Oregon is currently considering a bill that would no longer require people to prove Oregon residency in order to pursue assisted suicide. This bill comes after the March 2022 settlement reached in Gideonse v Brown, which alleged that the residency requirement is unconstitutional. The court did not rule but the parties agreed to a settlement that precluded prosecution by the government defendants. The bill currently being considered by the Oregon legislature would repeal the residency requirement throughout the state. Read NDY President and CEO Diane Coleman’s testimony opposing this bill below:
Comments Opposing Oregon Bill HB 2279
to Remove Residency Requirement for Assisted Suicide
Oregon HB 2279, which would repeal the state residency requirement of the Oregon assisted suicide statute, should be rejected by Oregon legislators. Oregon’s legislature should respect the laws and procedures of other states and legislators who have determined that assisted suicide laws pose a danger to their own residents.
In March 2022, the Oregon Health Authority and the Oregon Medical Board voluntarily agreed to stop enforcing the residency requirement and asked the Legislature to remove it from the law.
Though assisted suicide proponents claim that it’s a constitutional issue, no state high court has found a constitutional right to assisted suicide.
Oregonians may wonder why another state would decline to pass an assisted suicide law, which Oregon legislators have viewed as a benefit to its residents. Nevertheless, many view these laws as a danger to people with serious illnesses, chronic conditions and significant disabilities.
On October 9, 2019, the U.S. National Council on Disability (NCD) released the findings of a federal examination (https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Assisted_Suicide_Report_508.pdf) of the country’s assisted suicide laws and their effect on people with disabilities, finding the laws’ safeguards are ineffective and oversight of abuses and mistakes is absent. Over the last two decades, every major national disability organization (http://notdeadyet.org/disability-groups-opposed-to-assisted-suicide-laws) that has taken a position on assisted suicide opposes it. Some of the reasons for opposing assisted suicide laws are:
When assisted suicide is legal, it’s the cheapest treatment available—an attractive option in our profit-driven healthcare system.
Assisted suicide is a prescription for abuse: an heir or abusive caregiver can steer someone towards assisted suicide, witness the request, pick up the lethal dose, and in the end, even administer the drug—no witnesses are required at the death, so who would know?
Many other pressures exist that can cause people with compromised health to consider hastening their death.
People with disabilities, whether our conditions are predicted to be terminal or not, are often viewed as tragic and worth-less. These societal messages too often lead to suicidal feelings, but these feelings deserve suicide prevention, not suicide assistance.
Let other states determine how best to provide for the safety of their residents. Please oppose HB 2279.
1 thought on “Diane Coleman: Comments Opposing Oregon Bill HB 2279 to Remove Residency Requirement for Assisted Suicide”
NDY is only effective organization against PAS. As a society we are against eight ball in explaining why this a spectacularly bad idea, that was used involuntarily already on widely defined group of “defective” adult and pediatric patients by morally defective Nazi politicians, a policy implemented by supposedly reputable physicians. The Netherlands experience should be cautionary. Canada is discussing expanding PAS to psychiatric patients. How about depressed disabled people who fight for decent care
NDY is only effective organization against PAS. As a society we are against eight ball in explaining why this a spectacularly bad idea, that was used involuntarily already on widely defined group of “defective” adult and pediatric patients by morally defective Nazi politicians, a policy implemented by supposedly reputable physicians. The Netherlands experience should be cautionary. Canada is discussing expanding PAS to psychiatric patients. How about depressed disabled people who fight for decent care