hitting the wrong target audience.  Here's a quote from a message left by FEN board member Bob Levine on the article on the Arizona case linked above:

We think every adult, mentally competent person has the right to end their life on their own terms. We think it is an inherent human right. The prosecutor obviously does not believe this and because of his beliefs he is using his police powers to do so.

Well, there's also the issue of the family complaining to police about the death of the Arizona woman, which they viewed as a tragedy rather than an exercise of her rights.  The police are concerned with several activities of FEN they allege - removing the helium tank and mask after death and generally cleaning the scene, reducing the ambiguity the woman felt about actually commiting suicide, and the suggestion that they might have held her hands to prevent her "accidentally" removing the plastic bag off her face.

In any case, Levine didn't really mean "every adult" - it's pretty clear that a person has to be old, ill or disabled to be considered by them.

The question I have is this:

Is this the first word from suicide prevention organizations on this matter - or is it the last one?  In other words, will they finally break their silence and actually act like the lives of old, ill and disabled people matter to them?  Or will they retreat into their previous silence - and abandonment - of this group of people?

Many of us would like to know.  --Stephen Drake

Final Exit Network Starts Billboard Campaign

Many readers of this blog are probably already aware that the Final Exit Network (FEN) has put up a promotional billboard in San Francisco.  The group promises to erect more in New Jersey and Florida. 

There hasn't been a great deal of attention paid to the group and the billboard as of yet, but what little there is shows clearly the advantage FEN has in managing the information about themselves, as can be seen in this SFGate blog entry:

According to its site, FEN provides support, information and counseling, and doesn't physically help people end their lives. But authorities believe the group played an active role in the death of a cancer-stricken man in Georgia and have charged four network members with assisted suicide, evidence-tampering and racketeering, reports Time. They were indicted by a grand jury in April.

 Interestingly, the blog links to a story in the last sentence of this paragraph that gives a lot more detail - and contradicts the claims made by FEN that are otherwise unchallenged in this report.  Here's an excerpt from the MSNBC article in the link above, referring to two of the defendants in the Georgia case, Thomas Goodwin and Clair Blehr:

Goodwin and Blehr were with Celmer when he died, each holding one of his hands, according to court records. Afterward, investigators said they removed a helium tank and hood Celmer wore to help him suffocate. Investigators say Egbert and Sheridan evaluated him before his death and gave the OK for his suicide.

FEN members also cleaned up the scene, removing the helium tank, plastic hood, etc.  As for "holding" hands, the allegations of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation are stronger than that:

The death had been planned for months, authorities say. Two helium tanks were purchased, along with an “exit bag,” or hood to be placed over the suicidal man’s head.

Thomas “Ted” Goodwin, 63, formerly of Kennesaw, and Claire Blehr, 76, of Atlanta, would observe the death of the man they were told suffered from pancreatic cancer. In truth, the man was a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent conducting a sting operation at a residence in Dawson County.

On Wednesday, authorities say, Goodwin walked the undercover agent through the steps that would have killed him. He demonstrated how he would hold down the undercover agent’s hands to prohibit him from removing the “exit bag.” (Emphasis added.)

I'll be writing more about FEN, and some reactions (past and present) from different parties and what it can tell us about the broader "right to die" movement. I think we're getting to the point where groups like "Conflation & Con Jobs" AKA "Compassion and Choices" can't accuse us of being fearmongers when we accuse their movement of following "incrementalist" or "slippery slope" strategies.  --Stephen Drake

New Guidelines for Determining Brain Death - But Will Hospitals Actually Follow Them?

From USA Today - "When is someone brain dead? Experts revise guidelines":

Determining brain death is a complex process that requires dozens of tests to make sure doctors come to the correct conclusion.

With that goal in mind, the American Academy of Neurology has issued new guidelines — an update of guidelines first written 15 years ago — that call on doctors to conduct a lengthy examination, including following a step-by-step checklist of some 25 tests and criteria that must be met before a person can be considered brain dead.

The goal of the guidelines is to remove some of the guess work and variability among doctors in their procedure for declaring brain death, which previous research has found to be a problem, said guidelines co-author Dr. Panayiotis Varelas, director of the Neuro-Intensive Care Service at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.

