Big News: Final Exit Network Activist Enters Guilty Plea in Arizona – Agrees to Testify Against Other Defendants

Arizona, crime and punishment, final exit network, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog

This could be very important news.  Wye Hale-Rowe, a long time assisted suicide activist and advocate, has entered a guilty plea in Arizona to a charge of “facilitation to commit manslaughter.”

The longest and most detailed coverage of Hale-Rowe’s plea is in the Phoenix New Times, an independent paper that originally broke the story of the investigation that led to the arrests of Hale-Rowe and three other individuals, all “exit guides” in the Final Exit Network.  The rest of the media in Arizona has treated this as almost a non-story.

From the New Times blog:

Readers may remember our story on the so-called “assisted case” of Jana Van Voorhis, a 58-year-old Phoenix woman who died mysteriously in her bed in the spring of 2007.

It was a particularly sad and bizarre yarn (even by our standards), and had a slew of dicey legal and ethical issues wrapped inside of it.

One of our key interviews in the piece was with Wye Hale-Rowe, then 79, a retired family therapist and great-grandmother who now lives in Michigan. She was then was a volunteer for the Final Exit Network, an offshoot of the now-defunct Hemlock Society.

Earlier today, Hale-Rowe pleaded guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court to facilitation to commit manslaughter, a felony.

In striking a plea deal with county prosecutors, Hale-Rowe agreed to testify against the three remaining defendants in the case, an aged Scottsdale man who allegedly also assisted Van Voorhis in killing herself, and two senior Final Exit officials from out of state.  (emphasis added.)

 The other defendants are facing charges of manslaughter and conspiracy to commit manslaughter.  This already had the potential of being a very interesting and revealing trial in regard to the Final Exit Network.  Van Voorhis had no significant health issues or physical disabilities.  I also was looking forward to how the “training manual” would be used as evidence in the trial – the manual allegedly tells “exit guides” they are “special people” and should work to reduce the ambivalence of people who want to commit suicide – and any family members involved.

Now we have Hale-Rowe copping a plea and agreeing to testify against her accomplices. 

Question: Will anyone besides the folks from the Phoenix New Times cover this trial?  –Stephen Drake

Montana Supreme Court Decision: A Non-Lawyer’s First Reaction

assisted suicide, court decisions, Montana, Our News & Commentary Blog

First, the Supreme Court Opinion in its entirety can be found at this site in PDF format.

As to a “constitutional right” and assisted suicide – the court avoided giving a ruling on that at all (but in doing so voided the lower court finding in that regard).  Instead, through some strange permutations in finding that there is nothing currently barring doctors from giving lethal prescriptions to “terminal” patients.

For a full understanding, you’ll have to read the opinion – opinions, actually.  There are two concurring opinions and one dissent.  Even then, if you’re not a lawyer, it will be a struggle.

Nevertheless, there are a few things that I can say about the court’s reasoning.  According to the court, Montana has a fairly broad application of the “consent” defense in questions of criminal activity.  Additionally, they totally dismantle any distinction between withholding/withdrawal of treatment and the giving of lethal medication.  (the dissent points out that the Supreme Court cases on assisted suicide in 1997 reaffirmed a significant distinction between omission and comission).

In doing these things, the court was able to ignore the existing statutes against assisting suicides, at least as it pertains to prescriptions of lethal medications given to patients by their doctors.  (For other reasons, I think they’ve also left the door open to a “consent” defense for elderly men who kill ailing wives – a growing phenomenon.)

The most disturbing part of the opinion is the “specially concurring” opinion by Justice James C. Nelson.  Nelson declares openly that he sees a constitutional right for assisted suicide, so that we all know at least one vote in any future challenges.  But he doesn’t stop there.  Nelson writes more like an unusually eloquent member of the Final Exit Network than a Supreme Court Justice:

Thus noted, the Patients and the class of individuals they represent are persons who suffer from an illness or disease, who cannot be cured of their illness or disease by and reasonably available medical treatment, who therefore expect death within a relatively short period of time, and who demand the right to preserve their personal autonomy and their individual dignity in facing this destiny.

In choosing this language, I purposely eschew bright-line tests or rigid timeframes.

What Nelson is signaling here, I believe, is that any challenge to a law that limits the practice of physician assisted suicide will find a friend in this Justice.

Justice Jim Rice wrote the dissent, which refutes most of the arguments in the Opinion itself – including the negation of long-standing statutory prohibitions on aiding suicides.  Perhaps most importantly, though, Rice thoroughly discusses the intent of elements of the Montana Constitution.  Among other things, he points out the significance of a “right to die” proposal being discussed and rejected for inclusion in the Montana constitution.  He argues it is hard to read an intent for the practice to be legalized when one knows the subject was discussed and rejected.

I’ll be writing more later.  There’s a lot of material in this decision and I still haven’t wrapped my head around it all.  For the most part, lawyers and judges are really really painful to read.

