NDY, DREDF and United Spinal Discuss Shavelson Euthanasia Case at Press Briefing

Disability advocacy organizations NDY, DREDF and United Spinal partnered with the Patients Rights Action Fund (PRAF) to hold a press briefing on the Shavelson v. CA Department of Health Care Services case heard on April 14 in the federal District Court of Northern California. Video of the press briefing is available on PRAF’s Facebook page HERE. PRAF’s Press Advisory regarding the briefing is below.

San Francisco, CA – Thursday, April 14th, 2 PM PDT, the Patients’ Rights Action Fund partnered with local attorneys and disability rights activists to host a virtual news conference discussing the Shavelson v. CA Department of Health Care Services case (Shavelson). Shavelson challenges the requirement in California’s “End of Life Options Act” that patients who choose assisted suicide self-administer the lethal drugs.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (The Court) held a hearing on Thursday, April 14th at 10 am PDT on a motion to dismiss. The virtual press conference features legal and professional opinions, as well as personal testimonies from those whose lives have been or would be endangered by assisted suicide legislation.

WHO:

  • Diane Coleman: President, CEO, Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group which she founded in 1996 to give voice to disability rights opposition to legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

  • Jim Weisman: President, CEP, United Spinal Association is a dedicated advocate for over 38 years who helped expand disability rights and ensure access to transportation for wheelchair users in New York City and across the country.

  • Anita Cameron: Director of Minority Outreach, Not Dead Yet, disability rights activist for nearly 40 years. Member ADAPT.

  • Matt Vallière: Executive Director of Patients’ Rights Action Fund hosts.

WHAT:

News conference discussing Shavelson “End of Life Options Act.”

By ending the self-administration requirement in the Act, the Courts would establish, for the first time in the U.S., legal euthanasia, a practice that even most groups who support assisted suicide oppose.

If euthanasia as a practice is established, persons with disabilities will be subject to even more pressure and discrimination to end their lives.

Anorexia Nervosa, Psychiatric Disability and the New American Vanguard of the Movement to Legalize Assisted Suicide

Guest Blog by Kathleen Nicole O’Neal

Image Description: Headshot of white woman with light brown shoulder length hair, long earrings, a nose ring, and necklace against a light blue collar.
Kathleen Nicole O’Neal

   In February of 2022, Dr. Jennifer L. Gaudiani, Dr. Joel Yager, and the late medical patient Alyssa Bogetz published a truly disturbing article in the Journal of Eating Disorders entitled “Terminal Anorexia Nervosa: Three Cases and Proposed Clinical Characteristics.” In this article, Dr. Gaudiani, a Colorado based physician with her own eating disorders clinic who served as the primary author, delineates her involvement with providing “medical aid in dying” (MAID, aka assisted suicide) to three individuals in their thirties with the eating disorder of anorexia nervosa. Dr. Gaudiani and her coauthors advocate for the acceptability of providing lethal drugs to some patients with a condition that the paper refers to as “severe and enduring anorexia nervosa” (SEAN), but a close and critical reading of this paper makes it clear just how problematic such an approach actually is.

   In the case studies of Aaron, Jessica, and Alyssa which form the heart of the paper, we are introduced to three deeply psychologically troubled young adults who were all described as being talented, intelligent, compassionate, and high achieving. What is truly heartbreaking about reading this paper is that the reader gets a glimpse not only of how hellish these individuals’ struggles with anorexia nervosa were, but simultaneously also how much of value all of these people had to live for and how deeply ambivalent and conflicted these individuals were about taking steps to end their lives. The haunting question remains – if these individuals had received more effective suicide prevention which reinforced the spark to live within them instead of encountering a doctor who in some ways appeared to condone and even encourage their more nihilistic impulses, might these individuals be alive today and living meaningful lives?

