Five Things a “TakePart.com” Author Really DIDN’T Know About Assisted Suicide

Allan MacDonell, assisted suicide, euthanasia, final exit network, Oregon, Our News & Commentary Blog, pets, reality check, slippery slope, Switzerland, TakePart.com

You learn something new every day.  Before today, I was totally unaware of the multimedia website Takepart.com, which describes itself this way:

TakePart is a digital media company with a singular mission: To make participating in positive change easy, rewarding, and part of everyday life. The articles, videos and actions we create build awareness of issues that shape our lives and culture, and provide ways to make a difference.

TakePart is a website, for one, and also a Social Action Network that includes individuals, NGOs, online communities and brands who share a common interest in making the world a better place. We are a division of Participant Media, which has produced culture-shifting films such as An Inconvenient Truth, The Cove, and Waiting for Superman.

To date, Participant has developed programs and active, working relationships with more than 300 non-profits. Collectively, we have the potential to reach more than 75 million people.

So they’re your typical bunch of affluent and well-connected self-proclaimed progressives who want to somehow put a bunch of different issues into that one box labeled “progressive.”

What called my attention to the site was something that appeared in my news feed titled “5 Things You Need to Know: Doctor Assisted Suicide.” 

The article – by Allan MacDonell – should have carried the more accurate title of “5 Things I Think I Know About Doctor Assisted Suicide”

The picture below – obviously of Not Dead Yet protesters at the Supreme Court – is posted along with MacDonell’s article.  You’d think, then, he’d know something about people with  disabilities and our concerns about assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The article gives no evidence of Mr. MacDonell having read anything at all by NDY – on our old website, any of our published articles, or material on this blog.

Mr. MacDonell’s “need to know” items are mostly misinformation and “straw man” version of anti assisted suicide/euthanasia arguments.

Here’s his opening:

Americans disagree on many things, and doctor-assisted suicide is the thing they disagree on the hardest. Oddly, veterinarians seem to be immune from the assisted-death controversy, despite the fact that almost every former kid in the country has at one time submitted a beloved pet to be “put to sleep.” An anti-euthanasia activist will be hard-pressed to find a person, other than a potential serial killer, who will assert that Scruffy or Spot or Balthazar would have been better served to wheeze out a few extra last days while being starved to death in a joy-blocking haze of pain, medication and intrusive surgical procedures.

Before even going into his “need to know” list, MacDonell perpetuates the myth that all pets are “put down” by loving owners because the animals are terminally ill and in pain.  As discussed on this blog and in an article I coauthored with Dick Sobsey, a minority of pets are euthanized because they are terminally ill and in pain.  One of the most recent factors in an increased rate of pet euthanasia is the economic downturn – people can’t afford their pets and have them euthanized – or abandon them to a shelter that does it.

So what about those “need to know” items?

I’ll leave those who read this blog to read the original article for the content of the first three items, which discuss the difference between euthansia and assisted suicide, death through withdrawal of feeding tube, and that assisted suicide is mostly what the author calls a “criminal mercy” in the US.

Number four is the one that gets to the real source of some of the most important distortions and omissions:

4) Meet four arguments that oppose assisted suicide. A) Improvements in hospice and palliative care have made physician-assisted suicide unnecessary. B) Patients have no right to cheapen the value of human life by seeking help in ending their own. C) Physician-assisted suicide is the first mossy flagstone on a slippery slope to officially sanctioned human depravity, sliding into the pit of involuntary euthanasia for persons with mental illnesses, physical handicaps or any characteristics deemed unsavory. D) Any physician who assists in a suicide violates the Hippocratic Oath to “first, do no harm.”

In A) the claim is partially true.  What’s left out is that pro-assisted suicide advocates are saying that the availability of palliative care is irrelevant to a person’s desire to get help to commit suicide.  Relatively few people who die under the Oregon law cite pain as a reason for wanting to commit suicide – the reasons of not wanting to be a burden or fear of losing autonomy are much more common.  As for B) – Frankly I have never heard the argument put quite that way by anyone – especially in the disability community.

