law

CONSCIENCE RIGHTS, CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS-AND MORE

nancyvalko abortion, conscience rights, law, medical ethics

A new Illinois law was just signed by Governor Bruce Rauner with dire implications for pro-life health care providers.

As an August 9, 2016 National Catholic Register article titled  “Illinois Law Threatens Conscience Rights, Crisis-Pregnancy Centers” explains, this new law changes the former state Health Care Right of Conscience Act to require that pro-life doctors, nurses and even staff at crisis pregnancy centers  present abortion as a legal treatment option and are required to refer, transfer or give information about where to go for an abortion when a woman says she wants one.

While the terminology about other health care options is vague, the law specifically cites:

“family planning, counseling, referrals, or any other advice in connection with the use or procurement of contraceptives and sterilization or abortion procedures…”

Incredibly, this Illinois law  also defines conscience rights as merely religious:

 “Conscience” means a sincerely held set of moral convictions arising from belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so derived, arises from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by God among adherents to religious faiths

Ironically, as Kathy Bozyk, who operates the Southside Pregnancy Center in Chicago notes, while she is required by the law to discuss the alleged benefits of abortion and refer women to abortion providers, abortion businesses are not required to make referrals to crisis-pregnancy centers.

Instead, abortion groups like the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) continue to actively fight crisis pregnancy centers, accusing them of false and misleading information as well as threatening women’s safety. They are a strong force working to get laws like this passed.

PUSHBACK

There is an unfortunate and surprising assessment of the law in the NCR article from Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois:

According to the article, Mr Gilligan said that although the Conference was disappointed that the governor signed the law, the Catholic Conference was able to negotiate, with opposing parties, a revision to the original bill that the state’s 43 Catholic hospitals can live with, saying with regard to the requirement to refer, transfer or provide written information on where to find an abortion facility :

He said co-sponsors of the bill said even simply ripping out the pages of a phone book with names of all the local OB-GYNs in a certain area would be enough to comply.

If accurate, is this a helpful or even realistic response?

Fortunately, we have courageous, front-line  health care providers like Kathy Bozyk who refuse to comply, Illinois Right to Life continuing its opposition and pro-life legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) who filed a lawsuit in state court against Governor Rauner on behalf of The Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford and the Chicago-based Thomas More Society that plans a lawsuit.

It’s important to note that this Illinois law comes on the heels of a December California law forcing pro-life pregnancy centers and state-licensed medical clinics to distribute information on where and how to obtain a state-funded abortion or face fines of $1000 a day.

So it is imperative that  all of us throughout our nation work to ensure that strong conscience rights be upheld, strengthened, correctly defined and even expanded to include all health care ethics issues, especially in the face of possible or actual assisted suicide laws.

Conscience rights are essential to help us protect our patients from a healthcare system that is increasingly succumbing to a “culture of death” mentality.

Conscientious Objection, Conscience Rights and Workplace Discrimination

nancyvalko assisted suicide, Canada, conscience rights, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, law, medical ethics

The tragic cases of Nancy Cruzan and Christine Busalacchi , young Missouri women who were claimed to be in a “persistent vegetative state” and starved and dehydrated to death, outraged those of us in Missouri Nurses for Life and we took action.

Besides educating people about severe brain damage, treatment, cases of recovery and the radical change in medical ethics that could lead to the legalization of euthanasia, we also fought for healthcare providers’ rights against workplace discrimination for refusing to participate in deliberate death decisions. We talked to nurses who were threatened with termination.

Although Missouri had some protections against forcing participating in abortion, there were no statutes we could find where health care providers were protected against being forced to participate in deliberate death decisions. We were also told by some legislators that our chance of success was almost nil

Nevertheless, we persisted and after years of work and enduring legislators watering down our original proposal to include lethal overdoses and strong penalties, Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 404.872.1 was signed into law in 1992. It states:

Refusal to honor health care decision, discrimination prohibited, when.

404.872. No physician, nurse, or other individual who is a health care provider or an employee of a health care facility shall be discharged or otherwise discriminated against in his employment or employment application for refusing to honor a health care decision withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment if such refusal is based upon the individual’s religious beliefs, or sincerely held moral convictions.