   One pervasive myth about the motives of those with illnesses and disabilities who die by assisted suicide is that a major motivating factor driving them involves a reasonable desire to escape unretractable and unremitting pain. However, the empirical evidence that researchers have gathered indicates that this is just not true for most sick and disabled people seeking assisted suicide. Dr. Thomas Joiner is a renowned professor of psychology at Florida State University who has written a number of books on the issue of suicide in general – what causes suicide and how to prevent it. Although his work touches on assisted suicide, it is the entire phenomenon of suicide in all cases that is his focus. What is important about his work for our purposes is to appreciate that the factors which drive suicide in general are the same factors which drive people to seek out assisted suicide.

   According to Dr. Joiner, for an individual to deliberately seek to end their life, three factors must be in place. If any of these factors are absent, then an individual will not seek suicide. The factor is something which Dr. Joiner terms “learned fearlessness,” or the psychological and physical “courage” to do an act that we are evolutionarily hard-wired to avoid. It is easy to see how this criteria applies to those who have struggled with anorexia over many years, individuals who are accustomed to inflicting severe forms of self-harm on their bodies and minds. Poignantly, Dr. Joiner’s other two criteria are “perceived burdensomeness” and “failed belongingness.” When we think about these two criteria in particular in the context of older, ill and disabled people being encouraged to end their lives, it becomes immediately apparent how problematic the push to promote assisted suicide is for those whom society already oppresses, discriminates against, and devalues.

   The first case presentation discussed in the article is that of Aaron, deceased at age thirty-three after years of battling anorexia nervosa, obsessive compulsive disorder, major depression, and chronic suicidality. Aaron first developed serious neuroses surrounding his intake of food in the ninth grade. Despite graduating first in his high school class, Aaron’s mental health problems kept him from enrolling in college immediately after high school and would ultimately keep him from graduating from college at all even after a later period of enrollment. As Aaron’s disease progressed, his relationships with family grew strained and he felt increasingly guilty about the amount of money that his family was spending on his treatment. Despite Aaron expressing ambivalent feelings and fear about death, Dr. Gaudiani consulted by telemedicine and advocated with Aaron’s team for him to receive palliative care. He also signed a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order. It was not long before Aaron would die.

   Jessica was a thirty-six-year-old woman whose issues with anorexia nervosa also began in earnest during her high school years. While in college, Jessica left school to enter “intensive outpatient eating disorder treatment.” This experience proved incredibly traumatic for Jessica and as a result, she distrusted eating disorders treatment providers going forward. As Jessica’s disease progressed, her relationships with family became strained and, despite having an “excellent job”, Jessica opted to work from home, further isolating herself from others. According to Dr. Gaudiani, “…fearful of suffering a long, drawn-out death from starvation and unwilling to put her parents through the agony of witnessing this decline, Jessica requested referral to a palliative care specialist who assessed patients for medical aid in dying (MAID).” Jessica signed a DNR order and Jessica’s physicians prescribed her the MAID medications. Many times, Jessica decided at the last minute not to take the lethal medications after having planned to do so and she often told her family that she did not want to die. However, Jessica did eventually choose to take the lethal medication and end her life.

   Alyssa Bogetz would serve as a posthumous coauthor of Dr. Gaudiani’s paper. According to the paper, “She first felt suicidal at age thirteen, when she realized that her body was too large to fit into standard dress sizes for her upcoming Bat Mitzvah.” When Alyssa eventually lost weight, the external validation she received from others fueled her eating disorder in earnest. After getting into contact with Dr. Gaudiani, Alyssa expressed her goals: “I really want a life, to use my Masters in Social Work degree to help others heal, to find a partner, and to experience pleasure, laughter, joy, and freedom, including from my own brain,” which she reaffirmed nine months later. However, Alyssa’s “chronic, longstanding shame and body disgust” prevented her from living the life she wanted to live. Doctor Gaudiani described Alyssa’s options, including continued treatment, palliative care or hospice, including the availability of “MAID”, described in a positive light. This is despite the fact that potential medical options to address Alyssa’s disease remained untried. Ultimately, Alyssa never actually took the MAID medications but had them on hand when she died from inadequately treated anorexia nervosa while in hospice care.