As for item C) – with the snarky wording about the “first mossy flagstone on a slippery slope,” we’ve already slid – and continue to do so thanks to the advocacy of the pro-euthanasia/assisted suicide movement. Has MacDonell never heard of that (cough) sweet little old lady selling “suicide kits” to anyone who wants them and pays her 60 dollars?  Never heard of the Final Exit Network?  The group of “suicide vigilantes” who help just about anyone commit suicide because they don’t believe any law – including Oregon’s – gives people enough freedom to get “help” in committing suicide.

Then there is number 5 on the list:

5) Assisted suicide has spawned its own tourist industry. Switzerland, a prosperous European country of snowy Alps, pristine lakes and excellent watches and chocolate, has many attractions to tempt the leisured and sophisticated traveler. However, if you’re planning a trip to the Swiss skiing slopes, you might want to wait until you feel a lot more wretched and pessimistic about the coming days. Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1941. One local company, Dignitas, has helped 1,138 people die over the past 13 years—with clients hailing from Germany, Great Britain and France. Zurich’s voters recently shot down a proposed ban on suicide tourism with a 78 percent majority, disagreeing hardly at all.

This is all true.  But the enormous support the public shows for Dignitas argues against the author’s implied premise that “slippery slopes” are nothing to worry about.  You see, Mr. MacDonell forgot to mention that Dignitas will facilitate the suicide of anyone – young, old, healthy, ill, disabled, able-bodied – it doesn’t matter to Dignitas.  They’ll help you as long as you can pay their pretty exorbitant fees.

I’m used to people who think they are somehow progressive disagreeing with disability activists and advocates on these issues.  What I have never gotten used to is the willingness of these same folks to render us invisible or distort our true positions in this important public policy debate.

We’re not stupid, paranoid, or delusional.  We’ve just been paying attention. –Stephen Drake

Note – Couple of minor edits made today.  One spelling error and a two-word omission in a sentence pointed out to me by Allan MacDonell.

Breaking News: Jack Kevorkian in Hospital

assisted suicide, Kevorkian, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check

From the Huffington Post:

ROYAL OAK, Mich. — A lawyer says assisted-suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian is in a Detroit-area hospital with pneumonia and kidney problems.

Mayer (MAY’-uhr) Morganroth says Kevorkian was reluctant but agreed to go to Beaumont Hospital on Wednesday night. He predicts Kevorkian will be there for several days.

Mr. Morganroth wanted to assure fans of Kevorkian that things will be OK, though.:

Kevorkian turns 83 next week. Morganroth says his health is not in grave danger but “it’s not a good thing right now.”

I wouldn’t put great faith in any health assessment by Mr. Morganroth.  This is the same guy who filed appeals for Kevorkian’s early release from prison four years in a row – and in each brief claimed that Kevorkian had “less than a year to live.”

Here’s how that tidbit was made public, even though it was promptly forgotten by the press and the public:

Like the boy who cried “wolf,” Mayer Morganroth claimed – year after year – that Kevorkian had “less than a year to live” in his efforts to win an early release for his client. This was laid out and confirmed in an Associated Press story that appeared on December 14th of last year (link is no longer operational):

Some object to Kevorkian’s upcoming release from prison
12/14/2006, 5:34 p.m. ET
By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN
The Associated Press

(excerpt)
Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group based in Forest Park, Ill., also said it was disappointed that Kevorkian would be released in June.

“We won’t forget the struggling disabled people he preyed upon. And we won’t be silent,” the group said in a statement.

It added that it expected that the 78-year-old Kevorkian, after leaving prison, will show a “near-miraculous `recovery'” from his health problems, which include diabetes, hepatitis C, high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries in his brain and vertigo, according to his attorney.

“We were suspicious his health problems were greatly exaggerated when his lawyer filed appeals for four years in a row claiming Kevorkian was essentially on the brink of death,” the group said.

***

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said all requests to have sentences commuted for health reasons must first go to the Corrections Department and then to the parole board, which recommends to the governor whether the request should be honored.

Boyd said Morganroth already has made four such requests, in 2003, 2004, 2005 and earlier this year.”In each instance he indicated that Dr. Jack Kevorkian had less than a year to live,” she said.

