"Choice is an Illusion" President Margaret Dore States Congress Must Reject DC Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia Act

Margaret Dore

Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought assisted suicide and euthanasia legalization efforts throughout the United States, and now in the United States Congress, made the following statement in connection with H. J. Resolution 27 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"The resolution seeks to prevent DC Act 21-577 from going into effect," said Dore. "The Act is a deceptively written law that legalizes physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined." Dore stated, "The Act is a recipe for elder abuse, it applies to persons who have years or decades to live and purported oversight is a sham." Dore added, "The Act has national and international security implications."

A Recipe for Elder Abuse

Dore said, "The Act is stacked against the patient and a recipe for elder abuse." Dore elaborated, "The patient's heir, who will financially benefit from the patient's death, is allowed to actively participate in requesting the lethal dose. After that, no doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?"

"But, it gets worse," said Dore, "the death certificate is required to list a medical condition as the cause of death, which prevents prosecution." Dore explained, "The official cause of death is a medical condition (not murder) as a matter of law. For perpetrators, the death certificate is a 'stay out of jail free card.'"

Full Article and Source:
"Choice is an Illusion" President Margaret Dore States Congress Must Reject DC Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia Act

Washington State's "Death With Dignity" Law Imperils the Poor

Last week’s article by an assisted suicide/euthanasia advocate struck me as a bizarre article for Real Change, which advocates for the dignity and self-determination of the poor. (“Terminally ill patients face shortage of right-to-die drug amid controversy over capital punishment,” Real Change, June 18)

Washington’s assisted suicide law was passed in 2008 and went into effect in 2009. This was after a deceptive initiative campaign promised us that “only” the patient would be allowed to take the lethal dose. Our law does not say that anywhere. See Margaret K. Dore, “’Death with Dignity,” What Do We Advise Our Clients?,” King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009.

In Oregon, which has a similar law, there are documented cases of that state’s Medicaid program using the law to steer patients to suicide. In other words, indigent patients are offered suicide in lieu of desired treatments to cure or to extend life. The most well-known cases are Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup. See: Susan Donaldson James, “Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon,” ABC News, August 6, 2008, at ; and “Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions,” KATU TV, July 30, 2008, See also the Affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, filed by the Canadian government in Leblanc v. Canada.

Finally, consider this quote from a March 8, 2012 Jerry Large column in the Seattle Times. He says that at least a couple of his readers suggested euthanasia “if you couldn’t save enough money to see you through your old age.” For the poor, this would be non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. So much for the dignity and self-determination of the poor.

~ Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA * Seattle Washington

Source:
Washington's "Death With Dignity" Law Imperils the Poor

See Also:
Terminally-ill patients face shortage of right-to-die drug amid controversy over capital punishment

A Development Relevant to Abuse and Exploitation

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. One 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: Link]

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: (Link) ; 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: (Link). 

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 Washington’s mistake.

Full Article and Source:
Preventing Abuse and Exploitation, A Personal Shift in Focus 

10 Reasons People Get Railroaded into Guardianship

by MARGARET K. DORE

1. A Misconception of Guardianship
The first factor that contributes to unnecessary guardianships is a misconception of guardianship itself. The word “guardian” creates a warm and fuzzy image. Guardianship is, however, a severe loss of liberty.
 

2. Trolling for Clients
Some professional guardians petition the court to have themselves appointed guardian of persons with whom they have no prior relationship. If appointed, the professional guardian becomes entitled to an income stream, i.e. , fees from the person’s assets. This practice has been termed “trolling for clients.”
 

3. Ageism
Ageism is “prejudice or discrimination on the basis of age.” In the context of guardianship, ageism can influence whether a guardianship is imposed.
 

4. Court Visitors Recommend the Lawyers
Court visitors also contribute to the imposition of unnecessary guardianships because in many states, the visitor recommends whether the proposed ward should be given a lawyer. The proposed ward does not have an automatic right to counsel. This situation creates a conflict of interest.

5. The Visitor’s Fee Creates Another Conflict of Interest
If the guardian ad litem recommends counsel for the proposed ward, or if the guardian ad litem recommends against the guardianship, the petitioner may object to the guardian ad litem’s fee. The “smart” guardian ad litem, who wants to get paid, is thus under pressure to go along with the petition, not “make waves.” The guardian ad litem is, regardless, more likely to be paid if the guardianship is imposed. This is because with the appointment of a guardian, there is an official person (the guardian) who will be ordered to pay the guardian ad litem’s fee from the ward’s assets.
 

