Transcript of Bax & Obrien Interview on Final Exit Network

This is the transcript of my appearance on the Bax & O’Brien radio show linked last Friday. This transcript would never have happened if I had been the one who had to do it.

To anyone who needs or prefers a written transcript over audio, you (and I) owe your thanks to Dawn Willis, an activist in the U.K.

Dawn has a great website and resource on the too-often ignored issue of bullying and it’s long-term effects on individuals. You can check it out at http://www.quinonostante.com/.

This transcript should be mostly accurate. Dawn left a few blanks where she wasn’t quite sure what was said. I filled it in as best I could. Any errors in this are undoubtedly mine – in failing to check carefully in filling in the blanks.

An additional note – the show had two hosts – but I couldn’t for the life of me tell them apart and still can’t. Dawn couldn’t either, so they are just identified in black type with my own responses in (I think) brown.

Without further introduction and explanation, here it is:

Intro: A little while ago now, I’m not sure how long ago Georgia Bureau of Investigation infiltrated a group called ‘The Final Exit Network’ and found out that this group would help people to facilitate their own suicides. Not only help them to put the plan together but would even be there when it happened and even hold down their hand, so hold down their arms so that the natural instinct to stop it wouldn’t take.

On the phones right now is Stephen Drake from notyetdead.org and they are opposed to assisted suicide, and he’s on the phones right now.

· Good Morning Stephen, how are you?

· “I’m fine thank you”

· Stephen let me understand your philosophy here, are you against to a person wanting to end their own life or are you against to the idea of other people assisting them with it”

· Yes, what we have a problem with is assistance, people commit suicide every day in this country , thousands of them every year, and people who are serious find ways to do this on their own. I think that one of the things you can look at here are the people who go to final exit network the fact they are unwilling to commit suicide unless they have people by them and comforting them means that that they already have some ambivalence . These aren’t terminally ill people, these were people with chronic disabilities and conditions.

· Well I don’t know if that matters, my personal opinion if you are a competent individual , whether you are terminally ill or not it’s your choice whether you want to end your life or not, but let me also ask you this, when you start talking about assisted suicide, are you opposed to the idea of somebody telling you how you can do it? Or are you opposed to the idea of somebody being there and actually participating in you doing it?

· Well I think there’s a real problem with spreading the information but we believe that there is very little you can do about that. The book Final Exit has been around for decades now with information on different ways to kill yourself, there’s internet groups devoted to that. The Assistance is the real problem and the Georgia case highlights that. As you said there are these allegations about holding people’s hands down, and y’know I don’t know how you distinguish that natural instinct to tear a bag off, and somebody who actually changed their mind, and the difference between working out whether somebody carried out what they wanted to and actually committing a murder.

· I thought I had a problem with your opinion but I guess don’t , I mean I certainly, like I said believe that a person should have the right to choose to end their own life but I certainly don’t think that anyone is entitled to be an active participant. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with telling somebody well ‘here’s how you do it and here’s what you need and this is where you get the stuff,’ but to actually be there and assist in it, I think that is a little bit different so,

· It’s very different, and if you believe in the first amendment, it’s very dangerous territory in terms of controlling information

· This is Stephen Drake from notdeadyet.org. As I understand it assisted suicide is illegal in all states except for Oregon and Washington, what is about their laws in those states that is different from anyone else

· Well they, theoretically limit eligibility for getting a prescription to enabling them to kill themselves with barbiturates, if they are expected to have six months or less to live, one thing which should be highlighted is that the people who go to Final Exit Network wouldn’t be eligible for assisted suicide in Oregon or Washington

· Yeah Oregon or Washington allows medical facilities and Doctors to help you to end your life but you have to be terminally ill

· Correct, expected to die within six months

· Right, now you, people should know Stephen that as you talk about this you are not only an advocate, but you yourself were born with a brain injury and your physician told your parents that you would be better off dead

· Correct, that’s correct the word he used was “vegetable” and when doctors use that word, and I hear stories like that with frequency whether its with an adult with a brain injury or a newborn what comes next is the discussion about warehousing and institutionalisation or disposal or neglect

· But I don’t know how that’s related to this because we’re not talking about taking someone else’s life we talking about taking your own life

· It’s interesting though because in the pro euthanasia movement they don’t separate them out real well and two the people right now who are acting as spokespersons for the Final Exit Network – people who haven’t been arrested – have both been active spokespersons in the past of decriminalising killing children with disabilities – killing without prosecution

