Guest Blog: “On Trees and Travel and the Value of Life” by Audrey Cole

(Editor's note: I meant to post this article last week, but offline business have kept me away from much that I planned on doing on the blog.  My apologies to Audrey Cole for the delay.  This is not the usual type of essay one sees on this blog - that makes it all the more welcome.)

On Trees and Travel and the Value of Life

Two pieces of writing, appearing on the world wide web on two consecutive days in April, described two disturbingly different views of the respective values, hopes and human obligations of two very fragile Canadian lives!

In the first piece, I read a thoughtful, wise and beautiful story ostensibly about making and carrying out a decision to lop off a significant upper portion of a magnificent white spruce, the age of which is estimated by the person on whose coastal property it sits, to be about 85.
(http://fragileandwild.com/2013/04/11/slow-death-and-the-felling-of-trees/#more-293)

Although the tree might have fallen at any time, that surgical “lopping” will inevitably cause its death albeit much more slowly than would a “fell-swoop”.

It wasn’t the similarity in our ages (mine and that of the tree) that grabbed my attention nor was it the fact that I actually know the tree, have sat under its shade at times and have watched its resident and visiting wild life with fascination.

No, in addition to the ever captivating beauty of the prose, what grabbed my attention in the article was the subtle but courageous way in which the story of the tree was, in effect, a metaphor for the story of the storyteller’s own life and, inevitably to some degree, of all of our lives.

The second piece, which I read the following day, was a story written by a journalist about a woman about to travel from her home in Canada to Europe to her chosen date with death (Killing her softly: Susan Griffith's last days. Lindor Reynolds, Winnipeg Free Press, Posted: 04/12/2013). Below the headline, the description of the story informed us that, “Instead of enduring months of pain and an inexorable decline into helplessness, Susan Griffiths will ease into a peaceful, painless death. Why, she wonders, are Canadians denied that choice?”
(http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/Killing-her-softly-202733931.html)

My immediate reaction was, Oh! If only she had read the story of the tree! Surely, then, she could not have asked that question! But probably, she could! Many people do!

It is not my intent to retell either story! Rather, I want only to refer to a few images from each article that glued themselves onto my consciousness – images that, to me, pointed to vastly different understandings of life, its value and its purposes!

From the first article comes the clear message that the tree, although dying and diminished in stature and strength, still stands. It stands to the end, alive, to give, to provide and to serve – as will its steward and author of the article, Catherine Frazee.

In the second article many images are evoked by the reasons given for the decision to seek doctor assisted suicide in Switzerland. Due to family circumstances, I have spent many years involved in the lives of people who have disabilities, some disabilities lifelong, some of later onset. Yet I have difficulty in understanding the messages conveyed by the images in the article, never having met people with disabilities who talk about themselves or see themselves in the way the subject of the article appears to have seen herself. In her own words, for example, Susan Griffiths had “... led a hedonistic life ever since (retirement),” “... travelled to South Africa, Botswana and Australia and returned repeatedly to Europe.” She had read “that you become emaciated” and said, “I didn’t want to think of myself as emaciated. I’m so vain;” and she also told the reporter that she had a “gorgeous wardrobe” that because of her increasing disability, she could not wear. Elaborating on her daughter’s comment that it would be “awful” to watch her mother “endure a slow decline and a lot of suffering,” Susan Griffiths is reported to have agreed that it would be awful, but that “the end result is awful too, so you have to go through this process of considering a list of disgusting things in order to come up with the least disgusting thing."

Two stories, two women! Two vastly different points of view! But a great irony, nevertheless, for the two women have much in common! Both have been diagnosed with not entirely dissimilar, degenerative medical conditions. The rate of degeneration is the primary difference.

The writer of the first article, the eloquent story of the tree and the recognition that “even to be dying is to live still” and thus, still, to be free to serve, Catherine Frazee, has lived with that condition since birth. It is a condition that has progressed steadily to her physical detriment throughout her life. Yet, despite the unrelenting diminishment of her physical capacities, she remains one of the most inspiring examples of selfless service that I have ever encountered (and I have been involved in disability action for almost fifty years).

The subject of the second article, Susan Griffiths, received her diagnosis in late 2011. Now, in mid 2013 with great fanfare, she has travelled to Switzerland, where such action is legal, to indulge her wish to die with medical assistance. Not privately, as I imagine most people who wish to commit suicide would prefer but publicly and, it would appear from the various interviews, perhaps even selfishly.