Needless to say, when once in awhile, someone says I “think like a lawyer” I guess that’s OK.  Just never accuse me of writing like one.  –Stephen Drake

Montana – What Others Are Saying

assisted suicide, blog recommendations, court decisions, euthanasia prevention coalition, Montana, Our News & Commentary Blog, william peace

I’ve been struggling through the decision by the Montana Supreme Court in Baxter v. Montana.  I’m still trying to get my head around the implications of the specific wording used in the decision – a decision which states there is nothing that currently prohibits physician-assisted suicide in Montana law right now (in the court’s interpretation).  As a result, the court declined to evaluate any arguments regarding a “constitutional right” to an assisted suicide.

I’m paying extra attention to the “specially concurring” opinion written by Justice Nelson.  His concurrence is almost as long as the court opinion – and is alarming in just how far this justice would like to see the practice and the “right” of assisted suicide advance in Montana.

But I still need a little time to process this.  Here’s a sample of what others are saying:

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition issued a press release on the day of the decision titled Baxter v. Montana: Assisted-Suicide Lobby Group does not get What it Wanted: The Montana Supreme Court Denies Constitutional Right to “Aid-in-Dying”.

True Compassion Advocates, a group based in Washington state, also issued a press release, titled Baxter v. Montana: The Montana Supreme Court Declines to rule on Constitutional Right to Assisted Suicide; Legislature needs to “step up to the plate” to protect Montana citizens.

Bill Peace, writing at Bad Cripple, gives a pretty blunt assessment of the decision as he sees it in a blog entry titled Assisted Suicide: Legal in Montana. 

Stay tuned, more soon.  –Stephen Drake 

It’s a New Year – A Little Housecleaning and a Word from Ben Mattlin

ben mattlin, blog recommendations, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog

This latest gap in posts was a little longer than planned.  The holiday weeks were filled with several crises, all of which turned out OK, but took away time, attention and energy.

I did a little housecleaning here.  I deleted some comments waiting in the queue – they were both tiresome extensions of exchanges that were already pretty pointless.

There’s a lot happening and I’ll be playing “catch-up” over the next days and weeks.  Right now, I figured I’d share something that seems very appropriate as a kick-off for the New Year.

(Note: yes, I do know about the court decision in Montana and I’ll be writing about it soon.)

Yesterday, NPR’s Morning Edition featured a commentary by friend and ally Ben Mattlin.  You can read or listen to the commentary by going to To One Of the Lucky Ones, The New Year Means More.

Excerpt:

I’ve used a wheelchair my whole life. I no longer have the strength to hold a pencil. Am I still one of the lucky ones?

I believe I am. So, why do so many people feel sorry for me?

They don’t know me, of course. They don’t know that I grew up in a great family, graduated from Harvard, get my writing published, got married and fathered two terrific little girls. There are a lot of reasons why I consider myself lucky.

Still, people have said to me, “If I were like you, I’d kill myself.”

This is supposed to be a compliment, I think. They mean to commend my perseverance. So how come I want to say back, “If I were like you, I’d want to kill myself, too!”

Ben has posted the longer original version of his commentary on his blog, titled Adventures in Modern Life.  Check it out.  –Stephen Drake

More on Canadian Pro-Euthanasia “Awareness” Campaign – from Alex Schadenberg and Toronto Star

alex schadenberg, blog recommendations, euthanasia, euthanasia prevention coalition, marketing, media issues, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check, thaddeus pope

Earlier this month, this blog shared the news of the emergence of a “new” pro-euthanasia group in Canada and its “awareness” campaign via faux “memorial plaques” (stickers, in reality) on park benches in Toronto.  At the time, the person or persons behind the group was a mystery.

Not any longer.  According to the Toronto Star, it’s the pet project of a couple of advertising professionals:

The stickers are forthright in their message, dreamed up by art director Andy McKay and Manson, his creative partner at Toronto’s Cundari Group. They have both been affected by “bad deaths” among their friends and family.

The fact that this is a project of advertising pros explains a lot.  People who make a living manipulating public attitudes (to increase sales, enhance public image, etc.) tend to concentrate on the ability of the message to affect behavior.  Accuracy is a lower-level concern, and mostly one in terms of avoiding liability and litigation.

Alex Schadenberg, of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, has a lot to say about the latest press coverage and the individuals behind this “awareness” campaign:

This new euthanasia campaign is: (1) being operated by two advertising specialists misleading the public concerning our actual law. (2) They are creating an emotional response to a very serious issue by using fictional stories.

The Dignity in Death website misrepresents what the euthanasia and assisted suicide laws state in Canada. The website falsely states that voluntary euthanasia is already legal in Canada. This is not true. What they appear to mean is that refusing life-sustaining medical treatment is euthanasia. But this is not euthanasia.

Alex has more on the article and the authors of this campaign and I urge people to read the rest of his post.

Thaddeus Pope also wrote a short post about the campaign on his Medical Futility Blog.  In his post, he shares links to the Toronto Star article and the Dignity in Death website.

Pope tends to take a different view on assisted suicide and euthanasia than NDY does.  However, he does tend to have a passion for accuracy.  Evidently that passion didn’t extend to the misinformation on the Dignity in Death website – which he describes as having “some ACP tools and information.” (ACP = advance care planning)  –Stephen Drake