(L. 1992 S.B. 573 & 634 § 7)

Fast Forward to Today

In 2016, we face groups like Compassion and Choices that have pushed assisted suicide legislation through in some states and hoping for an eventual sweeping Supreme Court decision making assisted suicide a constitutional right like abortion.

Some European countries like Belgium and Holland have virtual euthanasia on demand for even non-terminally ill people of any age. In Canada, their Supreme Court has forced assisted suicide on that country and now the province of Quebec has lethal injection kits available to any doctor.

Not surprisingly, conscience/workplace rights for health care providers are being vigorously fought both in those countries and here in the US.

For example, Compassion and Choices’ Barbara Coombs Lee, one of the architects of Oregon’s assisted suicide law, claims that strong conscience-right protections encourage “workers to exercise their idiosyncratic convictions at the expense of patient care” at the end of life.

Hope on the Horizon?

In May, a hospital in Poland stopped performing abortions after every single doctor signed a pledge refusing to do them.

Now, several hospitals in Santa Barbara  and Palm Springs as well as Providence medical centers are opting out of the new California assisted suicide law.

Personally, I believe that if people are given a choice when they are sick, they would naturally prefer a hospital that is committed to care rather than assisted suicide.

Thus, conscientious objection, workplace discrimination/conscience rights laws and the power of institutions dedicated to ethical health care can help turn the tide against assisted suicide laws or at least save some lives and mitigate some of the damage caused by assisted suicide laws. It may take a long time before killing sick or disabled people is again seen as abhorrent and unethical but the effort will be worth it.

As I have said before, “NO!” is a powerful and potentially lifesaving word.

Canada and Assisted Suicide for Psychiatric Patients

nancyvalko assisted suicide, Canada, disability, family, law, medical ethics, mental health, nursing

My first husband and the father of my children was a caring man and dedicated psychiatrist who himself eventually became disabled by mental illness. Early in our marriage, I helped him write his medical journal articles and we planned to eventually include me in his psychiatric practice to work with the families of his patients. As a nurse, I always believed that families were ideally the best support system for patients and our goal was to improve the care and outcomes of people with mental illness.

Tragically, my husband’s mental illness worsened despite intensive treatment. He ultimately abandoned our family and lived the next 26 years in and out of hospitals and assisted living places before he died of natural causes in 2014.

Thus I have a unique perspective on the legal, medical and personal aspects of mental illness.

At one point, a family member sympathetically suggested that it might be better for everyone if he committed suicide. I was horrified. You don’t give up on sick people and I told this person that I would do anything in my power to stop him if he tried to kill himself. Suicide would be the ultimate tragedy.

Canada and Its New Assisted Suicide Law

In February 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Carter v. Canada case to legalize physician-assisted suicide for competent, consenting adults whose suffering is due to a “grievous and irremediable” medical condition and gave Parliament a year to develop a regulatory regime along these “parameters.”

The Parliamentary Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted “Dying” suggested that the “grievous and irremediable” criterion includes nonterminal medical conditions, including psychiatric disorders.

The federal government’s Bill C-14, on the other hand, defined “grievous and irremediable” as an “advanced state of irreversible decline in capabilities” in a person for whom “natural death has become reasonably foreseeable.”  The Senate ultimately passed the bill but the controversy about assisted suicide for psychiatric patients is still raging.

In a June 21, 2016 commentary in the Canadian Medical Association Journal “Should assisted dying for psychiatric disorders be legalized in Canada?”, authors Scott Y.H. Kim MD PhD and Trudo Lemmens LLM DCL warn against this.

As they note:

In Belgium and the Netherlands, medical assistance in dying has been provided to people with chronic schizophrenia, posttraumatic stress disorder, severe eating disorders, autism, personality disorders and even prolonged grief.

The authors conclude that:

Because of the necessarily broad criteria used to regulate assisted dying (in Canada), legalizing the practice for psychiatric conditions will likely place already vulnerable patients at risk of premature death.

