There’s been no shortage of reactions to the New Mexico lower court ruling enjoining prosecutions of physician assisted suicide in that state, but we rarely see the disability perspective hit the mainstream press so quickly as Marilyn Golden’s op ed in the Albuquerque Journal.
In Assisted suicide full of dangers, which appeared in the Journal’s January 17th edition, Golden provided a thorough and solid explanation of the risks that legalization of assisted suicide poses to people “facing serious illness or disability.”
This ruling tears away at the fabric of what those of us in the disability rights movement have been working to improve: a health care system free to deal with each individual uniquely rather than as a line-item on an accounting ledger, the elimination of abuse and coercion by those seeking to profit or take advantage of someone during a difficult time, and the illusion that individuals with a severe illness or disability should be measured by a flawed societal definition of quality of life.
The New Mexico lower court apparently bought into superficial government reports of a problem free practice of assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington where it is legal, but ignored extensive anecdotal accounts of problems. As Golden noted:
Oregon’s assisted suicide law passed in 1999 and has been widely scrutinized by those in the medical community, disability rights advocates and ethicists who have noted many examples of unreported problems and complications with the law, generally only brought to light through investigative reporting or personal testimonies.
On the subject of the so-called “choice” of assisted suicide, Golden described the infamous case of Barbara Wagner in Oregon.
Wagner was an Oregon retiree diagnosed with lung cancer. During the course of her treatment, her physician recommended particular chemotherapy, but within weeks, she received a notice from her insurer that they would not cover the life-saving treatment. However, they would pay for assisted suicide.
To read the rest if Golden’s excellent op ed, I encourage our readers to go here. – Diane Coleman
Of course, the Oregon case which illustrates the problem with managed care is what Medicare/Medicaid is heading for —-can’t you see that it is already here? —but under the radar —because the unilateral covert and overt(default DNR Code Status that hastens the deaths of the elderly and the disabled in our acute care hospitals (when the hospital KNOWS that Medicare and private insurance will not reimburse them) is already epidemic but ignored and not investigated by either the state or the federal governments.
This decision by a judge to ignore the intent of the legislature in prohibiting assisted suicide is a bad sign and the elderly and the disabled are in even greater danger as they become the targets of “fiscal expediency” by Big Insurance and Big Hospital,. The law moves in the form of a lower-court judge who supports fast and easy death by legalizing the lethal prescription written by the physician. The law passed by the Legislature prohibiting assisted suicide is circumvented by the claim that physician- assisted death of the terminal patient is not suicide but something else as demonstrated by the effect of the 1986 Hospice Entitlement and the 1991 Patient Self Determination Act. . .
I’m sure the judge knows that legalizing abortion led to millions and millions of abortions —157 every hour of the day — and she knows also that legalizing physician assisted suicide will lead to millions of suicides —probably 157 every hour of the day —- but “life is cheap” and the judges don’t make the laws. They just interpret them —–but not always in the best interests of the weakest and less powerful members of society. , Even as the state and federal Constitutions promise liberty and justice for all and the constitutional right of the individual sometimes impacts the rights of others as to their liberty and justice, we can be sure that the greatest value that is protected after weighing the consequences is always the value of money and profits.
I’m sure that the Hospice Entitlement and the intent of HHS in 2014 to make the Curative Entitlement and the Hospice Entitlement (both paid for out of the people’s Medicare Purse) a concurrent entitlement is somehow involved in all of this. What do “the powers that be” have in mind.
I don’t understand how the federal government and the federal courts can continue to NOT clarify the provisions of the 1991 Patient Self Determination Act and the 1997 prohibition of public funds to be used for Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, Mercy Killing, etc.. There has been noise in the Congress about the PSDA but the matter is too politically explosive for both parties and our cowardly Congress ignores the threat to the elderly and the disabled because it is too politically explosive because both parties are complicit in the MESS we have today. They won’t tell on each other. I’m not hopeful because I haven’t figured out why The Congress in 1991 decided NOT to deem a violation of the 1991 PSDA, either as to the right to die or the right to live, a civil rights violation. .
Hopefully! there will be a successful appeal and the legislatures will continue to debate this issue and our country by way of our Congress will not condone the passive euthanasia of the elderly and the disabled to protect the profits of our for-profit insurance and health-care system.
It would help if the so-called free press of this country would educate the American public as to what is going on with Medicare/Medicaid. Why don’t they educate the public as to why Obama Care which represents the compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats is better than what we have had all of these years. —- but is still flawed because of “for-profit” Big Insurance interests who want to control the Medicare Purse of the people to ensure their viability into the future.
I’m with Public Citizen who supports and works for “single pay” which was the original version of Obama Care and which would treat medical care and the violation of the right to live and the right to die as a civil rights violation because their first allegiance would be to the people and not to the for-profit sector. . . . .
Of course, the worst threat to the elderly and the disabled which is never voiced and which is not understood by the elderly and disabled population, most of whom are on Medicare/Medicaid are the unilateral DNRs that appear to be condoned by our courts and that are never punished.as a tort or a crime even when malice is involved. Isn’t hastening the death of elderly/disabled patients to CAP costs of further treatment that won’t be reimbursed or to hide mistakes and errors a malicious act if the “further” treatment isn’t medically futile?
Assisted suicide laws that legalize the lethal prescription appear, in reality, to give physicians and hospitals more autonomy to hasten the death of elderly/disabled patients for the fiscal expediency of Medicare, private insurance, the hospitals and the patient. We need only to follow the money.
It appears that Involuntary Passive Euthanasia of the Elderly/Disabled has ALREADY been condoned by the United States Courts and the unilateral DNRs are not and cannot be punished by way of a private action by the injured patient/surrogate. Even “emotional stress” which is a tort in some states and a crime in the state of Missouri when it involves someone over 65 is disfavored by our courts and the lives of the elderly and the disabled are devalued to begin with which makes suing for “emotional distress” not feasible for private attorneys.
The courts, in the 22 years since the 1991 Patient Self Determination Act became law, almost always supports the supplier physician/hospital in the matter of “medical futility” and, of course, the “fiscal futility” and/ or errors and mistakes, as the motive for the unilateral DNR, has never been brought to to the attention of the courts.
Apparently, according to Thaddeus Pope, in his article in the Marquette Elder Advisor, Vol. 9, Issue 2, Spring 2012, entitled “Involuntary Passive Euthanasia in the US Courts “Reassessing The Judicial Treatment of Medical Futility Cases” physicians/hospitals can feel safe if they have to go into court to defend the unilateral DNR and it is, therefore, somehow easier for physicians/hospitals to ask for forgiveness for the unilateral DNRs than to ask for permission.