I don’t usually say “kick butt” and I’m pretty sure I’ve never written it before, but I couldn’t resist. This blog is to catch you up on NDY articles and letters published recently in the New Jersey press.
You last heard from our hero John Kelly in our blog on June 19th, which featured John’s letter to the Times of Trenton, responding to a column in favor of the NJ assisted suicide bill.
We had been concerned that John’s letter might not be published, so I had fired one off too, figuring that more letters increase the likelihood that at least one will be published. As things turned out, my letter was also published on June 22nd, but with a very objectionable title:
Introduce patient safeguards into assisted suicide bill
George Amick’s column about the New Jersey assisted suicide bill mentions the bill’s vaunted safeguards, but a closer look shows they are hollow. For example, Mr. Amick says that the form to request assisted suicide requires “two witnesses, at least one of them a nonrelative, attesting that the applicant is competent and acting voluntarily.” What he doesn’t mention is that the witnesses don’t actually have to know you, but can simply verify your I.D. How does a stranger know if you are being coerced behind closed doors?
Mr. Amick also says that the doctor writes “a prescription for a lethal dose of barbiturates for the patient to self-administer when — and if — he or she decided to do so.” But the bill doesn’t have any safeguards after the doctor writes the lethal prescription. From that point forward, the greedy heir or stressed-out caregiver can pick up the script and administer it with or without consent. With no witness required at the death, there’s no way to know whether it was self-administered.
Competent lawyers wrote this law, and the emptiness of the safeguards is no accident. It was never meant to protect the patient, just the doctors and other participants in the death.
Diane Coleman, J.D., Rochester, N.Y. The writer is president/CEO of Not Dead Yet
To be clear, I do not believe that assisted suicide safeguards can be crafted that would protect individuals (“patients”) from the risks these laws pose.
Back to our hero, John. We had learned about online sites that tend to be followed by liberal and progressive legislators in New Jersey, so on June 25th John posted what is called a “diary” in bluejersey.com called “Assisted Suicide Is Not Progressive”.
John made several key points, such as:
Supporters of A2270 say that it is all about “autonomy,” but in reality the bill would limit choice, because it incentivizes insurers to restrict, or even deny, coverage. In today’s cost-cutting environment, where health-care options are limited, many people already struggle. A2270 would make it worse.
That same afternoon, we got the surprise announcement that the bill would be brought up on the Assembly floor for a vote the next day. John had been working on a longer op-ed for a couple days, so he moved into high gear and submitted it to politickernj.com. John’s piece de resistance was published the next day! So, the very day of the vote, legislators saw it in one of their main news resource outlets. Then, just to be sure, people on our side of the issue copied and distributed it to all legislators.
Entitled “Assisted Suicide: Just Too Dangerous”, it begins:
No matter how many amendments get added to the assisted suicide bill, A2270, whether for a prettier name (out goes “Death With Dignity,” in comes “Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill”) or for a changed-then-changed-back-again definition of “terminal illness,” the bill is too dangerous.
(It’s well worth a full read.) As a result of tremendous work done by the broad coalition of groups in the New Jersey Alliance Against Doctor Prescribed Suicide, the sponsor stated that he was two votes short of the number needed for passage, so he withdrew the bill and no vote was taken.
In interviews, the sponsor also claimed that the bill’s opponents were being emotional rather than looking at the “facts of the bill” (‘Aid in Dying’ bill, lacking enough votes, pulled from NJ Assembly agenda), a theme picked up by the Star Ledger’s editorial, which absurdly claimed that the sponsor “pulled the bill before a vote so he could soothe opponents’ fears — which he said were ‘genuine’ but fueled by emotion.”
If I had a nickel for every time that proponents of assisted suicide bills attributed our opposition to fear of death or other forms of emotionality, NDY would be able to attend all those fancy conferences that proponents use to hob nob with influential professionals and policy makers. I was just a teensy bit irritated by yet another such accusation, especially coming from an editorial board of a prominent paper, so I pushed back with a letter to the editor to provide some “clarification.”
My letter was published July 1st. It appeared under a photo of a patient and medical professional, accurately captioned “The writer argues that New Jersey legislators have a duty to set aside emotion and think about seriously ill people who need the law to protect them. (Denis Farrell/Associated Press).” Here is my letter:
Too many loopholes on NJ’s assisted-suicide bill
When it comes to emotion as a barrier to reason, assisted suicide’s proponents have a much bigger problem than opponents (“Wise to wait on assisted suicide,” editorial, June 30). But that’s understandable.
Based on their hearing testimony, many saw a loved one die in pain. I was angry, too, when my father’s oncologist left him in pain, until he finally turned to hospice and got the palliative care he needed. But whether his doctor was guilty of ignorance, carelessness or arrogance, that’s not a reason to change the law on assisted suicide.
Recent amendments to Assemblyman John Burzichelli’s “Aid in Dying” bill have not changed the primary reasons to oppose it. Terminal predictions are still unreliable. Treatable depression is still not addressed. One witness to the form can be an heir, and neither need to actually know the patient. Nothing stops any form of coercion or caregiver abuse outside the doctor’s office. There’s no independent witness at the time of death, so self-administration is still not assured. And there are still no enforcement provisions.
The bill doesn’t prevent abuse; it hides it. Legislators have a duty to set aside emotion and think about seriously ill people who don’t have a loving family and need the law to protect them.
Diane Coleman, president and CEO, Not Dead Yet, Rochester, N.Y.
New Jersey’s bill can be brought up for a vote again in the fall, so our work is not done, but at least we can pause and celebrate that our message got out there.
Thanks for these excellent comments that point out the REAL DANGERS of state sanction of assisted suicide with the “lethal injection.”
When states try to pass these misguided bills, we know that they NEVER will provide the funding to prevent abuse. Worse yet, as you indicate, these misguided bills, if passed, permit abuse to be hidden from view and provide the false appearance that there is no abuse. The public is educated to the “life is cheap” point of view and managed medical care and managed death for the profit motive are protected by the for-profit entities in their own best interests —but not always in the best interests of patients.
When we deal with defining words like “terminal” and “medical futility” and fail to recognize the fiscal futility for the hospitals who are reacting to reimbursement protocols that negatively impact THEIR bottom lines, the danger to the elderly and the disabled on Medicare/Medicaid is increasing.
Hopefully, the unilateral covert and overt DNR Code Status will be exposed and the law will require effective procedures to protect patients from having their hospital code status changed from “full code” to “DNR” without their informed consent.
Is is possible now under the law to circumvent the EMTALA and the ADA and the PSDA and remove the autonomy of the elderly/disabled on Medicare/Medicaid/Advantage Policies whose further hospital treatment will NOT be reimbursed under current CMS Reimbursement Protocols.
How can we change this? .