Transcript of radio interview, Second Thoughts CT leader Cathy Ludlum on “For the People,” posted on WPLR by John Voket January 14, 2021
Host John Voket:
Well, we’re closing today with an important subject, a component to an issue that we discussed a couple of weeks ago on the program when we hosted a guest talking about Senator Richard Blumenthal’s introduction of new end-of-life legislation at the federal level, and during that program we also learned that there was also some end-of-life legislation that was going to be debated here in Hartford at the State House level during the current legislative session. So then I came to learn about an organization in Connecticut called Second Thoughts CT, and I’m so pleased to have the representative of that organization on the phone with me right now. Cathy Ludlum is with us. She just hosted a statewide press conference shortly before we went on the air with her to tape this on the 14th. And we’re pleased to have you Cathy. Thanks for joining us.
Guest Cathy Ludlum:
Thank you very much John. It’s a pleasure to be here.
John Voket:
So we’re going to really now kind of shift what was the primary focus of the previous program, talking about this federal end-of-life legislation, with the mention of Connecticut’s really to be kind of like 100% focused on the State of Connecticut. But first of all, before we do that, let’s learn a little bit more about you. Tell us a little bit about yourself and how you came to be such a powerhouse behind the creation of Second Thoughts CT.
Cathy Ludlum:
Okay, well, just a little about myself. I have a severe physical disability and I know a lot of people in similar situations. And just because of our novelty, I would say, to the health care system, we already have challenges whenever we go to the hospitalor we try to get healthcare. So, when we learned about legislation to create a physician assisted suicide [program] in Connecticut in 2013, a bunch of us organized into a group called Second Thoughts Connecticut. And that’s to distinguish us from a group in Massachusetts called Second Thoughts Massachusetts. And the name of our group came about because if you ask anyone on the street or perhaps many legislators whether they think it’s a good idea to put the choice of when and how one dies into the hands of the individual, a lot of people would say “sure, of course.”
And there’s reasons why people say that, but a lot of people, when you start talking about the actual implementation of a policy – and I’m sure we’ll get into that more, the difficulties of implementation. But when you start presenting people with other things to think about, a lot of times people may support the theory, but then the implementation worries them and they cannot support it as they had in the past. In other words, talking to one of us or all of us often gives them “second thoughts.” So that’s where the name of our group came from and we’ve been active and mobilized since 2013, as I said.
John Voket:
Well, since 2013 and in the reincarnations of assisted suicide bills that have happened as recently as 2019, where it was also defeated or did not end up getting endorsed, tell me a little bit about how the legislation has changed, if it has at all. I mean, has it really just been the same blueprint getting brought up each time, or has listening been done and accommodations been made to try to address those who think that kind of legislation is just the wrong way for Connecticut to go?
Cathy Ludlum:
Oh, that’s an excellent question. The legislation has not changed very much. There’ve been a few little tweaks made to it over the years. I think legislators, especially in the beginning in 2014 and 15, were listening and trying to look at some of our concerns, but there are two things you need to know about that. One of them is that the actual legislation brought up in recent years, the last three times, has been identical to the legislation of 2015. So nothing has changed since then. And the other thing I need to say is: proponents talk a lot about safeguards, they talk about waiting periods, and the need for two doctors to agree on the diagnosis and the moving forward of this. They talk about a number of different ways most of the bill is trying to put in safeguards. And what those of us in the disability community are trying to get across is, there is no safeguard that can counter the social stigma of needing help with intimate care, of having to rely on others for support, or of seeing your caregivers tired and wondering if the world would be better off without you.
How do you put a safeguard in to accommodate that? People have an autonomy, but with no independent person there at the time of death, how can we ever know that it was the individual’s choice instead of a person who has been threatened or coerced or feels that they have no other choice than to end their own life.
John Voket:
So in terms of the architecture of this kind of a carbon-copy language that has come up year after year, in the most recent incarnation, do you see any way that this kind of legislation can be crafted to carve out the disabled community that is so significantly concerned, so that somehow the most noble and I dare say, practical elements of the legislation or the proposal could still serve others?
Cathy Ludlum:
If only we could figure that out. But I don’t see a way because what this legislation does is it changes the way healthcare is structured. What it adds is a treatment option, I guess you would say, for death. There has never been before this type of legislation, a medical practice that was codified in law. And then in the medical system where the death of a patient is the outcome. And so it changes the doctor-patient relationship. It changes the way insurance and financial reimbursement and such work.
