Carol Carr, Who Killed Two Sons, Speaks Out About Assisted Suicide, Sort Of

assisted suicide, Carol Carr, crime and punishment, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog

For those with a comparatively long memory (long in terms of this culture, anyway), the name “Carol Carr” should ring a bell. In 2002, she shot and killed two of her adult sons as they lay in beds in a Georgia nursing home. Both had Huntington’s Chorea, a hereditary condition that results in a progressive decline in motor and cognitive ability.

Here’s the update from Newsnet14:

The Griffin woman was at the vortex of the issue in 2002 after killing her two gravely ill sons. But asked whether a law should allow assisted suicide, Carr went on a rant about nursing home profits and the inability of dying people’s families to control the end of life.

“They won’t let an animal suffer; they’re put to sleep,” Carr said Friday. “But there’s no money in keeping animals [alive]. It’s all about money. Money. Money.”

Doctors should be allowed to end the life of terminally ill people if that is their wish, she said.

A couple of comments about the blurb from Carr:

  1. I guess she didn’t get the memo about the cold reality of animal euthanasia and suffering;
  2. It’s interesting to hear Carr rant about nursing homes. Disability advocates tried to do the same thing when the murder of her sons was being covered:

After June 11, Randy and Andy were increasingly referred to as “terminally ill” rather than disabled.” This, and the lack of attention to problems with the nursing home, seemed to effectively foreclose discussion of these matters. Continuing coverage of the neglect and abuse issue would have allowed people with disabilities to ask why the Scott brother weren’t being allowed to have assistance while living at home. Calling them “terminally ill” rather than “disabled” meant that the issue was no longer pegged as one in which the disability community might legitimately have a say.

That’s what happened when Georgia activist Mark Johnson emailed reporter Jeffrey Scott. Scott replied that he was determined not to let either side in the “mercy killing debate” “hitch a ride” on the story. Johnson, though, continued to press the reporter, pointing out that nursing home abuse and neglect had been important parts of the original story. Scott acknowledged the disability community’s perspective might be appropriate in future coverage of the case — but there were no promises.

Neither the disability community’s perspective nor the history of nursing home abuse and neglect got much air time at all in the stories – right through Carol Carr’s guilty plea to “assisting” the “suicides” of her sons. –Stephen Drake

Monday Media: Interview on “What’s Up With Bioethics”

assisted suicide, bioethics, euthanasia, final exit network, history, mark mostert, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog

I didn’t get around to any blogging over the weekend. And Monday went a little out of control, so I didn’t get to announce my appearance on Mark Mostert‘s webcast of “What’s Up With Bioethics?“

It turns out that may have been a good thing after all. When I announce an appearance on a live broadcast, only a handful of people at most are able to tune in. Luckily, the show is archived on the site and the one hour discussion is available for your listening pleasure (mp3 format).

I think the conversation is worth a listen. Mark and I come from very different perspectives on a number of things. For starters, we could probably spend a couple of hours arguing about facilitated communication, a topic about which we both have strong and directly opposed positions.

However, he and I are in strong agreement about the topics of euthanasia and assisted suicide. It seems obvious to both of us that the devaluation of people with disabilities is at the center of the rhetoric and logic used by proponents of “death with dignity.”

I think it was an interesting hour. The first 15 minutes was a little rambling on my part. I get that way when I am asked to talk about myself in an open-ended fashion.

The rest of the show covered topics such as the history of the euthanasia movement, significant players in the movement, it’s possible future, and how the latest fallout from criminal investigations of the Final Exit Network might affect the debate in the days, weeks and months to come. –Stephen Drake

Final Exit Network Members Passing Off “Boilerplate” Op-eds As Original Work?

ethics, final exit network, media coverage, media issues, Our News & Commentary Blog

The possibility that members of the Final Exit Network are passing off boilerplate op-eds as original work may seem trivial. After all, this is a group of people whose “hobby” – like bridge (see below for an explanation) – is to plan and preside over the deaths of multiple strangers. In spite of this (to put it mildly) creepy pastime, the FEN members are aggressively claiming the moral high ground.

So, in terms of the ethical standards of FEN members, it was an eye-opener last week when I read a column by FEN member John Fanning in the Summit Daily News, published on March 25th.

The reason it was an eye-opener is that I had already read parts of Fanning’s column – word for word – in a March 19th op-ed by former FEN president Earl Wettstein, published in the Arizona Daily Star.

These op-eds or columns run between 500-600 words, so the following passages (and these are just the best examples) represent a significant portion of these “original” works:

The media is calling the four people involved a “ring,” an obviously pejorative word. They are no more a ring than your bridge group. Please call Final Exit a volunteer group of Death with Dignity advocates, but not a ring. — Earl Wettstein

The four people arrested were members of the Final Exit Network. The media refers to the four people arrested as part of a “ring” — an obviously pejorative word. They are no more a ring than your hiking or bridge group. They are a group of volunteers who are death with dignity advocates. — John Fanning

The network is an all-volunteer organization with 3,000 members across the nation who pay $50 a year to belong. What they are buying with this annual fee is a form of insurance — that if they become terminally ill from an incurable disease that they can no longer bear, they can request the services of a compassionate, caring exit guide who will counsel them, who will be with them, who will hold their hands when they end their own lives. But who will not physically turn the valve. — Earl Wettstein

The network is an all-volunteer organization across the nation with members who pay $50 a year to belong. The annual fee buys the assurance of an alternative if they become terminally ill from an incurable disease they can no longer bear. If they choose, they can request the services of a compassionate, caring exit guide who will counsel them, who will be with them, who will hold their hands and comfort them when they choose to end their own lives — but will never physically assist in any part of the process. — John Fanning

