“The Unspoken Argument” – Final Exit Network, Derek Humphry and a Rough Road Ahead

"The Unspoken Argument", cost containment, Derek Humphry, final exit network, Our News & Commentary Blog

Last week, I was quoted in an Associated Press article about the legal challenge mounted by Final Exit Network (FEN) and one of the group’s supporters in a Georgia courtroom.  I wrote about it in the last post on this blog.  The more recent article, by AP reporter Greg Blustein, takes a broader look at the case and gives more information on the supporter, a woman with Huntington’s disease.  Here’s a link to the story on the Huntington Post, which generally keeps AP stories online and accessible.

Here is the short segment with my quote, with some explanation added afterwards:

Critics say the group sends a dangerous message to society.

“It says that we’ll look the other way when not-so productive people commit suicide, that they are burdens and that society isn’t that troubled to see them die,” said Stephen Drake of the group Not Dead Yet.

As I recall, I made this statement in reaction to what it would mean if the courts decided to leave FEN alone – leave them to their “assisting” the suicides of old, ill and disabled people (assistance might include things such as helping to get the “client” over their ambivalence, holding their hands down, and cleaning up the area after the person dies to hide the fact that the death occurred through suicide).

So my reaction was aimed at the message sent to people with disabilities and the elderly if the legal system decided to give FEN a free pass.

Although not in the article, I also shared my belief that there was a lot more support in the general population for encouraging or facilitating suicides among old, ill and disabled people – but that the reasons have little to do with compassion or a deep respect for autonomy.

Nope.  We’re in a deep economic crisis and there is, I believe, a growing sentiment that if someone living on Social Security, or who gets their medical care through Medicare or Medicaid, or depends on taxpayer-supported assistance for anything – if any of these folks die earlier rather than later then it’s a boon to the public welfare.  They won’t say it out loud, of course.  But it’s implied in some of the rhetoric about the “waste” of dollars on the elderly by people on the left and in the rhetoric of deficit hawks and Tea Partiers.

This isn’t a new insight, although, this dynamic may be more imminent now than it has been since I started working in this arena.  No – the first analysis of this kind that I ever read was written by Derek Humphry and Mary Clement in the book Freedom to Die: people, politics, and the right-to-die movement.

The book was written in 2000.  The second-to-last chapter is titled “The Unspoken Argument.”  This seems a very appropriate time to remind people of what Humphry and Clement had to say ten years ago:

“Similar to other social issues, the right-to-die movement has not arisen separate and distinct from other concurrent developments of our time. In attempting to answer the question Why Now?, one must look at the realities of the increasing cost of health care in an aging society, because in the final analysis, economics, not the quest for broadened individual liberties or increased autonomy, will drive assisted suicide to the plateau of acceptable practice. As technology advances, as medical costs skyrocket out of control, as chronic diseases predominate, as the projected rate of the eighty-five-and-older population accelerates, as managed care seeks to cut costs and as Medicare is predicted to go bankrupt by 2007, the impetus of cost containment provide impetus, whether openly acknowledged or not, for the practicalities of an assisted death.” (Emphasis added.)

Obviously, some of their projections were off.  At the same time, though, I think we should all take this seriously as an unusually honest analysis coming from the pro-euthanasia movement.  And we can use Humphry’s words to level the charge that the growing sympathy for assisted suicide is nothing more than a cost containment measure masquerading as compassion.  –Stephen Drake

Addendum – there is more to this chapter than the opening statement shared here, but it all goes to support that initial claim.  I plan on returning to this chapter in the future and how it relates to the current realities we are dealing with right now.

Final Exit Network (FEN) in Court – Say Charges Violate “Free Speech”

assisted suicide, final exit network, litigation, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check

Anyone who has followed the Final Exit Network (FEN) since the news broke out about the arrests of members in Georgia and Arizona has to have noticed that the group has changed its tune about just what its mission is, and just what kind of “help” they give to people who commit suicide.

A lawyer for FEN was in court on Friday arguing the charges against the four FEN members in Georgia violate their constitutional right to free speech.

The thing is, though, that the charges relate to alleged actions by FEN members, not words.

Unfortunately, no single news story contained every bit of rebuttal against the “free speech” defense.

So piecing from different news stories, here is a reality check about the criminal charges:

  • Forsyth News: “All four were indicted in March on one count each of offering to assist in the commission of suicide, tampering with evidence and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act.” (‘tampering with evidence’ means that FEN members cleaned up after the suicide to remove evidence that Celmer – and others ‘helped’ – died through suicide)
  • Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB): “Meanwhile, a Forsyth County judge did not immediately rule Friday on a request to dismiss the case against four of the network’s members. An undercover officer posing as a suicide candidate testified one of the members showed him how they would hold his hands so he could not remove a helium bag from his face that would help him die.”