6. Vague, “Politically Correct” Statutes
In many states, persons subject to guardianship were formerly deemed “incompetent.” To eliminate the stigma, many states passed statutes employing the word “incapacitated” instead. This terminology is also contained in the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (1998). This change in terminology has caused an implicit lowering of the burden of proof. A judge or jury might think twice about deeming someone “incompetent” to handle his affairs. But deeming someone “incapacitated” or as having “incapacities” is not that big a deal.
 

7. Sudden Change and Potential Heirs
Another factor that contributes to unnecessary guardianships is sudden change, especially change that threatens potential heirs. More common examples include changing one’s will, selling family property, seeing a younger woman and/or marrying her. Any such action by an older person can result in a petition for guardianship.
 

8. Court Visitors Are Not Always Neutral
As custody attorneys know, guardians ad litem and evaluators are not always neutral; they instead follow their own value systems or other private criteria. With this situation, custody attorneys often advocate for the appointment of a guardian ad litem/parenting evaluator whose views are compatible with their cases. They may also move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem or parenting evaluator with whom they have an established relationship. The person appointed can be prealigned to one side.
 

9. Court Visitors Effectively Lower the Burden of Proof
Case law provides that the constitutionally required burden of proof for a guardianship is “clear and convincing evidence.” In many cases, this burden is easily met. The proposed ward is demented. There is no alternative to guardianship such as a power of attorney because the proposed ward is incompetent to execute such a document. In other cases, however, the burden would not be easily met i.e., if the petitioner would actually be required to show clear and convincing evidence. The petitioner, however, is often not required to meet this burden because as a practical matter, he only needs to convince the court visitor.
 

10. Incentives to Sell Out the Client (No “Dream Team” for the AIP)
Like the guardian ad litem, the “smart” lawyer who wants to be paid will not do anything that causes the petitioner to be unhappy, such as vigorously fighting the petition. The “smart” lawyer will also avoid disagreeing with the court, as the court has direct authority to appoint him, approve fees and order payment. The bottom line, there is pressure on the lawyer to sell out his client. For this reason also, a person may be placed under guardianship when it is not appropriate.

PROPOSALS FOR REFORM
Politically Correct Statutes
Eliminate Court Visitors/Mandatory Appointment of Counsel
Remove the Conflicts of Interest
Public Awareness

CONCLUSION
The law provides that guardianship not be imposed unless there is clear and convincing proof. In practice, this proof is often not required due to the factors identified above: vague, politically correct statutes; the role of court visitors; and in many states, the lack of mandatory counsel for the proposed ward. More broadly, there are numerous conflicts of interest that allow competent individuals to find themselves forced into guardianship. The next time, it could be you.

Full Article and Source:
Margaret Dore - AJFL 2008 (pdf)

Editorial: Legal Assisted Suicide is a Recipe for Abuse

Editor, the Tribune: I am an attorney in Washington state, where assisted suicide is legal. I am also president of Choice is an Illusion, a not-for-profit corporation opposed to assisted suicide.

I disagree with Sandy Davidson ("Missourians should have a right to die") that assisted suicide laws should be enacted in Missouri. Washington's assisted suicide law is similar to a law in Oregon. These laws are promoted as providing patient choice. They are instead a recipe for elder abuse.

Under both the Oregon and Washington laws, an heir, who will financially benefit from the patient's death, is allowed to actively help the patient sign up for the lethal dose. An heir can even talk for the patient during the lethal dose request process. This situation invites patient coercion, not patient choice.

More important, once the lethal dose is issued, there is no oversight, not even a required witness at the death. This creates the opportunity for someone who will benefit from the death to administer the dose without consent.

For more information about problems with legal assisted suicide, please visit www.choiceillusion.org.

~Margaret Dore

Battle Over Right to Die

As our population ages and useful life far outstrips our life expectancy, we nonetheless are still encountering far larger numbers of people who are alive, but perhaps not really living. It is over the issue of what constitutes a viable life, and our “right” to end it that a battle is being waged right under our noses, even though few of us seem to be aware of its existence, much less its implications.

The battle is between forces who support the “right to die” or pro-euthanasia, or “death with dignity” concept, and those who believe the last thing in the world you want is a government panel deciding at what point your life no longer has value or meaning, and checking off a box on a standardized form that seals your death – even if you approve of it.

Seattle Attorney Margaret Dore appears to be the Commander-in-Chief of a command post that issues daily alerts to a vast network of people who fear what will become of the general populace if governments obtain the right to determine when we should die. Her missives come from across the globe and she regularly argues in editorial pieces that the picture painted by assisted suicide proponents is not exactly as it might appear.