It involves changing the whole way we look at life and death. And for those of us who are disabled, a lot of us live under this sort of cloud anyway. If we go to the hospital and we are severely disabled, maybe we already use a ventilator or we’re clearly facing some challenges already, there is a tendency in the medical system already to think of us as terminally ill even though we may all live on for years with the right support. I understand the need to try and create some middle ground, and I wish we could do that, but I don’t see a way of making that happen.
John Voket:
Well, I guess then the next question is, to try to help illustrate the downside of this proposal, a little bit more practically, so I guess the question would be, is there anywhere else in our nation or across the globe that the disability community has already seen this type of legislation or practice enacted where it is or has gone terribly wrong?
Cathy Ludlum:
You know, we have documentation of things that are highly questionable. One of the difficulties with this legislation as it’s been passed in some other states, well anywhere it’s been passed, is that a year after the data is collected, it’s all shredded. So it’s notoriously difficult to pinpoint wrongdoing. What we have is anything that was disclosed in the media. And there’s a document, if your listeners are interested in this, they can Google the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, I know that’s a mouthful. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, they have a lot of documents on their website and one of them is about abuses in Oregon and Washington state, things like a person with a forty-year history of suicide attempts being given the drug.
You know, is that legal? It probably was. Is it a good idea? I don’t know, I don’t think so. It talks about other cases like that, where there may have been coercion, where the person may have not been aware of supports that might’ve helped them want to live longer and things like that.
John Voket:
I understand. So in the last couple of minutes that we have with you Cathy, certainly it is clear that you and a large number of the community that you represent, through your organization, is against the assisted suicide aspect of the end-of-life legislation. But how does Second Thoughts Connecticut feel about other elements of end-of-life legislation that involve palliative care, hospice, and issues like that, is that where there’s kind of a divergence? You guys have kind of, as I said earlier, kind of carved out the assisted suicide component as being one to stand against, but how about the other potential proposals involving end-of-life legislation that might hit the State House floor this session?
Cathy Ludlum:
Oh, definitely. We’re great supporters of palliative care and anything that would support a person as they’re nearing the end-of-life, we are fans of that. We are also proponents of good suicide prevention strategies. And the other legislation that may come up would be to help promote more aspects of suicide prevention. Our question is, how can the State of Connecticut be promoting suicide prevention while possibly at the same time promoting suicide assistance? And the difference is what label you wear, whether you are deemed as terminally ill, elderly, having a “complete” life — which is something they use in other places, or disabled. So our feeling also is that it’s a real disservice to legislators and the public to be discussing assisted suicide that’s just so involved in this pandemic year.
So if it cannot stand on its own merits and they feel the need to push it through, well, legislators and their constituents have less time together to talk about these things. If it can’t stand on its own merits, can it really stand at all? And why would they push that?
John Voket:
Well, we’ll leave the conversation at that rhetorical question. Cathy, we really appreciate you giving us so much food for thought as Connecticut’s legislature ramps up its work for the current session here in 2021, with a potential assisted suicide bill as part of a package of end-of-life initiatives that our lawmakers are going to be looking at. Cathy Ludlum is a business owner, a state resident, advocate, and a person with a disability. She brings a lot of resources, not just to her community, but to the entire state, through her initiative that she represents, and counts, many, many, peers and supporters, as assets and allies. I’m talking about Second Thoughts Connecticut. If you’d like to find out more about this group, just search engine Second Thoughts Connecticut.
They have a Google site. They also have a Facebook page, and I’m sure Cathy would be glad to hear from you, if you’re interested in hearing more from her and her community about this and other issues that they are backing, to help make the lives of Connecticut’s disabled community better. So, Cathy, a pleasure to meet you and I hope to be talking to you again, perhaps not about this issue, but about many of the others that you’re also strongly standing with or against. So I appreciate your time this morning.
Second Thoughts Connecticut: https://www.facebook.com/SecondThoughtsConnecticut
Radio Show Broadcast, beginning at 37:20: https://audioboom.com/posts/7772188-family-empowerment-now-stepping-forward-cfgnh-second-thoughts-ct