So don’t put any faith in what Morganroth has to say about Kevorkian’s health now.  –Stephen Drake

Smart Ass Cripple (blog): It’s All Over But the Bingo (Satire)

advance directives, blog recommendations, humor, mike ervin, Our News & Commentary Blog, satire, smart ass cripple

The Smart Ass Cripple Blog is written by friend, disability activist, humorist, playwright, and essayist Mike Ervin. (and I might have left a couple items off the list of hats he wears – and most of those hats are garishly colored – several hold one or more beers with straws.)

Mike Ervin’s name is probably familiar to regular readers of this blog – his name is attached to a significant amount of the posts tagged “humor” or “satire.”  There’s even more of his stuff to be found in our archived collection of “humor” articles.

Mike’s (or Smart Ass Cripple’s) latest blog post is a send-up of those familiar stories about the unintended torment that can be inflicted on an incapacitated loved one and the guilt the decisionmaker has to live with – and all because the incapacitated relative never made out an advanced directive:

It’s All Over But the Bingo

Excerpt:

Today’s lecture is on the importance of advance directives. What would you do if you were suddenly in a position where you were unable to make medical decisions for yourself? It’s vitally important that you think about this right away, while you still can. Write down specific instructions in an advance directive for your loved ones who will be your surrogate decision makers to follow. This will save everyone a lot of anguish.

Believe me, I know. I made a well-meaning but profoundly ill-advised medical decision on behalf of my aunt and now she must live with the consequences. Two years ago my aunt was hospitalized due to a sudden, unexplained but temporary wave of delirium. Within two months she was back home with her wits restored intact. But she remembered little of what went on those two months. As I pieced it all together for her- – the tests, the treatments, the surgery– I mentioned that one day when she was in the nursing home for rehab, she played bingo. She looked at me with horror. “Bingo? ME?”

 It gets better – and worth the read and needed laugh.  Read the rest of “It’s All Over But the Bingo” and bookmark Smart Ass Cripple so you can find it when you want or need a laugh in a world that can seem joyless at time.  –Stephen Drake

Daniel J Vance – “Drake Isn’t Dead Yet”

assisted suicide, Daniel J Vance, Homicide / 'Mercy Killing', hydrocephalus, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, stephen drake, suicide

It’s official – I’m Not Dead Yet.  That’s what the title of the column by Daniel J Vance says.  Vance writes a column that is published by a number of papers around the country – and he writes on disability issues.

He interviewed me last week to get an update on NDY and some of the life and death issues facing the disability community.  We talked for quite awhile.  Not all of our discussion made it into the column, but he covered a lot of ground in a small amount of space.  I’ll share the first two paragraphs from his current column, Drake Isn’t Dead Yet.  This link is to the Rocklin & Roseville Today.  I’ll add other I come across as they become available.

From the column:

When infant Stephen Drake was being born sideways breech in a New York hospital in the mid-’50s, a doctor wrongly used forceps to pull him from the womb. The resulting brain injury gave Drake hydrocephalus, which would require a lifelong brain shunt to manage. He also would have permanent challenges with nonverbal learning, tremors, body movement, and coordination.

Now Drake works for Not Dead Yet of Rochester, New York. In part, it’s a nonprofit group for people with disabilities opposed to assisted suicide laws.

If you’re interested in the rest of the column – and I hope anyone checking here is – please go to the link (which I’ll add one more time below) to read the whole thing.  Newspapers keep track of how much internet traffic individual columns get and it’s worthwhile to make sure we let them know that there are readers who have an interest in disability issues.

Please read the rest of Drake Isn’t Dead Yet here.

Texas: Supporters of Texas “Futile Care” Law Continue to Maintain the Status Quo, Preventing Change

"end of life", bioethics, futility, Larry McAfee, life-ending decisions, medical discrimination, Our News & Commentary Blog, texas, Texas Alliance for Life, Texas Catholic Conference

On Sunday (May 8, 2011), the Austin American-Statesman published an update of sorts on the continuing stalemate over the Texas “futile care statute,” which translates as a “win” for supporters of the status quo.

It’s a fascinating article – for many reasons.  But perhaps the most fascinating are the many contradictions contained in the article – but don’t get recognized as contradictions.

Here’s an excerpt from “Sensitive topic of futile medical care faces long road in Legislature” by Chuck Lindell:

For the fourth consecutive session, Texas legislators are struggling with the delicate issue of how and when doctors can allow patients to die by withholding life-sustaining treatment against the wishes of family members. 

