NJ: Disability Groups File Amicus in Betancourt v. Trinitas (futility case)

betancourt v. trinitas, court decisions, futile care, futility, litigation, new jersey, Our News & Commentary Blog

Last week, Not Dead Yet filed an amicus brief in Betancourt v. Trinitas, an Appellate court case in New Jersey. In additon to NDY, ADAPT, Center For Self-Determination, National Council on Independent Living, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, American Association of People with Disabilities, and Disability Rights New Jersey joined the brief as co-amici.

Here’s a summary of the case taken from the introduction of the NDY amicus brief:

Trinitas Hospital, the institution where Mr. Betancourt resided from July 3, 2008, until May 29, 2009, determined of its own accord to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from him. Treating him, the hospital’s doctors said, was “harming” him because it was “futile,” since he would not recover from the brain damage he had incurred post-operatively at Trinitas on January 22, 2008, and that he was “dying,” despite having no terminal diagnosis. Mr. Betancourt was not brain dead, and the doctors could not even agree as to whether or not he would die within the year. In fact, one said, “This could go on for quite some time.”

The doctors also referred to an unpaid hospital bill of $1.6 million in the context of their determination to withdraw treatment. They sought initially to withdraw dialysis, and then, respiratory ventilation, and nutrition and hydration. Trinitas had been unable to transfer Mr. Betancourt to any other facility.

Mr. Betancourt’s family opposed the hospital’s decision to terminate, and in January, 2009, sought the protection of the courts. The trial court found, upon a three-day hearing record and following long-established New Jersey law, that Mr. Betancourt’s daughter should be appointed his guardian and surrogate decisionmaker for medical treatment, and that Trinitas and its personnel must follow her direction in exercising her father’s right to choose whether or not to continue treatment.

Trinitas appealed, arguing that the doctors alone, not the patient or his surrogate, have the right to determine when to terminate care. They also contest the daughter’s appointment as guardian. Ruben Betancourt died on May 29, 2009. His daughter moved to dismiss the case, but Trinitas has opposed the dismissal.

Reading the brief, one aspect is familiar, calling to mind other cases in which PVS was alleged. Family members who visited Ruben Betancourt every day report he was responsive. The brief also states that notes in his medical chart occasionally described him as “awake” and “responsive.”

The entire brief, written and submitted to the court by Anne L. H. Studholme, Esq., is available online at this location as a microsoft word document (not docx).

Blog Recommendation: William Peace on UK “interim” Guidelines on Swiss Suicide Tourists

assisted suicide, blog recommendations, bloggers, crime and punishment, Our News & Commentary Blog, Switzerland, United Kingdom, william peace

I’ll be writing more on my own next week on this, but the Director of of Public Prosecutions in the UK issued his long-awaited “interim guidelines” on prosecutions in cases of friends/family assisting family members traveling to Switzerland to commit suicide.

William Peace at Bad Cripple writes that the guidelines are a slam dunk for assisted suicide:

I knew the guidelines released by Keir Starmer would be a victory for advocates of assisted suicide but I had no idea just how lopsided they would be. The new guidelines that go into force today may only be interim guidelines and are subject to debate before a final version is issued next year. However, don’t let this technicality fool you nor be swayed by misleading statements by Keir Starmer who maintains “Assisted suicide has been a criminal offense for nearly 50 years and my interim policy does nothing to change that”. Mr. Starmer is correct, assisted suicide is still against the law in Britain but if one actually commits this crime the odds of being prosecuted are non existent. Again, don’t be misled by statement such as this: “There are no guarantees against prosecution and it is my job to ensure that the most vulnerable people are protected while at the same time giving enough information to those people like Mrs. Purdy who want to be able to make informed decisions about what actions they may choose”. What a relief, Starmer is concerned about protecting the most vulnerable. Well, to all those vulnerable people out there I have a word of advise: watch out because your relatives and loved ones can kill you without fear of prosecution.

Like I said, I’ll turn to this myself next week. In the meantime, William Peace has said a lot of what I might have, but said it better. Read the rest. –Stephen Drake

New Blog from Steve Gold: First Entry is a “Modest Proposal” on Health Care Reform

blog recommendations, bloggers, health care reform, Our News & Commentary Blog, policy, satire, Steve Gold

Steve Gold is a long time friend, ally and warrior in the disability rights movement. Of special interest to NDYers is that Steve was the primary author and Counsel of Record on the NDY amicus brief in the 1996 Supreme Court cases examining assisted suicide as a “constitutional right.” Steve has written and filed other briefs on behalf of NDY since then, some of which can be found here.

Many disability activists and advocates are on Steve’s mailing list or check his website for Steve Gold’s Nuggets of Information on housing, medical assistance/medicaid, nursing homes, education and other useful ADA-related information.

Steve has now joined the world of bloggers and blogging.

I expect to be checking SteveGoldADA regularly to see what he’s up to and what he’s writing.

