Minnesota: Final Exit Network Argues Assisted Suicide Law Violates Free Speech Rights in Court

From the Telegraph-Herald:

MINNEAPOLIS — Members of a national right-to-die group are challenging Minnesota’s assisted-suicide law, saying it violates constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

The group Final Exit Network is challenging the law after four of its members were indicted in May in the suicide of a Minnesota woman. Prosecutors say the defendants not only supported Doreen Dunn’s decision to kill herself in 2007, but provided her with information and support to follow through.

Final Exit members claim they do not encourage suicide, but that the act of giving information and emotional support could be interpreted as “encouraging” under a Minnesota law that makes it a felony for someone to intentionally assist, advise or encourage suicide.

Defense attorneys who appeared at a hearing Tuesday in Dakota County District Court argued that the statute is unconstitutional.

In documents filed ahead of the hearing, Final Exit Network general counsel Robert Rivas wrote that while the state may bar someone from “assisting” a suicide, it is unconstitutional for the state to ban “advising” or “encouraging” a suicide — pure speech.

Defense attorneys asked Judge Karen Asphaug to dismiss the counts related to the statute.

Asphaug took the arguments under advisement; it wasn’t clear when she might issue a ruling.

This is, of course, similar to the argument that the attorneys for Final Exit Network (FEN) made in regard to the assisted suicide statute in Georgia.  They were ultimately successful in that appeal, but it’s not clear to me that they have as strong a case here by any means.

Thaddeus Pope has a succinct reaction and analysis re: the proceeding – which he attended.  He’s impressed with the FEN lawyer and the argument.

More from the story:

The 17-count indictment charges Final Exit Network, its medical director Lawrence Egbert, 85, of Baltimore, and three other officials with felony counts of assisting suicide and interference with a death scene, a gross misdemeanor. The others named in the indictment are Jerry Dincin, 82, of Highland Park, Ill., Roberta Massey, 67, of Bear, Del., and Thomas Goodwin, 66, of Punta Gorda, Fla.

Most of those names should ring a bell to regular readers of this blog.  But for right now, the most important ones to focus on in terms of what “assistance” may mean are: Thomas “Ted” Goodwin and “medical director” Lawrence Egbert.

Both of these gentlemen have claimed to give much more than “advice” in very public venues.  In January of this year, Egbert made a claim that was reported in a long profile on him that appeared in the Washington Post:

Egbert tells me that years ago he asked someone who was about to “exit” if he could reuse the hood to save future patients the cost of buying a new one. The patient was delighted with the idea, Egbert says. He started asking everyone.The hood in my bare hands feels slightly slick. So, this one, the one I’m holding, has been used to end someone’s life? I ask. Egbert tells me it has surely been used at least once, and maybe several times, and the same could be said for most of the other 17 hoods in the garbage bag.

In case you missed it, Egbert informed the reporter that he routinely supplies used “exit bags” to “patients” so he can save them money.

Just last month, PBS aired a Frontline documentary on FEN.  In it, untold millions of viewers watched Ted Goodwin tell an undercover GBI agent posing as a cancer patient that he would hold the man’s hands down to prevent him from tearing the “exit bag” off once the suicide began.  Prior to this, Goodwin denied ever making any statement like that.  You can visit this post for a link to the documentary and a transcript of Goodin’s discussion of holding hands down.

Why is that important?  For one thing, it goes beyond “advice” to “physical assistance” – with the restraint of hands amounting to potentially something even worse.

But, in the meantime, the new article on FEN’s latest round in the court closes with this:

Final Exit Network is run by volunteers who believe that mentally competent adults have a basic human right to end their lives if they suffer from “fatal or irreversible illness or intractable pain” and meet other criteria, according to the group’s website.

“We do not encourage anyone to end their life, are opposed to anyone’s encouraging another to end his life, do not provide the means to do so, and do not assist in a person’s death,” the website says. (Emphasis added.)

Isn’t it about time that FEN took that claim off their site?  It would also be refreshing for certain folks dazzled by the legal arguments to stop and reflect on the ethics and implications of a group that makes claims that have been outright contradicted by prominent members in very public venues.