However, others like Belgium psychiatrist Joris Vandenberghe, MD, PhD disagree:

“I think the current approach taken by the Canadian government is a bit too strict because it doesn’t fully recognize the enormous impact that psychiatric disorders can have on patients,” Dr Vandenberghe told Medscape Medical News. (Emphasis added)

However, even Dr. Vandenberghe recognizes the problems while still calling for more “safeguards”:

“I am generally not opposed to our euthanasia legislation and agree that patients suffering from psychiatric conditions should not be excluded from our legislation. However, extra precautions are urgently needed.

“I’m not happy with the way things work here [in Belgium]. Sometimes euthanasia is used with insufficient reluctance on the part of the healthcare professionals involved. We’re missing opportunities for treatment, and we need more safeguards,” said Dr. Vandenberghe.

So for me, the answer lies in a thorough evaluation of a patient prior to euthanasia. There really is no time pressure in psychiatric disorders, and if you have a multidisciplinary committee involved in the evaluation, you can take care of lot of the concerns we now have about euthanasia in the setting of psychiatric illness.”

The reality is that very few psychological or psychiatric referrals are even now made for anyone considering assisted suicide either in the US or in Europe. The answer is not more “safeguards” for assisted suicide practitioners to disregard while enjoying virtual legal immunity but rather an emphatic “No!” from the public as well the legal and medical systems. We also need an unbiased media to publicly expose the real facts about legalized medical killing.

 Conclusion

I have seen both the legal and medical systems often fail people with mental illness like my ex-husband who desperately need treatment and safety.

On the medical side, I begged for direction from my ex-husband’s doctors about what I could do to help him but I was told that there was nothing I could do or not do since the doctors were seeing him regularly. I was not allowed to even know his diagnosis without his permission.

On the legal side, I had problems getting supervised visitation even after a hostage situation.  Due to almost constant harassment, I had multiple orders of protection violated without adequate legal response. And despite being on mental illness disability, my ex-husband was allowed to file and lose several frivolous lawsuits-until he ran out of money.

It was a heartbreaking situation.

However, I always hoped that my ex-husband would improve so that he could at least have a better relationship with his children. Even though that did not happen, I am grateful that he did not die by suicide, assisted or otherwise.

Unfortunately, my family’s experience is not unique among families with a member who is mentally ill.

If our medical and legal systems are already often failing people with mental illness and their families, how can we allow them the power to “assist” our loved ones’ suicide?

That would be the ultimate betrayal of an already stigmatized and vulnerable group of people.

Tolerating Evil

nancyvalko abortion, assisted suicide, Canada, euthanasia, law, medical ethics

Years ago, one of my daughters was caught after she did something she knew was wrong. “But it looked so good!” she wailed. I told her that if evil looked like it really was, no one would choose it.

I thought of this incident when I read Kathleen Parker’s June 10, 2016 USA op-ed titled “Freedom to kill and permission for sick people to die”.

In the article, Ms. Parker reveals her struggle:

“Here, I should confess my own ambivalence. Basically, I’d like to have the means to end my own life on my own terms when my body has clearly called it quits. I’m just not sure I like the idea of the state and doctors lending a hand.”

Many people can find physician-assisted suicide alluring when they ponder their own potential demise. As a former hospice nurse myself, I recognized this in some of my patients even before assisted suicide was legalized. However, with care and treatment, we were able to help these patients live as well as possible before death. And I never saw a patient go on to die by suicide or assisted suicide.

It is a myth that a personal choice for assisted suicide will not affect others or have far-reaching consequences.

Ms. Parker’s conclusion recognizes this:

“As more than a dozen other states consider similar legislation, it isn’t irrational to wonder whether, in tampering with our medical culture of healing, we aren’t inviting unintended consequences that we’ll live — or die — to regret.”

The truth of her conclusion became starkly obvious when a few days after California’s new assisted suicide law took effect,  one doctor immediately opened up a dedicated assisted suicide clinic in San Francisco.

Dr. Lonnie Shavelson, 64 and a long-time supporter of assisted suicide, was an emergency room doctor for 29 year and then spend 7 years at an Oakland clinic for immigrants and refugees before taking a 2 year break.

