Pennsylvania: Unusually Thoughtful and Informative Article On Elderly Homicide-Suicides

According to reporter Jo Ciavaglia, the murder-suicide described in this article is “at least the third in Pennsylvania involving an elderly couple reported since June.”

Maybe that’s what inspired Ms Ciavaglia to reach out to some sources that are most often ignored in coverage of these cases.

Here is an excerpt from Murder-suicides among elderly an act of desperation:

They lived together and died together, but this was no romantic ending for the Middletown couple. Murder-suicide is what the coroner called it.

Jeanne Hoez, 90, had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, a progressive illness that left her unable to respond to her environment. Her husband, Charles, 92, was at his “wits’ end,” according to Bucks County Coroner Dr. Joseph Campbell.

Police believe that Charles strung a hose from the couple’s minivan through their first-floor bedroom window and pumped deadly carbon monoxide into the home. Their son, who lives in Upper Bucks County, found them dead in their bed Monday morning.

The Hoez murder-suicide is at least the third in Pennsylvania involving an elderly couple reported since June, a scenario that mental health experts say is driven by desperation, not adoration.

This is a real departure from the usual framing of these tragic events.  All too often, the murder victim (usually the wife) is described as having died through a “mercy killing” and the perpetrator’s killing of her as an act of love.  (Last year, of course, this framing of these tragedies was actively encouraged by the group “Conflation and Con Jobs.”)

Ms. Ciavaglia made the unusual step (for a reporter) of NOT calling a “right to die” advocacy group, but called some organizations devoted to prevention of suicide – in this case, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

Through that organization, she found and shared the work of Donna J Cohen, who has done extensive research on this growing and alarming trend in the elderly population.  We’ve shared some of her work in earlier blog entries.

Local groups devoted to suicide prevention and support for elderly persons are also used as sources in this story.

I wish we’d see more of this kind of story, but it’s really dependent on one particular reporter “getting” this aspect of the story.  Unlike Conflation & Con Jobs, who appeared to be proactively reaching out to newsrooms when an elderly murder-suicide happened in a given community, I fear that organizations like the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention just waits by the phone for someone to call.  (They’ll comment on this type of case, but I fear they’d probably express “no comment” when it comes to issues such as the suicide vigilante cult Final Exit Network.)

Or I could be wrong and now we’ll hear lots more from the AFSP and similar groups because they care passionately about preventing and reducing suicides for everyone in the population – including old, ill and disabled people.  That would be a nice surprise.  It would be worth being wrong this once.  😉  — Stephen Drake

Peter Singer: Latest Lecture Recommends Rationing Health Care on the Back of Disabled People

Last week, Peter Singer continued his longstanding vendetta against people with disabilities in a public lecture at Princeton University:

Peter Singer, a professor with the University Center for Human Values, presented a talk on “Rationing Health Care” on Tuesday. The event, open to the public, was sponsored by the Student Bioethics Forum.

Currently, the United States spends more per capita than any other country in the world, yet is ranked 176th in infant mortality and 50th in life expectancy according to the CIA World Factbook. According to a study conducted by the World Health Organization, the United States health care system is ranked 37th. These statistics make “it look like we’re not getting good value for money,” Singer said.

From NDY’s perspective, Singer’s stating the obvious here.  It’s hard to understand how anyone other than affluent people with comprehensive health insurance can see the health care system in the US as even  approaching “adequate” for a large segment of the population.

But, not for the first time, Singer can’t stop himself from attacking people with disabilities as part of his argument for more universal access to healthcare:

Although opportunities would never be exactly the same for the poor and rich, if a life is saved regardless of a person’s socioeconomic status, it promotes unity within the society, he added.

However, there remains the problem of what kind of care the country should provide. “We should get … the health care that provides the greatest benefits for the resources available,” Singer said.

This issue becomes complicated, however, with issues such as end-of-life care and saving disabled people over healthy people. For example, in prolonging life, hospitals spend high amounts of resources that could be used for saving lives. (Emphasis added.)

“We should only be spending on health care that actually benefits people and that benefits the patients,” Singer said.

Interesting wording “saving disabled people over healthy people”?  It seems to me that what he really means is “saving disabled people as well as healthy people.”

As I noted earlier, this isn’t the first time Singer has assaulted people with disabilities as part of an overall argument in favor of universal access to healthcare.  The July 15, ’09 edition of the NY Times Magazine published an essay by Singer titled Why We Must Ration Health Care.  In that essay, Singer made even more egregious – and data-free – arguments for limiting healthcare to people with significant disabilities. 

The disability community responded in a letter to the editors of the NY Times Magazine, who declined to print or respond to the protest letter – signed by 20 disability rights and other advocacy organizations.

Among the many issues relevant to a discussion of any discussion of limiting medical care to people with disabilities is the following, included in the original protest letter:

The proposed treatment – or nontreatment – of people with disabilities also violates the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was signed by US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. She signed the Convention on July 30th at the direction of President Obama. While the Singer essay violates the spirit and vision of the Convention in numerous ways, the most pertinent section of the document is spelled out in Article 25 (f), in which obligates signatories to “prevent discriminatory denial of health care or health services or food and fluids on the basis of disability.” This is important. Article 4(d) states that countries that have signed the Convention agree to “refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the present Convention.”

It’s clear that Peter Singer has little use for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  That’s no excuse to leave the document – and its mandates – out of the discussion.  –Stephen Drake

h/t Wesley Smith

Dark Humor Weekend, Part 1 – Euthanasia Comedy Sketch from “Your Bad Self”

Regular reader are familiar with this blog’s occasional visits to humor, comedy and satire dealing with NDY-related topics.

Due to some searching I did this morning, we’re having our first “Dark Humor Weekend.”

The first offering is a terrific send-up of the all-too-familiar portrayal of “sympathetic” family members who facilitate the suicides of their spouses.  In this sketch from RTÉ Two‘s comedy show “Your Bad Self,” a loving wife expresses her concern over the prolonged illness of her spouse and his inevitable loss of dignity – and suggests a compassionate alternative to suffering through it all:


Please come back tomorrow for a second twisted look at “death with dignity.”

Follow Not Dead Yet on Twitter!

We (meaning me, mostly) have been slow getting off the mark in terms of social media. Now that there are more people doing the work in NDY, we’re working to expand our presence and even share things that might not show up on this blog.

Not Dead Yet is now on twitter. Content shared on twitter won’t be limited to pointers to the latest blog entry. For example, today a tweet went out regarding yet another health care moment at the latest Republican debate – this one was described as “macabre” by the author.

I probably won’t be visiting that incident on this blog – at least in the near future – but twitter is a great way to let people know it’s out there and it is probably releivant to anyone whose interests coincide with Not Dead Yet.

There’s a link at the upper right-hand corner of the page under the “Contacting NDY” heading.

Or you can just sign up right here to follow Not Dead Yet on Twitter.  –Stephen Drake