Generally, proponents of assisted suicide point to the wishes of competent people who are suffering from progressive diseases that ultimately will rob them of all normal functions, but might prolong their agony and the burden on their loved ones for years or even decades. They maintain that faced with this bleak outlook a competent person should be able to make a decision to end their life at a point where they still retain some function and dignity, and have not become a physical and financial burden to their families.

Dore is aware of this argument but she also makes some compelling points in her writings on the issue. Take for instance the state of Montana where physician-assisted suicide is supposedly considered legal.

That may be the way it appears on the surface, but Dore points out that “Under current Montana law, assisting a suicide exposes the assister to civil and criminal liability. Doctors and others can be held civilly liable for: (1) causing another to commit suicide; or (2) failing to prevent a suicide in a custodial situation where the suicide is foreseeable. This latter situation would typically occur in a hospital or prison. Those who assist a suicide can also be prosecuted for homicide under Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-102(1).

Full Article and Source:
Battle Over Right to Die

Selling Assisted Suicide State to State

As director of legal affairs for Compassion & Choices, [Kathryn Tucker] peruses state constitutions and laws to see if they address assisted suicide, which she refers to euphemistically as “aid in dying.”

So far, Washington and Oregon are the only states that have legalized assisted suicide in this country. Some believe that Montana has also, but a legal analysis of two court decisions which supposedly legalize assisted suicide in the state questions that assumption.

For all its efforts, Compassion & Choices, which was once known as the Hemlock Society, has seen more setbacks than successes. But that hasn’t stopped its latest campaign from revving up in Idaho.

It started in the local press with a column Tucker wrote in the June 25 issue of the Coeur d’Alene Press.

Tucker writes that “Idaho does not have a statute specifically addressing aid in dying, either to permit or prohibit the practice. It does not have [a statute making it] a crime of assisting another to ‘commit suicide.’ Accordingly, in Idaho, physicians can provide aid in dying.”

Margaret Dore, an attorney in Seattle who specializes in elder law, wrote a rebuttal to Tucker’s column for the Idaho Medical Association.

Dore stated that Tucker’s claim that there were no statutes dealing with assisted suicide “is untrue.”

“Idaho does have a statute prohibiting assisted suicide. Moreover, it has been in effect since 1994. Prior to that time, assisted suicide was prohibited solely by common law,” Dore emphasized.

“With assisted suicide prohibited by common law and not subsequently made legal, a doctor who causes a suicide with ‘deliberate intention’ is guilty of an unlawful killing … [and] can be statutorily charged with murder,” Dore explained.

Full Article and Source:
Selling Assisted Suicide State to State

One Year Anniversary of Legalized Assisted Suicide

Scores of Washingtonians “have become a victim” to the state’s one-year-old physician-assisted suicide law, said a pro-life hospice nurse.

“Thousands of others, including senior citizens and people with disabilities, have received the message that they, too, are expendable,” said Eileen Geller, founder of True Compassion Advocates, an organization that campaigned against Initiative 1000 and now provides information for those seeking good end-of-life care.

In July 2009, Margaret Dore, a Seattle attorney with expertise in probate, guardianship and elder law, wrote an article for the Washington Bar Association, in which she describes the abuse potential in the Death With Dignity Act.

Dore wrote that the Death With Dignity Act “contains potentially coercive provisions [that allow] an heir, who will benefit from the patient’s death, to help the patient sign up for the lethal dose. She stated that: “Having an heir act as one of the witnesses creates a presumption of undue influence [that] does not promote patient choice [but] invites coercion.”

She addressed the issue of “self-administering” the drug, stating that the law “does not state that ‘only’ the patient may administer the lethal dose [but] is instead defined as the act of ingesting. In other words, someone else putting the lethal dose in the patient’s mouth qualifies as ‘self-administration,’ [or] putting the lethal dose in a feeding tube or IV nutrition bag.”

The attorney discussed the issue of competency, noting that: “The act does not require that the patient be competent or even aware when the lethal dose is administered… [nor is there] language requiring the client’s consent at the time of administration. Without a requirement of competency, consent, or even awareness when the lethal dose is administered, the stage is set for undue influence and worse,” she concludes.

The Washington State Department of Health reported this week that lethal doses of medication were dispensed to 63 people between March 5, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2009.

Under the Death With Dignity Act, the physician cannot list assisted suicide as the cause of death but instead must report an underlying illness present at the time of death. If the death certificate isn’t sent to the health department, there is no way of knowing if the deceased died from assisted suicide or not.

Full Article and Source:
Washington: First Year Under Legalized Assisted Suicide