His new assisted suicide business could be quite lucrative. Although Medicare will not pay for assisted suicide costs, Shavelson says he will charge $200 for an initial patient evaluation. If the patient is deemed qualified under California law, Shavelson said he would charge another $1800 for more visits, evaluations and legal forms..

Like the past so-called “back alley” abortionists, Shavelson defends his business by claiming that “..the demand (for assisted suicide) is so high, that the only compassionate thing to do would be to bring it above ground and regulate it.”

We cannot afford to be ambivalent or tolerant about evil, whether it is abortion, assisted suicide, terrorism, etc. Evil never limits itself because evil always seeks to expand unless it is stopped

We only have to look at Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and other countries where assisted suicide has already expanded to direct euthanasia and, in some of those countries, even without consent and for virtually any psychological, emotional or physical condition.

Could Brittany Maynard Have Been Saved?

nancyvalko assisted suicide, end-of-life, law, suicide

This week, CBS’ “60 Minutes” TV show reported that FDA has just granted “breakthrough status” for an innovative treatment for glioblastoma brain cancer that was first reported by 60 Minutes on March 29, 2015.

Brittany Maynard had glioblastoma and died by physician-assisted suicide on November 1, 2014, just 5 months before the original TV segment aired.

Brittany Maynard was a young newly wed who, with enormous media publicity and the support of the pro physician-assisted suicide group Compassion and Choices, announced her intention to commit assisted suicide and asked for donations to the Brittany Maynard Foundation to raise money to help Compassion and Choices fight for legalization of physician-assisted suicide throughout the US.

Using Brittany’s story and foundation, Compassion and Choices was finally successful after years of failed attempts to get a physician-assisted suicide law passed in California.

Did Brittany, her doctors or Compassion and Choices know about the promising clinical trials for glioblastoma reported by “60 Minutes” before Brittany took her life with a physician ordered lethal overdose?

Although reported medical breakthroughs are frequent and often over-hyped or prove disappointing, information is available at ClinicalTrials.gov, a registry and results database of publicly and privately supported clinical studies of human participants conducted around the world. This service was developed by the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration and made available to the public in February 2000.

The Decision to Forego Treatment

According to Brittany’s own words:

After months of research, my family and I reached a heartbreaking conclusion: There is no treatment that would save my life, and the recommended treatments would have destroyed the time I had left…

And

I probably would have suffered in hospice care for weeks or even months. And my family would have had to watch that.

No one is ethically obligated to try any experimental or unduly burdensome treatment for such conditions but many people do so not only for a possible cure but also to potentially gain more time or to advance medical research. I saw this when I was an oncology nurse and also in my personal life.

For example, a few years ago, a friend developed a usually terminal lung cancer and agreed to try  an unusual and massive combination of chemotherapy and radiation. As explained by her doctors, the side effects were very tough on her but today she is happy, active and enjoying her life and her grandchildren. Her cancer continues to be in remission. Success stories like this were unimaginable of when I first became a nurse.

But while treatment of a serious or terminal condition can be a personal choice, killing oneself-with or without medical assistance-must not be treated as just another valid treatment “option”.

Hard Cases Make Bad Law

“Hard cases make bad law” is an old legal adage that means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. This is particularly true when it comes to physician-assisted suicide where the slippery slope expanding the pool of potential victims has become a superhighway.

I also remember when AIDS, not glioblastoma, was the “hard case” used to justify physician-assisted suicide in the 1990s because it was also considered terminal.

But by 1998, the CDC issued the first national treatment guidelines for the use of antiretroviral therapy in adults and adolescents with HIV  Today, AIDS is no longer considered an automatic death sentence and those with AIDS can even achieve normal lifespans.

But how many despairing people in the 1990s resorted to suicide, assisted or not, when the treatment for AIDS was so close?

Conclusion

Hope can be life-enhancing as well as life-saving.

Sadly, as one brain tumor expert poignantly wrote, Brittany Maynard’s “suicide was a blow to fellow brain tumor patients who were living in hope”.

 

Sparks Fly at Conception-Literally

nancyvalko abortion, conception, law, medical ethics, prenatal testing

I remember the shock I felt when I first read these words in the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

I could not believe that anyone could deny the obvious: life begins at conception.