According to the U.S. Uniform Determination of Death Act, brain death occurs when a person permanently stops breathing, the heart stops beating and "all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem" cease.

While no one disagreed with that description, a 2008 study that included 41 of the nation's top hospitals found widespread and worrisome variability in how doctors and hospitals were determining who met the criteria, said Varelas, co-author of the 2008 review.

Dr. James Bernat elaborated on the findings of the 2008 review, the implications and the intent of the new guidelines.

Dr. James Bernat, a professor of neurology and medicine at Dartmouth Medical School, said the new guidelines will help to remove some of the variability in how doctors determine brain death.

"The 2008 study disclosed rather surprising and disturbing variations in determining brain death, and in some cases there were practices that were just plain wrong," Bernat said.

The main risk is that a patient will be declared brain dead who really isn't, Bernat said.

"The authors of this (new) study are experts in their field and have done an evidence-based, authoritative review," Bernat said. "They are saying, 'This is the way it ought to be done.' The goal is to improve the uniformity and the quality of neurological practice."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this will have a great impact on current practices.  These new guidelines are recommended guidelines, just like the old ones. In fact, when I read the 2008 study, it seemed clear to me that the biggest problem wasn't a lack of specificity in the guidelines, but a virtual guarantee of widely varying practices built into the Uniform Determination of Death Act. Here's a relevant excerpt from the abstract of the study:

In accordance with the Uniform Determination of Death Act, guidelines for brain death determination are developed at an institutional level, potentially leading to variability of practice.

So, again, unless I am missing something, individual hospitals still get to set their own practice standards in making a determination of brain death.  I don't see them hopping up and embracing the new, detailed standards here, frankly.  From what I can see, the trend has been for hospitals to move toward standards that broaden the types of medical professionals that can make the determination, as was recently done in Virginia in a way that makes it possible to have a determination made without the involvement of a physician in a neurologically-related specialty. In the link above discussing Virginia, there is also information on a 2006 attempt by medical organizations in New Jersey to expand the range of professionals allowed to make a determination of brain death and dropping the two-physician requirement at the same time.

It seems - and not for any sinister reasons - that hospitals want to be able to make those determinations more quickly and with which ever medical professional is handiest.  They're looking to save money and time - and time may be important when organ donation is a consideration.

I don't see how - unless the Uniform Determination of Death Act is rewritten - these new guidelines will have much impact, especially since even one of the authors seems to be engaging in a bit of denial over what the widely varying practices have meant in life-and-death terms:

"We found no credible report of anyone who was brain dead and who woke up and survived," Varelas said.

I have two issues with this statement.  First of all, any individual who is being evaluated for brain death is obviously in dire straits.  It's highly unlikely that many would survive the removal of life support, even if they were capable of recovery - and obviously those who might have gotten falsely diagnosed as "brain dead" who were organ donors had no chance to recover at all.

Which brings me to the second issue.  In 2008, 21-year-old Zack Dunlap was determined to be brain dead in an Oklahoma hospital following an ATV accident.  As luck would have it, one of the two friends who accompanied him to be prepped for organ donation had some medical training - and got a "feeling" that Dunlap didn't look "ready."  The friend did some simple test for reactions to scraping his skin - and got them.  Organ harvesting was called off and he was evaluated further.  Dunlap eventually made close to a full recovery.

I don't know what to make of the statement Varelas made.  The report on Dunlap was very credible.  Maybe Varelas would claim that Dunlap was never really brain-dead, so he doesn't count.  That would be beside the point, though.

Because no matter how thoroughly or sloppily the determination was made, once Zack Dunlap was declared "brain dead," he was corpse in the eyes of the State of Oklahoma.  And he stayed a corpse until the hospital realized it made a mistake (although they called it a "miracle" rather than a "mistake").

So - someone tell me, please.  What good are the new guidelines if hospitals don't have to follow them? --Stephen Drake

Next on the Kevorkian Promotional Tour: Larry King Live

The promotional tour of Kevorkian - with his new and improved "packaging" - continues on CNN.  According to the CNN site, he'll be appearing on Larry King Live on Friday, June 18th.  This should be real nausea-inducing.