Isn’t it strange that physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana, but other states still punish it as a felony or misdemeanor? Bills that would legalize the practice are currently before the legislatures of New Hampshire, Hawaii and New Mexico.
Had the man in Georgia lived in Oregon, for example, he could have received voter-approved, legal assisted dying in the form of a life-ending prescription from his doctor. — Earl Wettstein

Isn’t it strange that physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana, but other states still punish it as a misdemeanor or even a felony? Had the man in Georgia lived in Oregon, he could have received voter-approved, legal assisted dying in the form of a life ending prescription from his doctor. — John Fanning

Aside from the striking textual similarities, the pieces exhibit the same patterns of omissions and at least one outright lie. In both op-eds, no mention is made that John Celmer’s autopsy report indicates he was cancer-free at the time of death. Without that information – and with Wettstein’s outrageous assertion that FEN clients are “terminally ill,” – the lie at the end of both essays can go unchallenged. (Fanning avoids using the term “terminally ill,” but still makes the identical closing claim that Wettstein does)

What explanation can there be for the fact that both essays contain the identical factual lie? How could both men come to claim that Celmer – a non-terminally ill man – could legally get help to commit suicide in Oregon? By law and in theory, that would not be possible in Oregon – and both men know it. As mentioned previously here, FEN issued a press release last year announcing it would “help” people who fell outside of the eligibility standards in Oregon and Washington state.

Two explanations come to mind. The first is that Fanning, who published the more recent piece, “borrowed” heavily from Wettstein. The second possibility is that both men worked from a single “boilerplate” set of talking points that made the mistake of going beyond “points” and providing wording – so that sloppy members would take the material word for word instead of rewriting the points into their own style of prose.

We could see more of these. I learned a lesson these past few days about how little one newspaper – the Summit Daily News – seems to care if columns aren’t exactly “original work.” I called the managing editor at the paper and left voice mail asking if they had a policy in regard to columns and op-eds being original work. I sent email to the same editor asking the same question and gave a link to the Wettstein op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star.

To date, there has been no reply via email or phone from the newspaper. Fanning’s column remains on the newspaper site, proudly unchanged – along with my submitted comments questioning its originality – in the “comments” section.

I’m not surprised by the shortcuts apparently taken by Fanning in getting the word out. But I am surprised – and saddened – by the apparent lack of concern over the matter from the Summit Daily News. –Stephen Drake

Newest AP Story on Final Exit Network – NDY Quoted

assisted suicide, final exit network, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, suicide

Until the next round of court appearances and/or criminal charges comes round, I think what we’re going to be seeing is a steady trickle of stories of people who either committed suicide – or want to – with the “help” of Final Exit Network (FEN). Predictably, with few exceptions, the surviving family members will defend the Final Exit Network, having already told their “loved one” that they were “accepting” of the suicide. (Note: there has been one exception to that trend – and I’ll probably get to write about that tomorrow)

The latest entry in that line of stories comes today, published in the Detroit News. It tells the story of the planned suicide of Maxine Poris – through the accounts of FEN members, her correspondence, and her “accepting” daughters.

Anyone reading with a critical eye can read a story of a woman dealing with the pain and depression that is part of fibromyalgia – and someone who appears to have been pretty isolated. In a story like this, we’re not allowed to ask what other kinds of treatments or supports might have helped her live her life, since we are not allowed to ask the dead if maybe they hadn’t really run out of options, after all. Nor are we allowed to ask how hard her daughters talked against her decision or denied the idea that she would be a “burden” on them if she lived with one of them.

Here is a link to the story, along with a quote that AP reporter Greg Blustein must have saved from a previous interview with me. I don’t recall saying this exactly this way, since the subject was suicide and not killing – or outright killing, anyway. But Blustein has the notes and it’s not something I disagree with:

Final Exit’s critics are many. “Instead of dealing with ways to support” the sick and the disabled, “we can pat ourselves on the back and say we’re compassionate and kill them,” said Stephen Drake of Not Dead Yet, an advocacy group for the disabled that opposes assisted suicide and euthanasia.

This could be a long and nasty ride – and just beginning. –Stephen Drake

Peter Singer in Chicago: NDY Moved, But Disability Activism Remains

activism, blog recommendations, infanticide, Our News & Commentary Blog, Peter Singer

On March 9th, Peter Singer made an appearance in Chicago promoting a new book. When he recently and belatedly found out that NDY headquarters had moved from Chicago, he might have figured that he’d get a free pass from any annoying disabled detractors.

A free pass is what he didn’t get. NDY headquarters is gone, but the community of disability activists is alive and well in that city. NDY was always proud to be one integral part of that larger community.

The following is an account from friend and colleague Gary Arnold, who writes the blog Common Ground, – “Notes and commentary on dwarfism, Little People of America and disability.”

Below are the opening paragraphs of “Sing out loud,” Gary’s account of the night Singer came to visit Chicago earlier this month:

On Monday, March 9, a group called the Public Square hosted a lecture by Peter Singer, a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. The event took place at the International House on the University of Chicago Campus. Singer’s lecture was titled “The Life You Can Save”; the title echoes his latest book (THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE Acting Now to End World Poverty), in which Singer argues that individuals who are economically comfortable, or safe, in developed countries should do more, and have a responsibility to do more, to help end poverty and starvation in developing countries.

Many people, both university students and community members, attended the lecture, but not everyone was interested to hear about the new book. Five disability rights activists also showed up to remind the audience, or to inform the audience, that Singer is not always in support of saving lives.

Please go read the rest of Gary’s account at his blog. –Stephen Drake