Just 5 years later, the first child conceived through in vitro fertilization was born. While I recognize the several ethical problems with this procedure, I thought that at least this obviously proved that life begins at conception since the process was monitored from the beginning. Unfortunately, not to the pro-abortion movement that then pivoted to we don’t know when human personhood begins.

Ironically, presidential candidate Hilary Clinton recently revealed the hypocrisy of this pivot when she said “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights” on NBC’s Meet the Press TV show. (Emphasis added)

Flash of Light

But now researchers at Northwestern University have discovered a flash of light that occurs at the moment of conception!  To see the video of this phenomenon, go to the link at LifeNews.com.

Here is the science behind this:

“The bright flash occurs because when sperm enters and egg it triggers calcium to increase which releases zinc from the egg. As the zinc shoots out, it binds to small molecules which emit a fluorescence which can be picked up my camera microscopes.

Over the last six years this team has shown that zinc controls the decision to grow and change into a completely new genetic organism.

In the experiment, scientists use sperm enzyme rather than actual sperm to show what happens at the moment of conception.

“These fluorescence microscopy studies establish that the zinc spark occurs in human egg biology, and that can be observed outside of the cell,” said Professor Tom O’Halloran, a co-senior author.”

And

Dr. Teresa Woodruff, a professor at Northwestern said, “We discovered the zinc spark just five years ago in the mouse, and to see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking. It was remarkable.”

An Ethical Downside

Regrettably, the scientists say that the intensity of the flash of light also appears to indicate the egg’s quality and the embryo’s future health. This could allow more in vitro fertilization embryo selection with the destruction of embryos thought to be of lesser “quality”.

Therefore, instead of celebrating this physical proof of conception, Dr. Eve Feinberg, who co-authored the study, said

 “Often we don’t know whether the egg or embryo is truly viable until we see if a pregnancy ensues… If we have the ability up front to see what is a good egg and what’s not, it will help us know which embryo to transfer, avoid a lot of heartache and achieve pregnancy much more quickly.”

However, real heartache comes with infertility, desperate medical procedures to obtain a baby by any means possible, and the termination of life both inside and outside the womb.

But in the meantime, we can still rejoice in the apparent discovery of a true “spark of the Divine”.

 

Why Are Suicide Rates Climbing after Years of Decline?

nancyvalko assisted suicide, culture, law, medical ethics, mental health

After years of declines, the US suicide rate rose 24% over 15 years according to a new report from the national Centers for Disease on suicide rates in the US from 1999-2014.  The suicide rate rose for everyone between the ages of 10-74 between 1999-2014.

National media like the Wall Street Journal  and CNN   speculated that the economic downturn, drugs and lack of mental health resources could be factors in the 24% increase.

However, one huge factor was totally ignored: the legalization and promotion of physician-assisted suicide.

The Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Suicide Contagion

It must not be dismissed as mere coincidence that the new rise in suicides correlates to the implementation of the first physician-assisted suicide law in Oregon.

A 2012 report on suicide trends and risk factors for the Oregon Health Authority found the state’s overall suicide rate had risen 41 percent higher than the national rate . This is the “regular” suicide rate. Physician-assisted suicides are not included.

Since Oregon, four more states (California, Vermont, and Washington) have legalized physician-assisted suicide via legislation with a Montana supreme court ruling in favor of assisted suicide but without a regulatory framework. But it is only now that the media is noticing a suicide rate that has been increasing for 15 years.

There is a well-known and recognized suicide contagion effect after reported suicides. Both national media guidelines   and  World Health Organization guidelines   warn against media glamorization or normalization of suicide by the media that could lead to more suicides.

Yet, since the legalization in Oregon, the media has become increasingly positive in reporting on physician-assisted suicide. This reached a peak when People magazine devoted it cover story  and some subsequent issues to Brittany Maynard , her impending assisted suicide, and her Compassion and Choices led foundation to raise money to promote the legalization of physician-assisted suicide throughout the US.

That’s not just glamorizing or normalizing physician-assisted suicide. That’s advertising.