Why would I think that?

Well, for starters, Larry is the "King" of softball interviews and it's why people love to come on his show.  They won''t get asked any hard questions and King will treat them with an attitude ranging from warm geniality to open adoration.  That's the normal mode for the Kingster.

However, as noted in this blog, Kevorkian has already gotten softball treatment from both Anderson Cooper and Sanjay Gupta.  It's gonna be real hard for even the master of fluffy interviews to go softer than his two colleagues.

I figure the only place he can go is to use the ten questions always used by James Lipton on Inside the Actors Studio:

1. What is your favorite word?
2. What is your least favorite word?
3. What turns you on?
4. What turns you off?
5. What sound or noise do you love?
6. What sound or noise do you hate?
7. What is your favorite curse word?
8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
9. What profession would you not like to do?
10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?

 Those questions could fill a lot of time and manage to out-softball Anderson and Gupta - barely.

FWIW, you can submit questions for the show at this link.

As an exercise in futility, I submitted one.  I asked why Kevorkian was lying about his motivation in helping people commit suicide.  Right now, he's saying it's all about relieving suffering.  But in his 1991 book "Prescription: Medicide" he told a potential "client" that his primary goal was the "prospect of making possible the performance of invaluable experiments or other beneficial medical acts."

My guess is that King will ask Kevorkian what kind of animal he'd like to be reborn as rather than ask something of substance like the question above.  But submit questions anyway.  Then King and his staff won't have ignorance as an excuse for sticking with mush in terms of content.  --Stephen Drake

Long Discussion on Kevorkian and Related Topics with Stephen Hand

On Saturday Morning, I was a guest of Stephen Hand on his show on blogtalkradio.  It was a long discussion that covered topics such as the recent positive media attention being given to Jack Kevorkian, mostly being stage-managed by HBO and CNN, which are both properties of Time-Warner.  We also talked about Peter Singer, bioethics and Edwin Black and his book War Against the Weak.

Stephen Hand comes from a different perspective than the secular one of NDY, and there are definitely some issues we wouldn't see eye to eye on.  But we're very much in sync when it comes to euthanasia, assisted suicide and related issues.  Steve and his family are very much part of the disability community - his wife has lived with multiple sclerosis for about twenty years; their son was gravely injured many years ago and - thanks to their resistance to medical pressure - survives and enjoys life with disability.

Unlike most media interviews/discussions, this one was very relaxed - less of an interrogation (as some tend to be) and more like an exploration of some areas of mutual concern.  The time flew by amazingly quickly.

The show is available for listening at this link

I want to thank Steve Hand for 90 minutes I felt were spent well.  I hope that he and his listeners felt the same way.  --Stephen Drake.

Addendum: Coincidentally, Edwin Black has an op-ed out today on The Cutting Edge - you can read Mendoza Legislation AB 2072 Nudges California Back to Eugenics here.

CNN's Sanjay Gupta Fawns Over Kevorkian in Pre-HBO Documentary PR Blitz

HBO will be airing a documentary on Kevorkian on June 28th.  It will undoubtedly be a soft and positive take on Kevorkian.

This morning, in what was no doubt the first in several media gigs stage-managed by CNN, Sanjay Gupta gives a stunningly shallow and fawning account of a day spent with Kevorkian.  Not that we in the disability community expect much from Sanjay Gupta - last year, he grossly misreported the facts on the Community Choice Act, and has so far not bothered to apologize for his error or to correct the record.

Sanjay Gupta's report on his visit with Kevorkian can be read here.  There is a "comment" section - I've already done so and invite others to do the same.  --Stephen Drake

Poll: Finances Dominate Medical Decisions When it Comes to Our Pets

About three months ago, I commented on an essay in Newsweek by a veterinary oncologist who, among other things, said that "pet owners routinely rack up $10,000 bills" to save the lives of their pets.  As I said at the time, that vet doesn't service pets and their owners in my neighborhood, where few of us struggling middle-class folks have that kind of cash laying around.  And with our own health concerns to worry about, it's unlikely we'd want to dig ourselves that deep into debt for a pet.  Evidently, the claim that spending that much on a pet's health is done routinely says a lot about the socioeconomic status of the veterinarian who wrote the essay, her clientele,  and the Newsweek editors who evidently didn't find the claim extraordinary. 