Steve’s first entry cuts is a sort of “modest proposal” – with his own (tongue in cheek) suggestions on Preventing Health Care Reform from Burdening Our Country:

Every day 14,000 Americans lose their health coverage. More than 46 million people are without health care. But maybe many of these people really do not deserve and should not receive health care. Just because someone is poor or ill or disabled does not mean he or she deserves health care.

Similarly, many of the remaining millions of people who are already paying for private health insurance or are receiving publicly funded health care do not deserve the benefits they take for granted.

We must cut costs and the only fair way is to deny health care to all people who do not deserve to receive it.

Throughout the current health care debate, we have worn blind folds. In darkness, we have each touched a part of the health crisis, like the elephant’s tail, trunk, or ear. Based on what we touched, we thought we understood the problem and had the answers.

But just feeling up part of the animal is not enough. The trick is to figure out how we decide who really should not receive health care. Who is unworthy of receiving it? How we can persuade them not to request or receive health care? Once we figure this, we will significantly reduce our health costs.

The goal: Increase the number of people among us who should not receive health care because they do not worthy.

We have assumed that there is a health care crisis because of the health care insurance companies, the pharmaceutical drug companies, the doctors and hospitals, and the lawyers. But these folks represent only part of the trunk and the elephant’s left front foot.

No, the cause of the health crisis is much bigger. It’s them – those people who do not deserve unlimited health care – for themselves, for their children, for their parents.

Please read the rest here. And remember – it’s satire. Steve’s one of the good guys. –Stephen Drake

BMJ Editor Says He Doesn’t “Get” Disability Opposition to Assisted Suicide – Is He Really That Stupid or Just a Liar?

bioethics, jane campbell, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check, United Kingdom

I’m late getting to this one. Last month BMJ published an editorial by Deputy Editor Tony Delamothe titled “Assisted Dying: what’s disability got to do with it?“

Here’s his intro:

The debate on assisted dying has been hijacked by disabled people who want to live. It needs to be reclaimed for terminally ill people who want to die

Assisted dying, assisted suicide, assisted killing: call it what you will, I’m in favour of it as an option for terminally ill adults of sound mind who want to die. Nevertheless, I try hard to keep up with the arguments against it. I think I understand them all, with the exception of those emanating from various disability lobby groups.

Delacothe claims he doesn’t understand the arguments from disability rights groups. After reading his commentary, I can only guess that hasn’t bothered engage in any research or critical thinking in regard to the the disability activists who have actively opposed legalization of assisted suicide.

Either that, or he’s lying – and hoping his readers are both uninformed and stupid.

I’m leaning toward the latter explanation.

Here’s why:

Delacothe devotes a lot of space to discussing Jane Campbell’s statement during the debate in the House of Lords prior to the vote on the Falconer bill. Campbell, who has spinal muscular atrophy, spoke about meeting the “qualifications” for admission to a Dignitas clinic. Delacothe complains that she didn’t “tick off” a box saying she wanted to die and is therefore irrelevant to the debate. He conveniently omits any mention of the struggles her husband had during a recent health crisis – having to convince doctors that his wife’s life was one worth living – and saving. Or Campbell’s own concerns about how easily she could have been talked into an easy death in her debilitated state. (Quotes are in this blog entry – the links from the original news coverage aren’t working for me right now.)

Further, he discusses Debbie Purdy, a woman with muliple sclerosis, who wants assurances her husband won’t get prosecuted if he helps her go to Dignitas to commit suicide. Purdy is not terminally ill – she has a chronic condition with an uncertain trajectory. Likewise, Daniel James, a 23-year-old man whose parents took him to Dignitas due to his inability to adjust to life with paraplegia is mentioned by Delacothe. Since the parents of Daniel James were left alone by police and supported by the public, how is this not an issue that impacts directly on the lives of people with disabilities?

The short answer is that this is a disability issue. I strongly suspect that Delacothe knows that, but doesn’t want to argue with disability activists in an honest and open debate.

It’s easier to lie, especially when the rest of the editorial staff gives you a free pass.

If Delacothe ever loses his job as an editor at the BMJ, there’s a bright future for him in one of the more sensational tabloids. His willingness to distort facts and abuse his position of editorial privilege prove his qualifications for a job at one of those rags. –Stephen Drake

What Other Bloggers Are Saying: Turner & Kowalski on Suicide Prevention Week and Day In Washington on the Baucus Bill

blog recommendations, legislation, neurodiversity, Our News & Commentary Blog, policy, suicide

As often as possible, we like to make it a point to share what other bloggers (especially in the disability community) are saying about NDY-related topics.

Our friends at Turner & Kowalski are saying that Suicide Prevention Week Failed Bigtime and invite you to explore the Disability Implicit Association Test.

Day Al-Mohamed offers a “Quick Overview on Disability Issues” she’s found in the Baucus Health Reform Bill on the Day in Washington blog.

Please check these blogs out. They’re worth your time and attention. –Stephen Drake