And it is having an enormous effect. Now the media is bowing to the pro-assisted suicide movement’s propaganda by changing even the terminology. Instead of physician-assisted suicide, news reports now use more soothing terms like “death with dignity”, “aid in dying” or “physician-assisted death”.

Make no mistake. This is a calculated tactic to increase support of physician-assisted suicide by denying reality.

Why Don’t  Physician-Assisted Suicide Laws Require Psychiatric or Psychological Evaluation?

As most of you may know,  I am the mother of a physically healthy 30 year old daughter who killed herself in 2009 using a technique the medical examiner called “textbook Final Exit”, the title of a book she read by assisted suicide supporter Derek Humphry. But I am also an RN with 46 years of experience who has cared for terminally or seriously ill people considering even physician-assisted suicide who changed their minds after suicide prevention and treatment interventions.

I am appalled that no physician-assisted suicide law actually requires a psychiatric or psychological evaluation before a person is given the lethal overdose prescription. For example in Oregon, the physician-assisted suicide law only states “If in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment, either physician shall refer the patient for counseling.”   (Emphasis added)  Not surprisingly, very few such evaluations are currently done, according to Oregon’s annual reports.

That stands in stark contrast to the standard evaluations given to other suicidal patients.

There must be no medical discrimination based on a predicted  prognosis when it comes to standard suicide prevention and treatment interventions. Suicide for any reason is always a tragedy to be prevented when possible.

The terrible despair that leads to suicide must not be ignored in favor of a cold piece of paper with a lethal prescription.

 

 

Canada’s Assisted Suicide Law to Cover Mental illness, Dementia and Minors

nancyvalko assisted suicide, Canada, disability, euthanasia, law

In a Canadian CBC News article titled “Mature minors, mentally ill should have right to doctor-assisted death, report advises”, a special committee of MPs (members of Parliament)  and senators issued a 70 page report “Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach”  stating that mature minors and mentally ill people should not be excluded from the right to “doctor-assisted death” (physician-assisted suicide).  It also states that Canadians should have the right to make an “advance request” for physician assisted suicide, termed “medical aid in dying”,  after being diagnosed with certain debilitating, but not necessarily terminal, conditions.

There is not even a requirement that the lethal overdose be oral or self-administered and the Canadian province of Quebec has already started lethal injections.

Ironically, capital punishment existed in various forms in Canada until 1998, when the federal government completely abolished the death penalty.

How can lethal injections be “cruel and inhumane” for convicted murderers but a civil right when it is chosen by an ill person?

And while physician-assisted suicide laws in the US routinely provide immunity for physicians, the Canadian recommendations also exempt nurses, pharmacists and other health care practitioners from key criminal code provisions.

Age of Consent

Although the Canadian Pediatric Society pushed to exclude minors regardless of competence, the report states that

“Given existing practices with respect to mature minors in health care and the obvious fact that minors can suffer as much as any adult, the committee feels that it is difficult to justify an outright ban on access to medical assistance in death for minors.”(Emphasis added)

Mental Illness

The report states that the right to assisted death should not be limited to physical conditions, and that Canadians with psychiatric conditions should not be excluded from “doctor assistance to end suffering” (physician-assisted suicide).

However

“As reported by Medscape Medical News, the inclusion of psychiatric suffering in assisted death laws in European countries such as Belgium has sparked significant debate, particularly with research showing that many individuals who have a history of suicide attempts later regret taking such action.

“Most people who consider or attempt suicide never die by suicide [and] the conviction that there is no alternative but to end their lives often passes with the resolution of an acute crisis,” medical ethicist Paul S. Applebaum, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

“By making the option of suicide easier, ie, a painless, certain death with medical assistance, the Dutch, Belgian, and similar laws may encourage many people, especially women, who would not have ended their lives to do so,” said Dr Applebaum, Dollard Professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and director of the Division of Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York City.” (Emphasis added)

“Advance Consent” for Assisted Suicide for People with Dementia

The advocacy group Dying With Dignity Canada applauded the report’s recommendations, especially the one to allow advance consent.

“Patients deserve real choice,” said CEO Shanaaz Gokool in a release.