   In the stories of Aaron, Jessica, and Alyssa, we encounter demoralization, ableism, and sizeism. We confront the specter of vulnerable, deeply distressed individuals who nonetheless had so much to live for and were fundamentally ambivalent about ending their lives. We encounter a physician who could have unequivocally encouraged their desire to keep living and fighting but who instead chose to feed into their impulses towards self-destruction. We see a member of a healing profession abusing her position of authority and trust to steer troubled people towards ending their lives. We see the inherent dangers in the push for assisted suicide thrown into stark relief. Aaron, Jessica, and Alyssa deserved better. We all deserve better.

Anita Cameron: Provide people with disabilities supports to live, not tools to die

Provide people with disabilities supports to live, not tools to die (Guest Opinion by Anita Cameron)

Head and shoulders photo of Anita Cameron, an African American woman with long dreadlocks and brown sweater.
Anita Cameron

Anita Cameron, of Rochester, is director of minority outreach for Not Dead Yet, a national disability group headquartered in Rochester that opposes assisted suicide laws.

The New York state Legislature is expected to review A4321 and S6471, the latest in a succession of fundamentally flawed (and, to date, all defeated) assisted suicide bills this spring. This activity comes at a time when the culture hasn’t yet recognized most disabled people would prefer the means, resources and supports that make it easier for us to live — because of commonly accepted biases, prejudices and policies that, intentional or not, make it increasingly difficult for disabled people to do so.

The first warning sign: Assisted suicide has been used to cut costs everywhere it is legalized. In states where the controversial practice has become legal, like Oregon, there have been several documented instances where profit-motivated insurers have denied people access to life extending treatment while blithely offering to provide a lethal prescription instead. Only weeks after California passed its assisted suicide law, Stephanie Packer, a mother of four and a cancer patient, was denied her previously approved chemotherapy treatment, and told cheaper suicide pills were available instead. If assisted suicide is normalized, insurers and even patients may see it as an economic benefit.

The second warning sign: Disabled people, including seniors, experience abuse at the hands of family members and caregivers every day at rates significantly higher than the general population. An estimated one in 10 seniors already experiences elder abuse. One in two disabled women will be sexually abused. Why is this relevant to assisted suicide? Because assisted suicide makes it easier for heirs, family members and dubious caregivers to pressure a person with a disability to end their life, with no questions asked. And, worse yet, no consequences.

The third warning sign: Assisted suicide targets and devalues disability communities without ever mentioning us explicitly — essentially erasing those most at risk. It does so with the deadly combination of overly broad definitions and weak, unenforceable safeguards. In a 2019 report, the National Council on Disability, an independent nonpartisan federal agency that advises the president, Congress and other federal agencies on public policy decisions, detailed the extensive dangers of assisted suicide laws to disability communities and reported that “safeguards” in assisted suicide laws are “ineffective, and often fail to protect patients.”

The fourth warning sign: If proposed assisted suicide bills are signed into law, New York state legislators would, in effect, embrace a new category: legally protected abuse. If it ever becomes law, assisted suicide legislation intentionally puts lethal drugs into the hands of those who could easily misuse them and makes it easier to do so. Like child abuse, spousal abuse and hate crimes, elder abuse occurs when a class of people does not get equal protection, equal treatment and social supports to prevent harm. If New York passes assisted suicide legislation, it will unwittingly create a class of people who receive lethal medication and suicide instructions instead of suicide prevention interventions and social support to prevent harm.

The current bill, which like its predecessors, is based on Oregon’s flawed assisted suicide law, does not require attending clinicians to talk to the patient at least once without family present in assisted suicide cases. Further, New York’s bill does not and would not explicitly require documentation that such conversations even occurred. Both the Medical Society of the State of New York and the American Medical Association have historically opposed assisted suicide for this reason and others.

While rarely acknowledged by proponents, this much is certain — wherever assisted suicide is legal, it is inevitable that some people’s lives will be ended without their consent due to implicit bias, mistakes or coercion. No safeguards, existing or proposed, are adequate enough to prevent these abuses, and the lack of oversight only increases the danger to already at-risk individuals. As assisted suicide spreads and is normalized, the numbers of those at risk will grow to include other marginalized communities, such as people of color, due to racial disparities in healthcare, and poor people, who likely would have limited or no access to healthcare.