· You see I’m not, the reason I brought it up, there is always going to be the moral question about the quality of life, the respect of life, and how that feeds into assisted suicide and I have a hard time reconciling y’know, what is right and what is wrong, I mean while much of my whole philosophy of life is that, life is important regardless of where it stands. If it were me and I were in constant pain and there was no medical way of improving I can see where you might thing well maybe I would be better off dead,………………

· And that should be fine if it’s your decision

· Clearly I think there’s a real moral implication in having an organisation come to your house and hold your hands down,

· But not if you solicit them, that’s the other problem I have here, these investigators infiltrated the Final Exit Network, they was an undercover investigator who went to them and said that he wanted to kill himself and they put forth together this whole plan, and then that’s how they made the arrests. That’s borderline entrapment.

· They didn’t go hunting for them, they did this at the request of the families of one of the people whose death is being investigated

· The family of a person who had originally used The Final Exit Network, the family members went to the investigators and asked them to investigate the organisation.

· That’s correct

· Because and it’s understandable but I don’t think its relevant because the surviving family members couldn’t come to grips with the idea that their loved one, for whatever reason, wanted to end his life so they are looking for somebody to blame

· Well the question is if he hadn’t found Final Exit Network, would he have committed suicide?

· Well he might or might not have but if he was a competent individual, a competent adult, that’s his business

· Sting operations are complex and inherently problematical. There are things we would never be able to get to the bottom of, including political bribery cases if we didn’t engage in them in some way.

· That’s true, sting operations

· Court cases , the courts sort out what is a fair sting operation and what’s not

· Ok, but as far as the one you’re talking about, the case you’re talking about I don’t care if you are married, if your parents are alive or you have adult children, there is nobody else who should be allowed to make the decision for a competent adult if they’ve decided they want to end their life. Their parents shouldn’t be able to step in and stop it, their spouse shouldn’t be able to, and their adult children shouldn’t be able to. It’s your choice.

· But then you have a problem deciding on who is and who is not a competent individual.

· No, not at all

· If they succeed in their bid how do you prove it?

· It’s not as simple as that due to existing statues – because the law already mandates law enforcement and healthcare providers to prevent a suicide, so this thing about anybody has the right, yeah they do, but there are also mental health protection laws, that aren’t criminal statutes but they require certain professionals to act in certain ways.

· Listen Stephen, just so you know where I’m coming from. I have a very close loved one who committed suicide, conversely I am also a certified suicide prevention person. But, and I understand that I would have a responsibility to try to prevent a suicide if I have to find myself in a place where one is about to take place, what I’m talking about is on a principalled level a person’s choice, this is not very different from abortion, a person’s choice to whether they themselves want to live or not, if they are a competent individual, and it’s not that hard to determine whether they are competent or not, if they had a job, if they had a household, if they had no signs of incompetence all the way up until the day they died then obviously they were competent to make that decision, and I don’t have a problem with that. Yes I would try to stop someone because I am supposed to but that doesn’t mean morally I’m objecting to it.

· Well the problem with drawing a line with abortion and you hear people say this, it’s like abortion is a right for all women. When people talk about not just prevention of suicide for some people but putting assistance into the mix they are not talking about all people who are serious about wanting to commit suicide, they are really just talking about old, ill, disabled people, people who are one of those or all three

· And I think that’s the bulk of people who commit suicide looking for assistance.

· Well no it’s not, there are a lot of people very serious, and in fact one of the cases under investigation is a woman who had no physical illnesses, but had long term emotional struggles

· And searched out Final Exit. OK but really you think the bulk of them, you see I think the majority of people who …….assistance are competent and not necessarily emotionally disturbed, addicted to substances or clinically depressed.

· You know neither of us has any information to go on, we have our opinions and beliefs, but the fact is we have no hard information. The only thing we can get on this is the word of the people from The Final Exit Network, who are going to colour everything, even if they are trying to be honest, it’s for their own self interest.

· What if The Final Exit Network people weren’t physically there holding the person’s hand down? Would you still have a problem with them?

· I think there’s still a problem determining how much assistance they are giving

· If they weren’t present at the suicide, I think that makes a difference, do you?

· Yes, if they are not present. That makes a big difference

· OK. Stephen Drake from notdeadyet.org, we appreciate the time, thank you

· Thank you

As I mentioned in my earlier post, this was a much better exchange than I am used to.