At the time, I didn't have any real data to back me up - just some common-sense notion of the economic challenges and the priorities people around me work with to meet those challenges.

Turns out I was pretty spot-on with my comments that time, at least according to an Associated Press-Petside.com poll. 

The AP and Petside Reports that "Money is a huge consideration in pet care":

All pet owners hate to think about it, but when the family pet gets sick, money matters.

For Nancy Gates, whose dog, Arabella needed a $500 heart surgery, the only option was to put her dog down.

"It was pretty straight forward because I had four young children to feed. The vet said surgery was my only option. I did not want my dog to suffer," said Gates, 41, who lives in Cotati, about 50 miles north of San Francisco.

Money is something to consider for the majority of pet owners dealing with animal health care, according to a new AP-Petside poll.

Most pet owners, 62%, say they would be likely to get vet treatment if the bill exceeded $500. But for a bill of $1,000, that figure drops to 42%. If the cost is $2,000, 35% would pay, and if the cost reaches $5,000, 22% would foot the bill.

A longer report, issued by the AP, reports that many people are painfully aware of the economic pressures pushing them to choose euthanasia for their pets over costly medical treatment.

Why bring this up?  As I've mentioned in several blog entries, a common platitude used by euthanasia proponents goes something like this: "When our pets are dying and in pain, we give them a merciful death; Why do we force humans to suffer?"

It's an emotionally compelling argument - one used recently by Philadelphia writer Mary Shaw, who wrote an essay filled with misinformation about Kevorkian (i.e. the people who died at his hands were terminally ill).  Naturally, something that inaccurate ended up being disseminated to many online publications - Salon.com, Alternet, and thepeoplesvoice.org, to name just a few.

Mixed in with the pile of misinformation about Kevorkian and the pro-assisted suicide movement was this:

When a pet becomes ill to the point where it is near death and suffering uncontrollably, a veterinarian will not think twice before recommending that the pet be euthanized, to put the animal out of its misery.

So why do we treat our dying pets with more mercy than we treat our dying people?

 As I've written here, here, here and here - rather than being an argument, this is a distortion of why pets are euthanized by their owners.  Only a small fraction are suffering painfully from an incurable disease that is killing them.  Economic factors are more common - the pet becomes incontinent, harming rugs, furniture and floors or - as the recent poll indicates - we just can't afford to spend the money on the kind of medical treatment the pet needs.

So the next time someone makes an argument that we should treat our loved ones - parents, grandparents, etc. - more like animals - just think about what that really means.  And then ask the person who made the argument if that means that we should have our loved ones euthanized if they become incontinent or the medical care they need is too expensive - since that is how we treat our animals.  --Stephen Drake

Maryland: New Factually-Impaired Op-Ed from Final Exit Network - and My Response

On Monday, June 7, the Baltimore Sun published a commentary by Jerry Dincin, the current president of the Final Exit Network (FEN).  You never know what a FEN member is going to write - sometimes they make it sound like they only deal with "terminally ill" people, sometimes they claim to give only "advice," - they're kind of all over the board in terms of what they've written and said over the past year.

In this particular case, Dincin was pretty open about who FEN "helps" -- anyone with "unbearable pain and indignity" is the phrase used this time.  Dincin also makes the case for providing suicide assistance for people with dementia in this article - which makes me wonder if FEN and "Conflation & Con Jobs" aka "Compassion & Choices" might be coordinating their public outreach strategies.

Here are a few factually-challenged items from the end of the essay titled "Death with dignity":

Who are those who have the heart to consign these people to a living hell? If the patient were their mother, would they? Do we not have a moral obligation to spare these patients and their families unspeakable torment?

We as a society do indeed have that power, and it is time we gathered in numbers and exercised it. That's where my organization, Final Exit Network, comes in. We provide information and counsel to patients who approach us seeking to deliver themselves from torture and make informed choices. The impetus comes from within them; we do not "encourage" anyone. We go to great lengths to ensure that the person is capable of choosing rationally.