“Without the option to consent in advance to assisted dying, Canadians with dementia who want to die in peace with the help of a physician face a dire choice: access assisted dying prematurely, while they are still competent; or risk losing competence before their wishes can be carried out, only to be condemned to the exact fate they sought to avoid.” (Emphasis added)

Actually, that result was already on the agenda when “living wills” were first proposed by Chicago lawyer Louis Kutner in his 1969 article “Due Process of Euthanasia: The Living Will, A Proposal” .

Some people say that Holland, Switzerland and Belgium are not like the US so that their virtually unregulated euthanasia policies should not affect us. But no one can deny the potential lethal impact on our own society from this terrible “right to be killed” propagated by our neighbor to the north.

Arguing Life, Death and Assisted Suicide

nancyvalko assisted suicide, Canada, disability, euthanasia, law, medical ethics, mental health, palliative care

In the article “Sides discuss NY proposal for aid in dying”, the exchange between Diane Coleman, a founder of Not Dead Yet, the foremost disability organization fighting physician-assisted suicide, and  Dr Timothy Quill, who fought for the constitutionality of physician-assisted suicide in the landmark 1997 US Supreme Court Vacco v Quill decision, is very enlightening.

Diane Coleman of Not Dead Yet spoke simply and eloquently:

“I don’t think I speak for all (opponents), but the disability community’s core message is that if assisted suicide is legal, some people’s lives will be lost due to mistakes, coercion and abuse, and that’s an outcome that can never be undone.

There is inherent discrimination in assisted-suicide laws. Most suicidal people receive suicide prevention. Assisted suicide laws would carve out an exception to that, and that exception would apply to people who are elderly, ill, disabled, and those are devalued groups in society. … Assisted-suicide laws would say, ‘these certain people, we not only agree with their suicide but give them the means to carry it out.’ We’re saying it comes down to social justice. Equal rights means equal suicide prevention.”

And

“It’s really not about physical pain. If you look at Oregon reports, about reasons people want to commit suicide, the reasons are things like feeling like the person has lost their autonomy, they’ve lost their dignity, they can’t do the things they used to do. They feel like a burden on their families. Those are psychosocial reasons that relate to the disability that people have when they have an advanced stage or chronic condition.”

On the other hand, Dr. Quill portrayed assisted suicide as little more than a benign discussion:

“Whether or not this practice is legalized, seriously ill patients are asking us to talk about it, they’re asking us to consider it” said Quill, founding director of the palliative care program at URMC and a board-certified palliative care consultant. (Emphasis added)

But to the question “Why do people with a terminal illness want to end their lives?”, Dr. Quill telling states:

“Some of it has to do with severe symptoms. I would say that’s not the majority. The majority is people who are tired of dying. It’s going on way too long for them. The kind of debility and weakness that accompany it, particularly for people that are used to being in charge of their lives, is very, very, very hard. Some of those people want to talk about what options they have to accelerate the process.” (Emphasis added)

This is very different from the way physician-assisted suicide has been sold to the public as a necessary last resort for terminally ill people in “unbearable pain”. However, as a 2014 article  “Dignity, Death, and Dilemmas: A Study of Washington Hospices and Physician-Assisted Death” admits, pain is not even a requirement for receiving physician-assisted suicide  in Oregon and Washington state:

The authorizing legal statutes in both states make no reference to the experience of severe pain or intolerable suffering as an indication for a patient to make a request for physician-assisted death but rely entirely on the entitlement due a patient in respect of their personal dignity. A patient rights framework provides the primary moral structure… (Emphasis added)

Thus, physician-assisted suicide is really about power and control over death, not the  suffering of the individual. And it is this power and control that has led European countries like the Netherlands to expand physician-assisted suicide even to non-terminally ill people who cannot or have not made the death decision themselves such as babies with deformities and people with dementia, mental illness or other impairments.

Closer to the US, the Canadian Supreme Court  has legalized physician-assisted suicide but still  without formalized rules, even on conscience rights.  In the province of Quebec, legal injection euthanasia kits  can be distributed to any doctor who wants them.