–Stephen Drake

Final Exit Network Discussion on Bax & O’Brien (Rock 102 – Springfield, MA)

This morning, I participated in a discussion of the Final Exit Network arrests/investigations on the Bax & O’Brien show on Rock 102, broadcasting from Springfield, MA. I always approach live morning shows with a certain degree of apprehension, especially when dealing with two hosts. In the worst of cases, it can be a real experience of having been thoroughly piled-on by two pros at talking fast and holding the microphone.

This morning’s experience was a pleasant break from that tradition. It’s not that we agreed on everything, but both hosts were thoughtful and let me reply fully when challenged. I think the end result was a discussion worth listening to.

The link below is to an archived mp3 file of the broadcast. Within the next few days, I will post a transcript of the discussion, which lasts about ten minutes. Someone has volunteer to transcribe the show for me — and long-time readers know such a transcript might never happen at all if it was up to me to do the typing.

Link:

Debate on Assisted Suicide

So, please have a listen and see what you think. Personally, I think that Bax & O’Brien did a better job on this than the coverage I’ve listened to on NPR. Not just because they had me on the show, but they asked much better questions. –Stephen Drake

Final Exit Advisory Board Members Supporters of Parents Who Kill – Or Want to Kill – Their Disabled Kids

In case you thought that the so-called “right to die” movement was limited to support for voluntary euthanasia, we have some info on related activities of two of the advisory board members of the Final Exit Network. In addition, these two FEN advisors have cosigned an appeal for donations to a defense fund for the arrestees from FEN.

First up is Ruth von Fuchs, whose creds are listed this way on the FEN website:

Ruth von Fuchs, MA
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Founding Network Board Member
President, Right to Die Society of Canada
Member of Network Training Faculty
Board Member, ERGO (Euthanasia and Research Guidance organization)

Canadian disability activists are familiar with Ms. von Fuchs. She has been a vocal defender of Robert Latimer, convicted twice in the 2nd-degree murder of his daughter Tracy. Tracy had cerebral palsy and cognitive disabilities. Part of her defense has entailed treating the parental murders of children as “compassionate” and subject to lesser penalties – or to no prosecution at all. Here is a sample of her “advocacy” in the Latimer case:

Proponents of euthanasia say that, until proper legal and social supports are in place, many people, like Latimer, have to take the law into their own hands. “This law is being written unofficially in emergency rooms and intensive care wards every night,” says Ruth von Fuchs, a member of the Right to Die Society in Toronto. Von Fuchs views Tracy’s death as part of a “continuum” that begins with brain-damaged infants, some so severely handicapped that doctors quietly remove life support within hours of birth. It is unfortunate, she adds, that because mercy killing has been “criminalized,” Latimer felt he had to act alone, without the help of a social worker or medical expert. Von Fuchs, and other members of the euthanasia movement, is calling for a change in attitude to mercy killing. “In our society, we forbid people to give up,” she argues. “We say, ‘Never say die,’ but sometimes you have to stand back and realize that really is a cliché. We cannot fix everyone every time forever.”

Faye Girsh is another advisory board member of FEN – and one with a history of defending NONvoluntary killing of kids with disabilities and elderly people with alzheimers. Here is the info for Girsh as it’s featured on the FEN website:

Faye Girsh, EdD.,
Sr. Advisor LaJolla, CA
Founding Network Board Member
Exit Guide and Network spokesperson
Board member/editor, World Federation of Right to Die Societies
Former president of The Hemlock Society USA

Those of us who have been in the euthanasia struggle for over a decade are very familiar with just how wide an agenda Girsh advocates. On December 3, 1997 the Hemlock Society (now Compassion and Choices) issued a press release titled: “Mercy Killing: A Position Statement Regarding David Rodriguez.” The release is almost entirely composed of one long statement by Girsh, who was executive director of the Hemlock Society at the time. I don’t have a link to the press release. After reading it, no one will be surprised that the Hemlock Society and its successor organization (Compassion and Choices) prefer to pretend this document never existed. Those of us who received the press release in our electronic newsfeeds made sure to save our copies. Here it is below, in its entirety (with portions emphasized by me):

Mercy Killing: A Position Statement Regarding David Rodriguez

DENVER, Dec. 3 /PRNewswire/ — The following statement is issued to Louisiana media by Faye Girsh, executive director of the Hemlock Society USA, the nation’s oldest and largest right-to-die society, regarding the David Rodriguez case:

“The Hemlock Society USA advocates that a suffering person at the end of life should be able to receive compassionate help from a physician to end his or her life if that is the wish. This should be done lawfully and under conditions which ensure that the diagnosis is correct, the request is an enduring one, and that the person is mentally competent.”