This is not intended to make judgements about the conditions of either woman. Deterioration happens more quickly in one diagnosis but equally inevitably, in both. But this isn’t even about inevitability. Death is inevitable for all of us. It is about the damage that is done to the images and well being of people who live their day-to-day, often long and productive lives with such conditions, when people who acquire such conditions later in life cannot contemplate that reality and decide they would rather be dead. I continue to be disturbed by the lack of consideration for others in these decisions.

I have never thought of suicide as “disgusting”; tragic, yes, and devastating for loved ones, always, yet, so often, a stark and sad reminder that we do not do enough in our society to help each other in times of distress. I cannot conceive of suicide as the “least disgusting thing” that we might face in day to day life, no matter the extent to which we might need help at some point in our lives – or at all points in our lives – with those fundamental day to day realities of breathing, eating, drinking, bathing and defecating. And, yes, we do need more palliative care and, collectively, we must shoulder the responsibility for ensuring its provision.

But I cannot believe that any of us should expect society to sanction our self indulgent wishes to be professionally assisted to deliberately depart from the life that we have been given. It is essential to our well being that our doctors be the champions of life and to continue to do their utmost to protect it as best they can. I do not believe that the rest of us can be allowed to assume a right to force doctors to destroy life. Audrey Cole May 1, 2013

“Audrey Cole is an activist, educator and lecturer with deep roots in the Community Living movement.Upon joining her local “Community Living”Association after her son Ian was born, she became intrigued by human rights issues She is known for her expertise on guardianship legislation and her work on supported decision making and on genetic discrimination and has written and lectured on these matters nationally and internationally. She is a Past President of the Brockville and District Association for Community Involvement, an Honourary Life Member of
Community Living Ontario and a Distinguished Associate and Honourary Life member of the Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL) She is an Associate of the Institute for Research on Inclusion and Society (IRIS) and currently serves on CACL’s Values and Ethics Task Force. In 1997, she was awarded the Order of Ontario in recognition of her tireless activism on behalf of people with disabilities.”

 

Vermont Assisted Suicide Bill Allows a Third Party to Speak for an Elder or Disabled Person

 

Vermont Assisted Suicide Bill Allows a Third Party to Speak for an Elder or Disabled Person

S. 77, the assisted suicide bill passed by the Vermont State Senate on Wednesday, endangers disabled people, elderly people and ill people.  The Vermont House should reconsider its earlier support of the legislation and work to protect the vulnerable citizens of Vermont.

Like the laws in Oregon and Washington, S.  77 provides no protection from an heir or other interested person misrepresenting an applicant’s wishes.

“Capable” means that a patient has the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to a physician, including communication through persons familiar with the patient’s manner of communication if those persons are available.**[§5281 (a)(2)]

And yet a person “familiar with the patient’s manner of communication” could be an heir or other interested person.  And that person could be pressuring the person to choose assisted suicide.

Washington elder law attorney Margaret Dore details how the bill, like the Oregon and Washington laws it is modeled on, invites fraud and abuse. Because no witness is required at the death, “the opportunity is created for the patient’s heir, or for another person who will benefit financially from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent.”    No matter what happened, charges of homicide would be difficult or impossible to bring in the face of the statute’s ironclad immunity.

Senator Peter Galbraith, whose vote switch got the bill through the Senate, said, “I understand and sympathize with the desire for people to have a say, to have some control, at the end of their lives.”  Unfortunately, neither he nor many other legislators have sympathy for people who are already threatened with loss of control.

Bill Peace writes at the Bad Cripple Blog that while he has much respect for Vermonters’ sense of strong community, “I would speculate Vermonters have embraced a type of individualism that does not permit them to think about vulnerable populations and the risks they can encounter.”

He recounts the story of Vermonter Amanda Baggs, a leading disability rights activist who is autistic.  But when she recently needed the insertion of a feeding tube to save her life, she was barraged by hostile hospital staff with urgings to consider “the alternative” – which could only be interpreted as doing nothing and dying.  Peace also links to his own harrowing story of being encouraged to give up and die during a hospitalization.

This is the discrimination at the heart of assisted suicide legislation.  When disabled people come into contact with medical professionals, they judge our quality of life to be so poor that death may be preferable.  When some members of society consider the possibility of acquiring disabling conditions, they believe that it might be better to “choose” death.  Amy Hasbrouck of Not Dead Yet Canada expressed this perfectly in her recent piece, Suicide Celebration Instead of Suicide Prevention.