The Assisted Suicide Agenda in the US

It is alarming that the influential American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine that had this same Dr. Timothy Quill in the article as a recent past president and honoree of their Visionary award. But it should not be surprising that the AAHPM has changed its former position of opposition to physician-assisted suicide to a position of “studied neutrality” towards what it now calls “physician-assisted death”.  Neutrality is progress to physician-assisted suicide activists like Dr. Quill and organizations like Compassion and Choices that need to neutralize medical opposition as much as possible while quietly setting up relentless campaigns to legalize assisted suicide in every state. If enough states give in, a new Supreme Court decision may even overturn the Vacco v Quill decision and legalize physician-assisted suicide throughout the US.

But in the meantime, trying to sell “neutrality” to doctors and convincing the media to change the term “physician-assisted suicide” to  “physician-assisted death” cannot mask the inevitable and lethal damage done not only to individuals but also to our medical and legal institutions that can no longer ensure ethical protection for our lives.

My testimony for Simon’s Law

nancyvalko disability, futility, law, medical ethics, Simon's Law

On February 16,  a hearing was held by the Health committee of the Missouri Legislature on Simon’s Law.

Here is my submitted testimony to Dr. Frederick and all the committee members:

I am a past member of the Down Syndrome Association in St. Louis, an RN and legal nurse consultant and most importantly, the mother of a daughter who had special needs.
I cannot be at the hearing tomorrow but please accept my testimony in favor of Simon’s Law:

In September 1982, I gave birth to a beautiful baby girl we named Karen. Karen was born with both Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect called a complete endocardial cushion defect. A pediatric cardiologist was called in and even before I left the recovery room, he gave me the bad news about our Karen’s heart defect and even said that it was inoperable. He said to take Karen home where she would die in 2 weeks to 2 months.

This doctor turned out to be wrong. Further testing revealed that Karen’s heart defect could be fixed with one open heart operation and she had a 90% chance of survival.

My husband (a doctor) and I (an ICU nurse) were determined that our daughter receive the best medical care possible for her heart condition and without bias because she had Down Syndrome. We knew about the recent Baby Doe case where the parents of baby boy with Down Syndrome and an easily correctable tracheoesophageal fistula refused surgery so that their baby would die. The case went to court and a judge ruled that the parents could make that lethal choice. As medical professionals, we were appalled by this case but at least we could make sure that our daughter would have her chance at life. Or so I thought.

The bias against children like Karen soon became apparent when the cardiologist said he would support us “100%” if we chose to let our Karen die without surgery. I had to insist that Karen be treated for her heart defect the same way any other child would be treated for the same heart defect. To do otherwise was medical discrimination and illegal.

Then, the surgeon recommended for Karen’s pre-op heart catheterization was overheard questioning the wisdom of even treating “all these little mongoloids”! Another doctor sympathetically told us that “people like you shouldn’t be saddled with a child like this.” We were stunned by this negative view of children with Down Syndrome.

Later on when Karen developed a pneumonia that was being successfully treated in the hospital, I found out that my trusted pediatrician had even made Karen a “Do Not Resuscitate” behind my back because I “was too emotionally involved with that retarded baby”. The DNR was rescinded and we took Karen home but I found it hard to trust any doctor after that.

Unfortunately, Karen developed another bout of pneumonia and died of complications just before her scheduled open-heart surgery. But even at the very end, when Karen was apparently dying, a young resident physician “offered” to pull all her tubes so that she would die as soon as possible. I reported this young man to the chief of pediatric cardiology who was furious with the resident. (This chief of cardiology later started a clinic for children with Down Syndrome to meet their special health needs.)

Although we lost Karen when she was just 5 ½ months old, I still treasure my time with her and because of her, I became an advocate and volunteer for people with disabilities.
I wish I could say that my story is unique but I have seen many similar situations over the last three decades involving people of all ages with disabilities.

Therefore, I beg you to approve Simon’s Law. It will potentially save lives as well as send a strong message that medical discrimination against the disabled based on subjective judgements of “medical futility” and/or predicted “poor quality of life” is wrong.

Sincerely,

Nancy Valko, RN ALNC