“Unfortunately, our proposal has been enacted as law in only one state — Oregon. Even with such a law, there are many people suffering from chronic and terminal illnesses who either beg to have their lives ended or who are not competent to make this decision and are in those instances assisted to die by a loved one. In a few rare instances death has come this way with the help of a friend, family member, or physician. In Louisiana, David Rodriguez shot his father who had repeatedly begged to be killed so that he would no longer suffer. Cases such as this are prosecuted either under murder or assisted suicide statutes. Juries, who see these as crimes of compassion, are at a loss to render a just and appropriate verdict under existing law.”

“We suggest that, if these cases are to be prosecuted, they should be treated as special crimes of compassion and evaluated separately. The criteria might include the person’s wishes to die, the person’s medical condition, the family’s concurrence, the alternatives available, and the motives of the person being tried. In many of these cases the person who did the killing is a distraught family member who is put through the horrors and expense of a humiliating criminal process that eventuates in probation or a suspended sentence. There should be a way which would still protect innocent people from being murdered but also take into consideration that mercy
killing is not a cold-blooded, malicious crime but one in which the motivation is kindness and relief of suffering.”

“In the case of a minor or an incompetent adult, the law now allows life or death decisions to be made by a designated health care agent and/or a family member in most jurisdictions. If the Rodriguez death had been the result of a decision to forego life-sustaining medical treatment no criminal liability would have ensued. In such instances, the person “dies naturally.”

Some provision should be made for a situation in which life is not being sustained by artificial means but, in the belief of the patient or his agent, is too burdensome to continue. It is pathetic that a son should have to shoot a suffering father. Death should come in a more humane and less violent way.”

A judicial determination should be made when it is necessary to hasten the death of an individual whether it be a demented parent, a suffering, severely disable (sic) spouse or a child. Consultants should evaluate what other ways might be used to alleviate the suffering and, if none are available or are unsuccessful, a non-violent, gentle means should be available to end the person’s life.”

“As life expectancy increases, chronic diseases proliferate and medical science can lengthen life almost indefinitely. We must find ways to provide help to people who wish to hasten the dying process. Clearly the popular sentiment is not to punish and incarcerate but to provide merciful alternatives for those who act out of love.”

SOURCE Hemlock Society USA
12/03/97 /CONTACT: Don Blake of Hemlock Society USA, 800-247-7421

So if anyone thought that the latest episode with FEN and its advocacy of “facilitating” deaths of NONterminally ill people was as far out as this movement goes – you ain’t seen nothing yet. Not only is the “advocacy” of zealots of Girsh and von Fuchs broader than terminal — the idea of “voluntary” is somewhat quaint in that weird mental world they live in. –Stephen Drake

NY Times on Final Exit Network – NDY Quote

Today’s NY Times includes a story on the Final Exit Network (FEN) by Robbie Brown titled “Arrests Draw New Attention to Assisted Suicide.”

The article’s strongest point is that it clearly states the allegations by an agent of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation posing as a man with cancer wanting the group’s assistance in planning his suicide:

According to the agent’s affidavit, network members instructed him to buy a helium tank and a plastic “exit mask.”

Thomas E. Goodwin, who was the network president at the time, and Claire Blehr, a member, planned to hold down the agent’s hands while helium flowed into the mask, the affidavit says.

The agent would lose consciousness within seconds and die within minutes, and the guides would remove evidence from the scene.

“They went through a dry run just to let the agent know what would happen,” Mr. Bankhead said. “Mr. Goodwin got on top of the agent and held down both of his hands,” which investigators say would have prevented him from removing the mask if he had changed his mind during a real suicide.

A passing mention is made of the group’s willingness to give “assistance” to people who are “incurably ill” and “suffering.”

The matter drops there, though, leaving the representatives of pro-assisted suicide groups free to criticize the “underground” nature of the activities of FEN.