Peter Galbraith based his initial opposition to legalized assisted suicide on the problem of involving the state in the practice.  In February, he said on the Senate floor that he wanted to “leave it to the doctor and the patient.”  He said that “opponents were concerned about a state-prescribed process for suicide.  The medical profession is concerned about a profession that is about prolonging life being involved in a process to end life.  The disabled community expressed concern to me that having a state-sponsored process would in some way diminish them in society.  These are sincerely held convictions.”

In my own conversation with Galbraith, I emphasized that any state run program would discriminate against people with disabilities by commending certain disability-related reasons as sufficient for suicide.  As demonstrated out in Oregon, these include losing certain physical abilities, “feeling like a burden”, and “loss of control of bodily functions.”

Vermont doctors, whose organization strongly opposed the legislation, will be made into gatekeepers of death, judging some reasons (e.g., embarrassment over incontinence) as rational reasons for suicide, but (presumably) rejecting others (e.g., being told by Martians to commit suicide) as not rational.  Disabled people’s concern is that these disability related reasons are the products of a complex array of social conditioning, stigma and failings in public policy, and should never be used to justify providing suicide assistance rather than suicide prevention. — John Kelly, Second Thoughts Massachusetts

Bad News: Vermont Legislature Passes Assisted Suicide Bill

There was a moment this afternoon when it seemed that legalized assisted suicide might once again be prevented in the Vermont state legislature, but unfortunately this time the legislative chess match went to the proponents.  The state Senate voted 17-13 to endorse a bill very similar to that of Oregon, but with a three-year “sunset” provision.  Senators Galbraith and Hartwell, who had previously voted against such a bill because of their opposition to a state-run program, provided the crucial votes.

The Burlington Free Press reports:

With the Senate’s passage, the bill goes back to the House, where it is scheduled to hit the floor Saturday, the last planned day of the 2013 legislative session. House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morristown, said he expects the majority will go along with the Senate version, sending it to a supportive Gov. Peter Shumlin. It would take effect after the governor’s signature.

Opponents revived hope when Sen. Peg Flory, R-Rutland, found language in the bill that might place Medicare and Medicaid funding in doubt, but sponsors simply removed the sentence regarding advance directives, which by federal law cannot be required by insurers or medical providers.  Stalwart opponent Senator Richard Sears, D-Bennington, tried to coax the Senate into sending the bill to conference committee based on this flaw and others not yet found.  He predicted that the sunset provision of the bill, which would dissolve the Oregon-style public health program after three years, would be amended and eventually removed from the bill.  This objection did not catch fire, as proponents assured senators that after three years, assisted suicide would just become part of physician “best practices.”

True Dignity Vermont, which coordinated opposition to the assisted suicide bill, wrote this evening:

Either form of the bill will hurt many people in order to fulfill the wishes of a few who could easily accomplish on their own what they insist they want to do.  In particular, patients who have filled the lethal prescription will have absolutely no protection against being coerced or murdered by a greedy heir or an exasperated caregiver.

Anti-assisted suicide advocates continue to look over the bill for other flaws that might hold out hope of stopping the bill at the last minute. – John Kelly, Second Thoughts Massachusetts

 

Maine: Lewiston Sun Journal – “Bill allowing doctor-assisted suicide has troubling aspects” by Michael Reynolds

This is the newspaper’s mini-bio for Mike Reynolds:

Michael Reynolds of Lewiston is a writer and Web designer for Ability Maine, a disability rights website funded by Resources Organizing for Social Change, a nonprofit based in Monroe. He is a long-time activist and was born with cerebral palsy.

To add to that – Mike has been a long-time friend and supporter of NDY.  He’s a filmmaker who produced the memorable Million Dollar Bigot.

On Sunday, April 28, the Lewiston Sun Journal published on op-ed by Mike – summarizing some current attempts to legalize euthanasia and the historic fails of those attempts in New England in his essay titled “Bill allowing doctor-assisted suicide has troubling aspects.”:

More than a decade ago, the people of Maine soundly defeated a referendum regarding assisted suicide. Last year, the residents of Massachusetts also defeated legislation that would have legalized assisted suicide. Bills in Connecticut and Vermont were killed earlier in the year in those state legislatures.

Despite that overwhelming opposition to assisted suicide, Rep. Joseph Brooks, U-Winterport, has introduced LD 1065, “An act regarding patient care at the end of life” in the Maine Legislature, with a hearing scheduled for April 29.

The bill has many aspects that are troubling.

Unlike the assisted suicide law in Oregon, which has questionable safeguards in place — namely that two doctors need to agree with the terminal diagnosis — the proposed law by Rep. Brooks requires only “the opinion of one doctor,” and terminal diagnosis means only a limited life expectancy, saying nothing about whether that means six days, six months, or six years.

