NY Attorney Writes That NY Has A Financial Incentive To Legalize Assisted Suicide

"death with dignity", ableism, assisted suicide, better dead than disabled, ethics, euthanasia, healthcare rationing, MAID, New York, Our News & Commentary Blog, , ,

By Lisa Blumberg

Photo of Lisa Blumberg, head and shoulders shot of a smiling woman with short gray hair and a dark blue blouse seated with a desk of files and books in the background.
Lisa Blumberg

The usual line of the organizations promoting the legalization of assisted suicide (or medical aid in dying (MAiD) as they like to call it) in New York and elsewhere is as follows: the sole reason for such laws is to prevent “end of life” suffering, that the laws only apply to people close to death and contain stringent guidelines. Moreover, they claim, in states which have such laws, there have never been abuses, meaning assisted suicide laws are safe.

Kaitlin Puccio, a New York attorney and supporter of “MAiD”, says it’s time to move things forward and then some. Her simplistic and Orwellian piece “The Final Countdown to Medical Aid in Dying in New York”[1] in New York Law Journal tells it as she sees it.

She notes that New York has failed multiple times to pass an assisted suicide bill but thinks this go around it may be different. There is a lawsuit going on in New Jersey challenging the residency requirement of its assisted suicide law, thus creating the possibility that New York’s assisted suicide business could be syphoned off by its neighbor. She writes, “New York’s financial incentive to keep its residents from using out-of-state services when they could be provided in-state may be enough to spark a sense of urgency to pass the New York Medical Aid in Dying Act…if New Jersey removes its residency requirement for MAiD, New York will need to make its move or risk New York residents making theirs.”  This is rather a bald admission of the economic gain that could come from allowing this industry in the state.

Puccio is quick to say that besides the financial commerce incentive, she thinks that there are ethical reasons to pass the act. Indeed, she uses the word “ethical” five times in her 1118 words piece but then admits that due to existing economic incentives in the healthcare system, some people could be steered to choose death. This is unfortunate but she writes that, “such misuse or overuse of MAiD must not be permitted to poison the ethical analysis of its proper use in determining whether to pass the pending legislation.” So much for being leery of legalizing assisted suicide because of the potential for abuse under our already biased and broken healthcare system.  

Midway in the piece, her “ethical” arguments move from economics to anti-disability rhetoric. Puccio wants New York to hurry up and pass an assisted suicide law but not the one that has actually been introduced in the legislature which is based on the Oregon model (although Puccio does not use that term). She writes, “the New York legislature should not only consider the ethical implications of passing the New York Medical Aid in Dying Act, but it should take steps to ensure that the qualification requirements are not overly exclusionary or discriminatory.”

She thinks that limiting eligibility to persons who are judged to be within six months of death fails to recognize a distinction between “living” and “being alive.”  She doesn’t say what this distinction is but just that she would extend eligibility to people with chronic conditions because doctors “have not found a way to preserve or extend their quality of life.”

 She also would extend eligibility to people with cognitive decline, which creates concerns about lack of consent and involuntary euthanasia. Although she finesses when eligibility should be triggered for such folks, she asks “When considering the appropriate time for patients in cognitive decline to have access to MAiD, the question that must be answered is: If there is a death of the self, what is left to keep alive?” For Puccio, it appears that an individual who has reduced cognitive abilities may no longer have the protections of personhood. Perhaps she’s adopted Peter Singer’s theories in that regard.  

Last but not least, Puccio is opposed to a requirement that the lethal drugs be self-administered because that would make things onerous for people with disabilities. She has already acknowledged that abuse may occur but doesn’t think that should be a concern when discussing the merits of removing the self-administration requirement.

What Puccio is advocating is for New York to legalize euthanasia for a broad swath of the population. Without stating it in so many words, she is asking proponents of assisted suicide to re-draft their bill so that it is as broad as the euthanasia laws in Canada and Belgium. It is unlikely that this will happen quickly. Proponents will probably try once again to pass the bill they already have while touting the supposed safeguards. However, her piece does provide a warning on how assisted suicide, once legalized in a jurisdiction, can morph.

Reading her piece in the holiday season reminds me of Dickens’ The Christmas Carol and the disturbing ghost of Christmas Future who foretells terrible things to come to pass – unless people step in to stop them.

[1] https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/11/15/the-final-countdown-to-medical-aid-in-dying-in-new-york/

Sad News: The Passing of Disability Rights Attorney Andres Gallegos

ableism, better dead than disabled, futile care, health disparities, Jules Good, life-ending decisions, medical discrimination, Michael Hickson, Our News & Commentary Blog, , ,

We learned of this yesterday in a message shared by his family:

It is with tremendous sadness that we share the passing of our father. Andrés passed away on the afternoon of December 1st, surrounded by his family and wrapped in love. While there will never be a time that we are ready to say goodbye to him, his legacy, his love, and his impact on this world will stand the test of time. We appreciate the love and support from the many who were inspired by Dad, and by those who loved and knew him. 