For what it’s worth, here’s my contribution, lifted out of about 20 minutes of conversation with the reporter:

“These are people who instead of pulling you back from the ledge, they shove you off,” said Stephen Drake, a research analyst for Not Dead Yet, an advocacy group for the disabled that opposes assisted suicide. “Legally, we may not know what this means. But in a personal sense, it can mean the difference between life and death.”

I recall having more to say than that – about the widespread support within pro-assisted suicide advocacy organizations for broader “eligibility” – but that isn’t the kind of approach this particular reporter – or any reporter so far – had in mind. –Stephen Drake

Final Exit Network, Zealotry and Groupthink

The latest story from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution centers on Dr. Lawrence Egbert, the “medical director” of Final Exit Network (FEN). According to the AJC, Egbert’s own words describe him as some sort of Bizarro-world version of Will Rogers, who said “I never met a man I didn’t like.”

In the Bizarro world of Egbert and company, it runs like this: “I (almost) never saw a suicide plea from someone who didn’t deserve to die.”

From the article:

As medical director and co-founder of the Georgia-based Final Exit Network, Egbert in the past four years approved the applications of people who wanted to die because they were diagnosed with terminal cancer.

He approved the applications of people who wanted to die because their bodies were wasting away with ALS or multiple sclerosis.

He approved the applications of people who had not been diagnosed as terminally ill but whose quality of life, in their mind, was no longer worth living.

Egbert, an 81-year-old Baltimore anesthesiologist and teacher affiliated with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said in an interview Friday that there were times when he rejected people who wanted to die, “but not very frequently.”

Of course, the allegations from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation go beyond simply providing information and “being there.”:

The GBI says the group has a pattern of assisting people in suicides in which a “hood” is lowered over the person’s face, and the person breathes helium until losing consciousness. Death can take 10 or 20 minutes longer.

The GBI alleges that the group breaks state law by holding the hands of the person to prevent struggle or removal of the hood.

There’s no word yet as to whether or not the GBI has this on tape, which is a common practice in “sting” operations.

Friends and sympathizers reject the notion that members of FEN could ever have actively prevented someone from taking the “exit bag” off.

Yet, out of at least 200 (Egbert admits to this) suicides, there apparently hasn’t been one single case in which a person changed their mind – rejecting the feeling of suffocation and claustrophobia. Not one. If there had been one, that person would have needed immediate medical attention. There would be no time to get rid of evidence – paraphernalia, fingerprints, etc. before the paramedics arrived. There sure would be a lot of unpleasant questions to deal with – and possibly a civil suit by the family if brain damage occurred.

But that is pretty cynical and self-serving motivation. It’s easy enough for those of us who don’t think much of the ethics of pro-euthanasia/assisted suicide activists to believe members of FEN would slide from “assistance” to “murder.”

But most people probably don’t feel that way. It’s unthinkable, many would say, that intelligent and ethical people could let their behavior lapse so badly.

Guess what. It’s not unthinkable at all. In fact there’s a name for the phenomenon in which intelligent and ethical individuals – as members of a tightly knit group – can do stupid and unethical things.

It’s called groupthink – originally studied and defined by psychologist Irving Janis. It’s a fascinating and complex topic, with some real-world examples.

Janis identified eight symptoms that put a group of individuals at risk for falling into groupthink:

  1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
  2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
  3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
  4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
  5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
  6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
  7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
  8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Afte years of operating without any consequences, it’s easy to see how FEN members could have developed a feedling of invulnerability. Anyone who has lurked on Derek Humphry’s (Humphry is an advisor to FEN) email list or engaged the most zealous euthanasia supporters has encountered the symptoms covered in numbers 2-4 firsthand. Number 5 has played out on Derek Humphry’s email list several times – most notably when one member suggested that Jack Kevorkian’s activities in assisted suicide might have been reckless and irresponsible. Seeing that kind of thing play out makes it quite possible that there is at least some degree of self-censorship going on within the movement to avoid the dogpiling that occurred in the Kevorkian episode. That, of course, leads to the illusion of unanimity. While it’s impossible to know if there were “mindguards” in FEN itself, Humphry is pretty careful in handpicking information sent out to his list, highlighting news items that reinforce the “rightness” of his cause and framing the opponents as opportunists and/or religious zealots.

So, even starting from the highly questionable assumption that FEN members are moral and ethical people, they operate in a world that is geared toward the erosion of those aspects of their character in favor of group cohesion, loyalty and self-preservation. –Stephen Drake