Testimony of Anita Cameron
Opposing New Hampshire HB 1659
House Judiciary Committee
February 12. 2020
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for allowing me to offer my thoughts to you today.
My name is Anita Cameron. I am a 54-year-old with multiple disabilities, two of which are degenerative, and one which will take my life. I am testifying in opposition to HB 1659, the New Hampshire Death With Dignity Act.
I will not use the euphemism that is the name of this bill, but will refer to it by exactly what it is – physician assisted suicide. It is very important to be up front, clear and honest about what this is. Couching it in pretty language and hiding the truth is disingenuous at best, and dangerous, at worst.
As disabled people know very well, doctors often make mistakes about whether a person is terminal or not. In June, 2009, while living in Washington state, my mother was determined to be in the final stages of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and placed in hospice. Two months later, I was told that her body had begun the process of dying. My mother wanted to go home to Colorado to die, so the arrangements were made. A funny thing happened, though. Once she got there, her health began to improve! Over ten years later, she is still alive, lives in her own home in the community and is reasonably active.
In 2017, I was among the scores of disability advocates dragged out of Congressional offices and hearing rooms and arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience in the fight to save healthcare. Our actions were detailed in a twenty minute segment of Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and countless other media. That these actions were necessary shows the brutal reality of today’s cost-cutting pressures in healthcare.
I am here as Director of Minority Outreach for Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights organization opposed to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia as deadly forms of discrimination against people with disabilities, whether terminally ill or not. I live in Rochester, New York, but work with people of color and other marginalized communities around the nation.
Our health care system inherently reflects the biases of the broader culture. Studies show that Blacks and people of color receive inferior medical treatment compared to Whites. We are less likely to receive adequate treatment for heart conditions, diabetes, cancer and chronic pain. The lives of people with disabilities are largely devalued by doctors and society, in general. If, in addition, one is from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Trans (LGBT) community, as I am, that devaluation becomes exponential.
That the lives of disabled people is seen as less than is borne out in the preamble to the New Hampshire bill:
“Many terminally ill patients experience severe, unrelenting suffering, mental anguish over the prospect of losing control and independence, and/or embarrassing indignities for long periods while they are waiting to die from terminal illness. To remedy these situations the state of New Hampshire hereby declares that the laws of the state shall permit a licensed physician…”
This puts into stark words three of the main reasons, according to the Oregon data, why people request assisted suicide – loss of autonomy, loss of the ability to control bodily functions and loss of dignity. These are disability issues, not just end of life issues. Attendant and other services and supports in one’s home are the solution to this, not doctor assisted suicide!
As a Black Latina, I could never wrap my head around the assisted suicide phenomenon. I thought that it was some odd thing that privileged White people were into. My thoughts were confirmed when I learned that the Pew Research Center found in 2013 that while 54% of Whites supported assisted suicide, 65% of Blacks and Latinos opposed it.
In addition to the hugely wrong predictions about terminal status, such as my mother experienced, another reason for my opposition is that doctors would be the gatekeepers of people’s lives, and can decide for you about your quality of life. Under these bills, doctors are the ones who decide whether someone is eligible for assisted suicide.
Another frightening thing that isn’t told about this bill is that the definition of terminal is broader than one realizes. This was borne out in an email conversation between Fabian Stahle, of Sweden and Craig New, a Research Analyst with the Oregon Public Health Division. The Oregon law uses the same definition of “terminal” as HB 1659: “terminal disease” is defined as an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment (in the opinion of the patient’s attending physician and consulting physician), produce death within six months. Mr. Stahle asked:
“If the doctor suggests, to an eligible patient, a treatment that possibly could a) prolong life, or b) transform a terminal illness to a chronic illness, or c) even cure the disease—and if the patient doesn’t give his/her consent to the proposed treatment is he/she still eligible to take use of the Act? If a patient with a chronic disease (for instance, diabetes) by some reason decides to opt out from the life-sustaining medication/treatment and by doing so is likely to die within 6 months, thereby transforming the chronic disease to a terminal disease—does he/she then become eligible . . .?”
The Oregon response was “While this is not addressed specifically in the law, the answer in both cases is yes—those patients would qualify. The law is best seen as a permissive law, and states only that patients must have a terminal illness with six months or less to live. It does not compel patients to have exhausted all treatment options first, or to continue current treatment.”
Then Stahle asked, “what if the patient’s health care provider/insurance company is not willing to pay for the proposed treatment—is the patient still eligible . . .?”
The state response was, “Patients suffering from any disease (not just those that typically qualify one for the DWDA) may not be able to afford some treatments or medication, and may choose not to pursue some treatments or take some medication for personal reasons. . . . If the patient does not receive treatment or medication (for whatever reason) and is left with a terminal illness, then s/he would qualify for the DWDA. I think you could also argue that even if the treatment/medication could actually cure the disease, and the patient cannot pay for the treatment, then the disease remains incurable.” This does not sound like “choice” to me!
To say that this is frightening for people with disabilities, sick people, seniors and poor people who rely on public health assistance is an understatement! Under this proposed assisted suicide law, because of this cost-cutting climate we’re living in, more, not fewer people will fall prey to assisted suicide.
Please vote no on HB 1659.