As a family we will be taking to time reflect and heal. We plan to hold a celebration of his life and his legacy in the next few months. If you would like to honor Andrés and help continue his life’s work of advocating for the disability community, please donate in his name to Access Living, the American Association of People with Disabilities, or your local Center for Independent Living.

– The Gallegos Family

As many of our readers will remember, Andrés Gallegos was the disability rights attorney who assisted Michael Hickson’s widow in suing the hospital that refused to treat her brain injured husband for Covid. Some of the pre-history of that case is described in several NDY blogs including this about complaints to the Office for Civil Rights.

Jules Good retold the Michael Hickson story in a 2022 vlog about ableism in society and in medical settings:

A specific case related to this topic that you may have heard about is the tragic death of Michael Hickson, a 46-year-old Morehouse grad, husband, and father of 5. Michael became quadriplegic in 2015 after a heart attack left him with a brain injury. In 2020, he got COVID and was transferred to a hospital. Michael was a legal ward of a care agency, rather than his family, because of complications in getting him the care he needed after his heart attack. The hospital told Mrs. Hickson that they were going to stop treating Michael and move him into hospice care; the care agency that served as his medical guardian signed off on this decision. A week later, Michael died at the hospital. Perhaps the most troubling evidence from this case comes in the form of a conversation that Mrs. Hickson recorded with one of Michael’s doctors. The full, captioned recording is available on YouTube– we’ll put a link to it in the description for this video. Here’s an excerpt of that conversation: 

Doctor: “So, as of right now his quality of life — he doesn’t have much of one.”

Mrs. Hickson: “What do you mean? Because he’s paralyzed with a brain injury, he doesn’t have quality of life?” 

Doctor: “Correct”.

As Chair of the National Council on Disability, Andrés Gallegos also wrote an important article published in Health Affairs titled “Misperceptions Of People With Disabilities Lead To Low-Quality Care: How Policy Makers Can Counter The Harm And Injustice.” He discussed how healthcare “disparities are exacerbated if you are disabled and a person of color” using the case of Michael Hickson in Texas as an example. He also described four steps that health care leaders and policy makers should undertake:

  • First, include disability cultural competency curricula in all medical, dental, and allied health care professional schools.

  • Second, overturn states’ discriminatory medical futility laws, many of which foreclose the possibility of a patient’s wishes being followed by directing the removal of life-sustaining treatment before some patients may be transferred to another facility.

  • Third, confront the problematic impact of using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to determine the value of health outcomes. 

  • Fourth, strengthen existing federal nondiscrimination laws and engage in robust enforcement of those laws. 

It’s gratifying to see that, combined with others, his call to strengthen federal nondiscrimination laws gained some traction as demonstrated by OCR’s issuance of proposed healthcare regulations under Section 504 this September.

Andrés Gallegos’ leadership will be deeply missed but his legacy will last.

Please Support Not Dead Yet in the Fight for Our Lives

Our News & Commentary Blog

There’s never a dull moment in NDY’s fight against the constant messages that people are better off dead than disabled – and society is better off without us. We couldn’t do it without the active involvement of disability advocates and organizations. We may be small but, because of your efforts and support, together we are leaving a big footprint. On this Giving Tuesday, if you would like to support Not Dead Yet in the fight for our lives, resisting medical provider assisted suicide and the involuntary withholding of life sustaining treatment, demanding equality in healthcare, please go here:  https://www.paypal.com/donate?token=dDRWZf_JzL-mF09TtD5z9K5bO0azJ4G1BIKSqz7XyGJsovqp0U6cgQ4I9uMRLMrGk7G1XZ8SOuiGAOLp

 

Lisa Blumberg: Support Grows for a Bill of Rights for People with Guardians

civil rights, Health care decision-making, Lisa Blumberg, medical decisionmaking, Our News & Commentary Blog, supported decision making, Surrogate Decisions & Guardianship, ,
Photo of Lisa Blumberg, head and shoulders shot of a smiling woman with short gray hair and a dark blue blouse seated with a desk of files and books in the background.
Lisa Blumberg

Alexandra is a woman in her forties who has been described as developmentally disabled and has sometimes had problems managing her budget.  She cares about having a conventional appearance and her preference is for V-neck blouses. She unfortunately has early-stage breast cancer, but it could be treated in various ways. She could benefit from having a trusted group of friends advise her on the pros and cons of each option based on what is important to her. However, she has a court appointed guardian who doesn’t really know her. He meets with the doctor once and decides she should have a total mastectomy because it is the “one and done” approach. A lumpectomy would require some diligence in follow up. Alexandra, with the help of her circle, may be quite able to exercise that diligence. Her views though are not consulted.

This scenario, although the details are fictional, illustrates how someone’s life may be changed by a guardian.      

Guardianship can abrogate an adult’s most basic decision-making powers. It is a sledgehammer approach to dealing with the problems a person has or is perceived to have in managing aspects of their life. There are many documented cases of abuse by guardians but even when a guardian is trying to act in good faith, she may bring unconscious bias to the process. Decisions may be made that are at variance with the decisions that would have been made if based on the person’s value system, priorities and life experience. This may be especially true with health care choices.