 There is no telling when the judge will rule, or what that ruling will be.  Luckily, the judge will most likely be evaluating the arguments presented in court – and not the mostly sloppy press coverage of FEN.  –Stephen Drake

Laura Hershey : 1962-2010

activism, advocacy, in memorium, Laura Hershey, Our News & Commentary Blog, Robin Stephens

 (The picture above is a head shot portrait of Laura Hershey)

Many regular readers and (and hopefully all of the members of the disability community) who read this blog will recognize the name of Laura Hershey.

Laura – a poet, activist, writer, consultant – died unexpectedly on November 26th after a sudden illness.  She was 48 years old.  As an activist and writer, Laura leaves behind an immense body of works – her writings deal with disability rights, oppression, women’s rights, worker’s rights, oppression, and resistance.  This is not an exhaustive list of topics – Laura would write about how these concerns intersected – and was passionately dedicated to the promotion of human rights and social justice for all individuals.  Reading news she would share on Facebook made it clear to me that she followed many global social justice concerns that mostly remain off my own radar, finding the array of issues I do track being about as much as I can handle.

Over the years, Laura engaged in advocacy on NDY issues, taking part in and/or organizing local events touching on NDY issues – or I should say she co-organized them, since organizing a local event was just about always a joint effort of Laura and her long-time partner, Robin Stephens.  (Laura and Robin celebrated their 20th anniversary of being together last year.)

Since the beginning of NDY, Laura served on our board of directors, several times as one of the officers.

Here are links to a few of the NDY-related pieces she wrote over the years:

You can find much more about Laura and her work at the memorial site that has been set up for friends and admirers to share thoughts and memories with others: Celebrating the Life of Laura Hershey

NDY’s founder – Diane Coleman – has known Laura for a long time, both being “regulars” in ADAPT.  I first met Laura in 1998, when Diane and I both stayed with Laura and Robin in their house in Denver.  During that visit, a bunch of us found time to visit the headquarters of the Hemlock Society, where we made a lasting impression. 

(photo above consists of two head portraits, with Laura Hershey on the left and Robin Stephens on the right)

In addition to being the activist, writer, and intellectual, Laura was a lover and a mother.  As I mentioned earlier, she and Robin Stephens recently celebrated 20 years together.

 (photo above is – from left to right – group shot of Laura Hershey, Shannon Hershey-Stephens and Robin Stephens)

Early last summer, Laura and Robin adopted a daughter.  Shannon Hershey-Stephens had already been with them for about a year at that time.  I want to say that since the time that Shannon entered their lives, I’ve taken great pleasure as both Robin and Laura have shared the latest news of adventures (and occasional misadventures) of this new family.  It was clear how much joy all of them have given to each other and those around them.

Laura’s death is one more surprising and saddening loss in our community this year.  Mostly I find myself thinking of Robin and Shannon – and the rest of the extended family around them.  I know how saddened we all are by Laura’s death. 

Our thoughts are with Robin and Shannon.  Hoping you take joy and comfort from your memories – and the same from the friends and family who share your loss.  Peace.

C & C Attorney Kathryn Tucker to Pitch Legalized Assisted Suicide at Conference on Abuse of Elderly and Disabled?

abuse, Compassion & Choices, conferences, Conflation and Con jobs, Homicide / 'Mercy Killing', NAPSA, national adult protective services association, Our News & Commentary Blog

Recently, we became aware of a very disturbing development.

Every year, the National Adult Protective Services Association (NAPSA) hosts a conference on abuse of the elderly and people with disabilities, sharing research and prevention strategies.  The 2010 conference is being held next week in San Diego, California.

The conference sessions and workshops are a reflection of the organization itself, as stated on the front page of the website:

The National Adult Protective Services Association (NAPSA) is a national non-profit 501 (c) (3) organization with members in all fifty states, including the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. It was formed in 1989 to provide state Adult Protective Services (APS) program administrators and staff with a forum for sharing information, solving problems, and improving the quality of services for victims of elder and vulnerable adult abuse.

And for the most part, that is what you see in the program for the 2010 conference (pdf).

There is one glaring exception.  On November 9, the second day of the conference, a concurrent presentation is being given by “Compassion & Choices” attorney Kathryn Tucker.  (Most often, this organization is referred to as “Conflation & Con Jobs” here.)