What we do is wholly different from physician-assisted suicide, since we never supply any equipment or administer any lethal chemicals. We are careful to keep our efforts within the law. That, however, has not prevented some local governments, notably Georgia and Arizona, from persecuting many of my colleagues — including our former medical director, Dr. Egbert.

Ending a life of unbearable pain and indignity is a basic human right. We at Final Exit Network provide compassion in the form of information and empathy, and we are proud of our work.

I read that, took some anti-nausea medication, and typed off a "comment" for the online copy of Dincin's piece.

Then I reworked it and submitted it as a "reader comment" aka "letter to the editor."  It was accepted and published online.  I am told that it was published on the Opinion page of the print edition of the Sun today (June 9).

Here is my response to the latest FEN propaganda piece:

As the research analyst for a national disability rights group that opposes legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, I am all too familiar with the Final Exit Network (FEN). I think it's important that readers – and the editors – know that Jerry Dincin misled readers on several points in his essay published on June 7 ("Death with dignity").

Mr. Dincin claims that authorities are "persecuting" FEN members in Georgia and Arizona. That is a gross distortion. The authorities in Georgia and Arizona initiated investigations after complaints by concerned relatives that the apparent suicides of their loved ones were aided and encouraged by FEN members. That's not "persecution" — it's "doing your job."

In Georgia, the undercover agent who investigated FEN posing as a cancer patient asserted he was never asked for his medical records. Further, he reported that he was told that part of the "help" he would be given involved a FEN "exit guide" holding his hands down to prevent him from removing the helium-filled plastic bag meant to cause his death.

In Arizona, the person "helped" was a woman with no serious physical problems — but who had a history of emotional difficulties. Mr. Dincin didn't mention that two of the defendants in that case have entered into a plea bargain and agreed to testify against other FEN members — including Larry Egbert.

The man "helped" in Georgia was a man successfully treated for cancer, and who was depressed over the surgical alterations to his physical appearance. Autopsy found him to be cancer-free.

Search for op-eds by FEN members and you'll find the claims that members make about their goals, methods and "clients" to vary widely — apparently, they can't keep their stories straight. The journalists at the paper might want to actually do some research and reporting on this case before giving the group a bully pulpit here.

People who follow this blog might notice that I mention two defendants entering into a plea bargain agreement when only one has been mentioned here.

My apologies for failing to report this until now, but one more of the FEN defendants has indeed cut a deal.  It should make for an "interesting" trial. --Stephen Drake

Connecticut: Superior Court Judge Dismisses Suit by Assisted Suicide Advocates

Good news from Connecticut - Superior Court Judge Julia Aurigemma has dismissed the case brought by two doctors - with heavy assistance by Compassion & Choices (C&C) - which sought to decriminalize physician-assisted suicide through the courts.

Specifically, C&C, in a bold move, sought to have the court sanction "aid in dying" as a separate entity from "assisted suicide" - and therefore exempt from any laws against assisting in a suicide.

Judge Aurigemma didn't buy it.  In fact, she put the phrase "aid in dying" in quotes - every time she used it - in her long memorandum dismissing the case.  I read this as a "hint" that she's not viewing the term as a legitimate one. Aurigemma also rejected the argument that this kind of policy should be implemented through the courts - it's exactly the kind of public policy that legislatures should be in charge of.

Here is a description of her analysis from the Hartfort-Courant:

The matter raises public policy concerns that the legislature is "uniquely positioned" to evaluate, Aurigemma wrote. Some of the concerns she listed echoed those raised by advocates for people with disabilities, who sought to intervene in the case, and argued that granting the doctors' request could be dangerous to people with severe disabilities.

Among the concerns:

•Would physician-assisted suicide threaten the most vulnerable people in society? If so, how could they be protected from pressure or coercion?
•Would it shift doctors' and insurers' focus away from treating depression and providing pain control and palliative care?
•Would allowing doctors to help patients die erode patient trust in the doctor's role as a healer?
•Would it open the door to the possibility of involuntary euthanasia?

"The legislature is the most appropriate body to evaluate these important questions as well as a host of other complex issues," Aurigemma wrote.