Most state guardianship laws deal with the process by which a guardian can be appointed for a person and pay scant attention to protections for a person placed in guardianship. It is as if the individual is in stasis. For example, although guardians are routinely given the power to make medical decisions, few state statutes delineate the circumstances where a guardian can refuse life sustaining care. This can lead to a lot of ad hoc “quality of life” decisions and even when the courts are involved, they can rule in a variety of ways. A court in one jurisdiction may rule that a guardian cannot refuse life sustaining care unless the individual has an end stage condition or is in a permanent vegetative state. A court in another state may focus on the broad nature of a guardian’s power to make medical decisions without court review. (2)

Efforts to reform guardianship law have been given a substantial boost in August when the American Bar Association,  the nation’s leading professional organization for lawyers,  passed a resolution urging federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal law and policy-making bodies to adopt the provisions of the Guardianship Bill of Rights, promulgated by the National Guardianship Network in 2022. (3)

The model bill provides an adult who has a guardian with 21 rights in three main areas: access-to-justice rights, core human rights and decision-making rights.

Some examples are:

  • The right to be present and participate in court.

  • The right to ask a court to review and possibly change a guardianship or guardian.

  • The right to be treated with dignity and respect.

  • The right to have one’s preferences including medical preferences respected.

  • The right to personal privacy.

  • The right to confidentiality.

  • The right to fully participate in all decisions including decisions on one’s care.

  • The right to receive necessary services.

  • The right to practice one’s religion.

  • The right to sexual expression and to have one’s gender identity respected.

The wording of the bill including the  full list of  rights can be found at https://www.guardianship.org/wp-content/uploads/NGN-Bill-of-Rights-8-10-22.pdf

The significance of the model bill cannot be overestimated. If adopted in various jurisdictions, it will contribute to a paradigm shift on how persons with guardians are seen, making it clear Constitutional protections are never suspended.

However, protections for people in guardianship cannot be bifurcated from the issue of placement of people in guardianship. Currently, health care and education professionals make referrals suggesting guardianship for youth with disabilities who are coming of age, or social service professionals recommend guardianships for older adults. What has been called a “guardianship pipeline” can no longer be tolerated. (5)

Moreover, although guardianship has always been deemed a state law matter, the federal government must assume a central role in reforming the practice. Thus, a federal Guardianship Bill of Rights Act has been introduced in Congress with the sponsorship of Senators Casey, Fetterman, Sanders and Warren. Among other things, it would create the Guardianship and Other Protective Arrangements and Supported Decision Making Council, charged with promoting less restrictive arrangements for people living under or being considered for guardianships. It would be charged with creating recommended practices for assisting someone out of a guardianship, averting placement in a guardianship, and methods for modifying a guardianship. The Council would be responsible for collecting data on the guardianship practices at both the national and state level. The bill would also provide funding for states to have a protection and advocacy agency focused on the rights of people being considered for and living under guardianship. (6)

The model bill and the federal bill would compliment each other and go far towards consigning traditional guardianship to the dustbin of history.

FOOTNOTES

  1. https://notdeadyet.org/2009/02/pennsylvania-important-guardianship.html

  2. https://casetext.com/case/in-re-tschumy-1

  3. https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/resolution-506-guardianship-bill-of-rights

  4. https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_guardianship_bill_of_rights_one_pager.pdf

  5. Ibid.

Jules Good’s Letter On Anorexia Published In Washington Post

Our News & Commentary Blog

Jules Good’s important letter below, Anorexia Is Too Complex To Be Considered For Assisted Suicide, was published yesterday, November 20, in The Washington Post!:

The Nov. 2 Style article “Can anorexia ever be terminal?” discussed the use of physician-assisted suicide for anorexia patients. As a disability policy professional in recovery from anorexia, I want to stress the extreme dangers of creating a “terminal anorexia” diagnosis and offering assisted suicide to patients who fit those criteria.

When I was 19, I was eating fewer than 500 calories a day, working out obsessively, losing my hair and suffering dizzy spells from low blood pressure. I attempted suicide twice. I did not feel “infantilized,” as Joel Yager, a proponent of assisted suicide for anorexia, intimated in the article, when I was finally pushed to get help. Malnutrition and the irrational nature of the disease itself absolutely kept me from making sound decisions about my long-term health during this time. If I were under the care of someone who told me that killing myself was an acceptable option, I would be dead.

A requirement that people try “high-quality” treatment before going through with assisted suicide is not protective. Entering a treatment program is different from completing it. In fact, individuals in one case report left or failed treatment programs — and were still allowed to die by assisted suicide.

Because of the highly personal nature of anorexia, recovery is a long and complex process. Offering these patients, who are statistically more likely to be suicidal, the option to kill themselves as a form of “medical treatment” is irresponsible.