Tucker’s presentation is titled “Abuse in Terminally Ill Patients: Failures of Care.”  However abuse is defined by Tucker, it’s an easy bet that a large part of her “solution” will entail legalization of assisted suicide.  Tucker and her allies in the euthanasia movement are predictable and zealous – just as radical conservatives offer “tax cuts” as the solution to most problems, Tucker and her organization offer legalized assisted suicide as their own panacea of choice.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg in terms of being alarmed at seeing Tucker getting a podium at this conference.  Over the past year, Tucker and C & C have been busy exploiting tragic cases in which elderly men murder their wives and then commit suicide themselves.  In all of these cases, there has been no evidence that the murder victim had agreed to or wished for her own death.  In more than one case, the woman murdered wasn’t terminally ill.

Nevertheless, C & C has exploited these tragedies using two deceptive tactics in statements to the press: 1.) they imply the deaths were mutually planned and consensual when there is no evidence of that claim; 2.) they refer to the nonterminal conditions of the murdered women as “terminal;” 3.) the punchline is, of course, that they make an absurd claim that legalization of assisted suicide would somehow have prevented the tragedy.

Of course, it’s absurd to think that a man who would kill a wife who didn’t want to die would reach out to his doctor just because assisted suicide was legal.  It would still be illegal for him to ask for help in killing a wife who wanted to live, wouldn’t it?

In order to make the argument at all plausible, you have to significantly distort the facts.  Tucker and her employers have shown no hesitation in this regard.

For a detailed analysis of two instances of this brand of warped advocacy, please check out the following two blog entries:

 I would like to know what the organizers of this conference were thinking in accepting this proposal.  Tucker gives presentations with only one goal in mind – advancing the main mission of legalizing assisted suicide.

Will attendees notice that she’s using a different definition of “terminal” than they’re used to? Or will they note that her biggest problem with these murder/suicides is that they are “violent” and messy?  She doesn’t mention the nonconsensual part.

Her participation in this conference is offensive and dangerous to the lives of people the organization involved is devoted to protecting.  Tucker’s solution to the ultimate form of abuse – murder – is to redefine it as something else so she and C & C can use these murders to help their own agenda.

I can only think that her inclusion happened through gross ignorance on the part of the organizers.  That’s bad enough.  I’d hate to think that they actually knew what the organization has been doing over the past year.  That would mean that vulnerable elderly women are in more danger now than ever.  –Stephen Drake

Rock Band “Killing Joke” Says “No joke – they worked to get friend to delay suicide by ordering more work”

John Hicklenton, Killing Joke, Our News & Commentary Blog, suicide, suicide prevention, Switzerland

Last March, artist John Hicklenton, who had multiple sclerosis, killed himself at the Dignitas “clinic” in Switzerland.  It was clear at the time that many people who knew him were aware of his plans and just quietly accepted his decision.

It turns out that not everyone who knew Hicklenton just blandly accepted his wish to kill himself, according to an interview with Jaz Coleman – frontman for the band Killing Joke.  From Rockradio in the UK:

Killing Joke were so upset that artist John Hicklenton was planning to kill himself that the band kept commissioning more work from him to postpone his final act.

Hicklenton, known for his work on cult comic 2000AD, ended his life in March this year after a battle against multiple sclerosis. He was 42 when he entered the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland for an assisted suicide.

Killing Joke frontman Jaz Coleman believes many people will find it hard to understand how his band feel about what many people see as the ultimate human right.

Coleman tells The Quietus: “There’s a lot of death around these days. We had two fatalities while we were recording the new album: bass player Youth’s father, and Johnny.

“He’s the guy from 2000AD who got all our stuff to Heath Ledger. Johnny was dying from MS. We kept commissioning him so we could put back the date.

“I suppose it would be a problem for a lot of people to realise that suicide, on any level, doesn’t sit well with any of us in Killing Joke. Not even Dignitas.

“I had my friend who was committing suicide at Dignitas. He said to me, ‘There’s a woman in this room – she says I’ve got to be dead by two o’clock’.”

For those who think there’s anything “dignified” about Dignitas, read that last line again.  Hicklenton had to cut his call short in order to hurry up, kill himself, and allow the staff to make the room available to the next beneficiary of the organization’s brand of “death with dignity.”

It’s stunning reading this that Coleman feels he has to explain why he and other band members went to some effort to get their friend to put off his suicide.  Like he has to defend giving the man reasons to live a while longer.  He didn’t use coercion, or call in the mental health police.  He just gave him more work that – obviously – could only be done if he was living.

Even then, Coleman says that some people might not understand – and I’m afraid he’s probably right.

But I hope he knows that some people do understand – and are grateful for his efforts – and taking time to say that suicide isn’t really that great a thing.  –Stephen Drake