But, a few paragraphs down, the law is described this way:

Texas’ “futile medical care” law was enacted in 1999 and is unique in the nation for its efforts to protect doctors and hospitals from wrongful death lawsuits while trying to balance patient and family rights, legal experts say.

How do you get from the first sentence – which accurately states that doctors can “allow” patients to die through treatment withdrawal over family objections – to saying the law makes an effort to “balance patient and family rights”? 

How’s this for “balance”?  Briefly mentioned late in this article is the fact that the current statute says that only two days notice is required to alert families about the ethics meeting where withdrawing treatment will be put forward.  In practice, that’s led to at least one phone call to me – when we were back in Illinois from a man whose sister-in-law was to be the subject of one of these ethics meetings.  His message: We got a call yesterday that they are gonna have this meeting tomorrow. 

Anyone who is familiar with professional panel knows what is behind this kind of maneuver – have completely unprepared family members be overwhelmed in numbers and expertise by a “steamroller” masquerading as some kind of fair hearing.  In the case I mentioned, I was able to hook this family up with an advocate who could attend the meeting.  The gentleman called me the next week to say that the whole tune of the committee changed when they brought an outside advocate in.  (I think my remark was that “ethics committees are like vampires – they don’t like the light.”)

The author states that “end-of-life cases can also be stressful for doctors,” and yet is followed by something very different shortly after in a discussion of one legislator’s efforts to get the current 10-day limit (treat for ten days followed by withdrawal of treatment or transfer to a different facility or setting).:

This session, as in the 2009 session, debate over the state’s medical futility law is being led by Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, who again filed a bill that would require hospitals to continue treatment until a family finds an alternate caregiver, no matter how long it takes.

Known as “treatment until transfer,” the policy would answer one of the law’s most glaring problems — it doesn’t specify that patients must have a terminal condition before doctors can halt care — by requiring family-ordered care be given to all patients, Hughes said.(Emphasis added.)

If  the patient doesn’t have to have a “terminal condition” doesn’t that beg the question of just what the heck is meant by “end of life”?  Does it mean one or more things to doctors and something entirely different to families?  Does it mean that a person is dying?  Does it mean the person’s life is being ended? Both? Either?

As interesting as these aspects of the article are, it looks like the main purpose was to introduce to new public relations players for supporting the status quo and opposing the rights of families through “treatment til transfer.”

Unlike other articles, in which the main supporters quoted have been ethicists, physicians or hospital representatives, the main defenders of the current “futile care statute” are two allegedly “pro-life” organizations.:

“Such a policy is not in the best interest of patients because it only prolongs patient suffering and artificially delays death with no real benefit,” said Jennifer Allmon with the Texas Catholic Conference.

“A natural death with dignity is part of our teaching. Aggressive medical treatment interferes with God calling a patient home, and that is not our role,” she added.

I wish I could say I was surprised by this, but quite frankly the Catholic Church has been all over the board on “right to die” issues from Larry McAfee to Terri Schiavo.

Also defending the “futile care” statute is the Texas Alliance for Life.  I’ve been suspecting that some of the larger “family values” organizations that put fiscal conservativism on as high a plane as other issues might start to fall this way.  I mean, how long can you rail against universal health care and yet fight “futile care” decisions, which typically involve fairly involved and expensive healthcare?   Texas Alliance for Life has made its choice, as you can see from remarks Joe Pojman, representing the organization:

Texas Alliance for Life is opposed because the policy would ignore the ethical integrity and judgment of doctors and caregivers, Pojman said.

“I have had numerous pro-life physicians come to me saying, ‘Please don’t let the Legislature require that we do everything, all the time, that families want, because that would be doing harm, too,’ ” he said.

That first sentence is crap.  Just how would “treatment until transfer” ignore the ethical integrity and judgment of caregivers?  Unless of course, he’s talking about medical caregivers – and he’s just ignoring what families think is best.  And since when does his organization stand behind the concept of the ethical integrity and judgment of doctors? It’s certainly not evident when it comes to women’s reproductive medical care.

To be fair, there are plenty of Democrats and so-called “progressives” supporting the status quo on “futility” decisions.  But most of them also support the idea of universal access to healthcare.  It looks like at least some on the Right want to gives us the worst of all worlds.