Caution was warranted when New York state first rejected assisted suicide in 1828, and is arguably more essential now due to increased risks no one could have imagined two centuries ago. Now, as was true then, New York’s policy priorities should be improving and expanding healthcare services that people with disabilities and all marginalized communities rely on to live, instead of normalizing assisted suicide and increasing already substantial perils to disabled, chronically ill, and older New Yorkers by lazily transforming documented dangerous practices into literally lethal laws.

Register for Webinar On Court Case Striking Assisted Suicide Residency Requirement

NDY was pleased to have the opportunity to talk about recent assisted suicide court cases during a March 11thwebinar organized by the Patients Rights Action Fund. A recording of that webinar is available HERE.

One of the cases I talked about, Nicholas Gideonse, M.D. vs. Kate Brown, will be the subject of a new PRAF sponsored webinar that I plan to attend. I urge others to consider doing so as well.

The case was brought by a doctor to challenge the residency requirement of the Oregon assisted suicide law. Five years ago, End of Life Choices Oregon had referred a man with cancer to Dr. Nicholas Gideonse, a primary care and hospice doctor, who had already helped many patients use the Oregon law. Although the man lived in Washington state where assisted suicide is legal, he sought to use Oregon’s law.

Nicholas Gideonse, M.D. vs. Kate Brown (filed in Oct. 2021) argued that residency requirements for assisted suicide violate two sections of the U.S. Constitution, one barring state laws that limit the ability of a nonresident to access medical care and one prohibiting state laws that burden interstate commerce.

It’s not really clear whether, with more information and time, the court would have considered it relevant that the patient lived in a state where assisted suicide is legal like Washington or, in contrast, where it’s illegal, such as Idaho.

It’s also not really clear whether the court would have thought twice about the possibility of trains, planes, automobiles and telehealth opening assisted suicide to people living in every state. After all, that would basically get around the 1997 Supreme Court ruling that turned the assisted suicide issue back to the individual states to decide.

What is clear is that, before the court had a chance to substantively consider much of anything, Oregon officials were comfortable entering a settlement agreement with Dr. Gideonse. The agreement precludes any enforcement of their law’s residency requirement and requires the Oregon Health Authority to submit a legislative “concept” to amend the law during the next session.

We already know from the Oregon data that people who are not terminal are getting lethal prescriptions. We already know that the top five reasons for requesting assisted suicide are unaddressed disability-related concerns.

Let’s hope that there’s a way to stop this court case from multiplying by a factor of five the number of older, ill and disabled people who may be pressured into assisted suicide.

Are You Looking For A Leadership Career In Disability Advocacy?

Photo of Diane Coleman wearing red print top and red sweater, smiling with gray bobbed hair, wire rimmed glasses and a nasal breathing mask
Diane Coleman

Over thirty years ago, I left my job as an attorney and took a road less traveled in disability rights organizing that led me to found and lead Not Dead Yet. Now I’m looking for an assistant, a partner and hopefully a successor in the work to save our lives from the ableist attitude that we’re better off dead than disabled. If you might be that person, please read below and send a letter and resume to me at dcoleman@notdeadyet.org.

Assistant Director/Policy Analyst

The Assistant Director/ Policy Analyst works with the CEO of Not Dead Yet to implement NDY’s policy priorities at the state and national levels as they affect legislation, regulations, legal cases, and activities of government and health care providers in the areas of assisted suicide and euthanasia, withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, futile care policies, access to health care for people with disabilities, crisis management protocols, etc. The AD/PA will also assist the CEO to implement NDY’s strategic plan/goals, especially focusing on intersection issues that affect women, children, elders, LGBTQIA folks, BIPoC, and multicultural communities. Finally, the AD/PA will collaborate with the CEO to achieve a smooth leadership transition. Salary starting at $60,000 for a full time equivalent. Staff work remotely. Hours and salary are negotiable and may permit for reduced hours at a proportionately reduced salary level.

For the full job description including responsibilities and qualifications, go HERE.