(Note – the Vermont bill has been resurrected and is ready to be debated and voted on in the House this week.)

Please read the rest of Mike Reynold’s essay here.

 

 

 

 

Council of Canadians with Disabilities Media Advisory – Suicide Celebration Instead of Suicide Prevention

From the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Blog:

(Note – the op-ed mentioned below is included at the end of the media advisory, instead of just linked as stated in test)

CCD Media Advisory: Suicide Celebration Instead of Suicide Prevention

 

23 April 2013, WINNIPEG, MB 
 
According to media reports, Susan Griffiths’ assisted suicide will likely occur on Thursday (25 April 2013) at a Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland. Members of the Canadian disability community, who oppose assisted suicide, are available to discuss their concerns about assisted suicide with the media on Wednesday (24 April 2013) and Thursday (25 April 2013). Their contact information is listed below.
Attached you will find “Suicide Celebration Instead of Suicide Prevention”, an Op-Ed article by Amy Hasbrouck of Toujours Vivant – Not Dead Yet Canada, a project of CCD. In her article, Hasbrouck questions why Griffiths has not been offered suicide prevention support. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) is a national organization of people with disabilities working for an accessible and inclusive Canada.
 
-30-
The following are available to discuss the Susan Griffiths case:
Amy Hasbrouck, Toujours Vivant – Not Dead Yet (Canada), Tel.: 450-921-3057, Email: tigrlily61@gmail.com  (Available for interviews in French and English.)
Laurie Beachell, CCD National Coordinator, Tel.: 204-947-0303, Email: laurie@ccdonline.ca
Dean Richert, Co-chair CCD Ending of Life Ethics Committee, Tel.: (204) 989-2775, Email: drichert@odgb.mb.ca
 
Dr. Nancy Hansen, PhD, Director, Interdisciplinary Master’s Program, University of Manitoba, Tel.: 204-474-6458, Email: Nancy.Hansen@ad.umanitoba.ca
Ruth Enns, Author, Tel.: 204-831-7952, Email: ruthenns@mymts.net
Clare Simpson, Tel.: 204-947-0303, Email: clare@ccdonline.ca

Colleen Watters, Chairperson, MLPD Ethics Committee, Tel.:204-945-5304, Email: cpwatters@shaw.ca

********************

Suicide Celebration Instead Of Suicide Prevention

By Amy Hasbrouck
of Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet:
A Project of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD)
 
Amy Hasbrouck with John Kelly
Sue Griffiths of Winnipeg, MB is the latest person to publicize her desire for assisted suicide, and to have her efforts celebrated by the press.
 
Last week, her plea for parliament to re-open the assisted suicide question was widely reported as she prepared to go to Dignitas, a clinic in Switzerland that helps people kill themselves.
 
Ms. Griffiths has Multiple Systems Atrophy, a degenerative neurological condition which causes pain in about half the people who have it. Photos show her standing, walking and using her hands; she is certainly not a person who is “physically unable to commit suicide without help.” She is described as a person who is in charge of her life, but she apparently wants to have someone else take charge of her death.
 
The reasons she gives for wanting to kill herself are related to disability, needing help with personal care and other daily activities, having to use adaptive equipment, losing independence. The subtext is that, as a person with a disability, she believes she will be less worthy, less dignified, less than fully human.
 
In point of fact, disability is NOT a fate worse than death. When people become disabled, they must grieve the loss of abilities they had, just as a parent might grieve the loss of a child, or one grieves the loss of one’s home after a natural disaster. But no one would suggest it’s a good idea for the bereaved parent or survivor of a natural disaster to commit suicide, much less that she/he be helped to die.
 
We have a policy to prevent suicides, and rightfully so. We apply this policy to people whose despair arises from social as well as psychological stresses; bullied adolescents, LGBT people who’ve been persecuted, Aboriginal people struggling with poverty and loss of cultural heritage, and survivors of domestic violence. People with disabilities who lack services and supports to live in their homes and be integrated in their communities face the same discrimination and social stressors. Suicide prevention policies and services should be applied equally to disabled and non-disabled people, without bias or prejudice about the quality of life with a disability. And society must begin to address the underlying discrimination and stigma that create the conditions in which people with disabilities live.
 
We should really be asking: Why is no one trying to stop Susan Griffiths from committing suicide? Does the media orgy around Griffiths story mean that we believe the everyday realities of living with a disability are reason enough to get help to die? And should the media rise to the bait every time a person with a disability flaunts their suicide in the public square.