I suspect this won't be the end of C&C's efforts in Connecticut.  But for now, it's a real setback for them and a time for a short celebration for those of us who continue to fight these efforts. --Stephen Drake

Today's edition of the Wall Street Journal has a very good article on the Betancourt v. Trinitas case in New Jersey.  (All of the previous posts on the case can be found by accessing this link)

Suzanne Sataline provides the best summary of the issues in the case - as argued by stakeholders on both sides.  Here is a brief summary of what happened to Ruben Betancourt from Sataline's article "Court Weighs Death Decision":

Trinitas Regional Medical Center in Elizabeth argues that Mr. Betancourt was in a persistent vegetative state and that giving further care was unwarranted and unethical, prolonging a painful death. The hospital is appealing a lower-court judgment from 2009 that ordered Trinitas to provide life-saving treatment to the patient.

Mr. Betancourt died in May 2009, a year before the appellate judges heard arguments. While his care decisions may now be academic, legal observers say they expect the court to rule in the closely watched case because New Jersey courts have not shied from such debates, which have become more common across the country.

Not Dead Yet, along with other disability rights groups, filed an amicus brief in the case. NDY is referenced in the article, along with other significant players on both sides:

Several organizations have weighed in on the fight. The New Jersey Hospital Association and the Medical Society of New Jersey argued that families have no constitutional right to demand end-of-life care and that hospitals have a duty to conserve their limited resources for all patients.

Not Dead Yet, a disability-rights organization based in Rochester, N.Y., backs the family, saying it fears that a decision in favor of Trinitas could mean that a hospital would have the power to overrule a patient's directive. Thaddeus Pope, a professor at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Del., filed a brief in support of the family, saying that the hospitals are seeking too much ultimate authority.

This is probably the most even-handed media treatment of the case that has appeared in print.  I'm told that Ms. Sataline spent a significant amount of time making sure she had a complete understanding of the facts of the case.

More later on this case - either on developments or on other commentary about it.  --Stephen Drake

Not Dead Yet UK Launches "The Resistance Campaign"

(The picture at the right is of disability activists in the UK. Most in the picture are using wheelchairs.  Several are holding signs.  There are two signs that can be read.  One says "You cut our money - you cut our lifeline;" and the other says "Increased poverty/Increased disability").

Not Dead Yet UK has launched "The Resistance Campaign," urging all Members of Parliament (MPs) to sign on to the 'Resistance' Charter 2010 - protecting the lives of disabled and terminally ill people.

Key points from the charter:

· A recognition that disabled and terminally ill people should have the same legal protection as everyone else
· A commitment to support disabled and terminally ill constituents to access the health, social and other services that they need
· A commitment to oppose any change to the current law, which makes assisted suicide illegal.

 The campaign has gotten coverage on the BBC, The Guardian, and Public Service.

Here's an excerpt from Jane Campbell's column about the campaign in The Guardian:

Disabled and terminally ill people have had to deal with fear, prejudice and discrimination since the beginning of time. Our lives have been devalued by statements such as "he/she'd be better off dead". In recent years, calls for a change to the law prohibiting assisted suicide have grown louder and more frequent. They capitalise on fear. Fear of pain, fear of loss of dignity, fear of being a burden. And, yes, fear of witnessing those fears being felt by those we know and love. The solution offered to the fear of disability and illness is final: suicide.

Yet suicide is not well thought of in our society. It is "committed" by the mentally ill and those unable to face the future. In both cases, society does all that it can to prevent suicidal thoughts being enacted. Life is too precious to be solely entrusted to individual action. That society is willing to protect us, even from ourselves in times of personal crisis, defines our – and its – humanity.

However, those seeking a change to the law on assisted suicide say such ideals have no place when considering severely disabled and terminally ill people. Such lives, it seems, are not so precious: ending them prematurely should be a matter of individual choice. Perversely, if you can take your own life without assistance, society generally strives to protect you; but, if assistance to die is needed, they argue, it should be provided. The option to choose the time of one's death is to be reserved for those for whom assistance is required.

No equality there. Yet many see this as irrefutably logical and compassionate.

We here in the US applaud our brothers and sisters in the UK for continuing to present a powerful resistance to policies that endorse the ideas that disabled people are better off dead, as good as dead - and cheaper if we're dead. --Stephen Drake