Thursday, July 31, 2014

Vermont: Repeal physician-assisted suicide, now

I'm confused. Years ago we did away with the death penalty in Vermont (and rightly so) because we understood that despite the care and precision of our legal system, mistakes could be made and an innocent person could be wrongly put to death. The Legislature wasn't willing to take that chance and so abolished the death penalty.

Now we have Act 39 (physician-assisted suicide), another law whose only purpose is to result in the death of one of our citizens. Yet this law, with shockingly few protections and no oversight at all by our judicial system, passed the Legislature.

What is the difference here? A wrongful death is a wrongful death is a wrongful death.

Does the Legislature honestly believe our health care system is so perfect that there is absolutely no chance for error? It doesn't appear so since the Legislature is spending almost all their time trying to reform health care. That doesn't leave me feeling confident that the system is working 100 percent perfectly.

So, if the death penalty is wrong because an innocent person might die, why does the Legislature magically believe that no one will ever wrongfully die under Act 39?

Physician-assisted suicide is just as bad a law as the death penalty, and the Legislature needs to repeal it.


Michele Morin lives in Burlington.

Monday, January 27, 2014

"Is there a way to allow a person to end his life without making someone else a criminal?"

By Margaret Dore, Esq.

A legislator considering an assisted suicide law asked me this question: "Is there a way to allow a person to end his life without making someone else a criminal?"

This was my (slightly edited) response:

People take their lives all the time.  One of my cousins shot himself and another threw himself in front of a train.  There was no criminality involved.  Also, if people are in pain, palliative care laws allow medical personnel to give patients copious amounts of drugs, including up to sedation, which can hasten the patient's death. This is the principal of double effect.  This is legal.  For more information, read theAffidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, page 3, paragraph 13.

There is also palliative care abuse in which no one seems to be held accountable, except for maybe one case in California where doctors relied on a wealthy patient's daughters, who said that their father was really bad off and didn't want treatment, which was not the case.  At least, that's what's claimed by the man's son. See William Dotinga, "Grim Complaint Against Kaiser Hospital," Court House News Service, February 6, 2012.

I've had like 15-20 contacts in the past year by people upset about their family member being suddenly off'd by medical personnel and/or having DNR's put on family members/friends without the patient's consent.  My caregiver friends also talk about guarding their patients in the hospital.  Here are some letters from Montana.

Here's a letter from Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. The letter talks about doctors being quick with the morphine and also regarding the conduct of an adult son shortly after our assisted suicide law was passed ("an adult child of one of our clients asked about getting the pills [to kill the father].  It wasn't the father saying that he wanted to die").  Here's a letter from a wife about how she was afraid to leave her husband alone after a doctor pitched assisted suicide to her husband.

There is also the issue that people who say they want to die don't mean it, as with any suicide.  See

I've had two clients whose fathers signed up for the Oregon/Washington assisted suicide acts.  With the first case, one side of the family wanted the father to use the act and the other side didn't.  He spent the last months of his life torn over whether of not he should kill himself.  His daughter was also traumatized.  He died a natural death.  There is a Swiss study that you might be interested in, that 1 out of 5 family members were traumatized by witnessing the legal assisted suicide of a family member.  See

In my other case, the father had two suicide parties and it's not clear that it was voluntary.  My client, his son, was told that his dad had said "You're not killing me, I'm going to bed").  Regarding the next day, my client was told that his dad was already high on alcohol when he drank the lethal dose.  But then the person telling him this changed his story.  In Montana, Senator Jeff Essman, made a relevant observation regarding this point:
"[All] the protections [in Oregon's law] end after the prescription is written.  [The proponents] admitted that the provisions in the Oregon law would permit one person to be alone in that room with the patient. And in that situation, there is no guarantee that that medication is self-administered.
So frankly, any of the studies that come out of the state of Oregon's experience are invalid because no one who administers that drug . . . to that patient is going to be turning themselves in for the commission of a homicide."
Senate Judiciary Hearing on SB 167 on February 10, 2011

I, however, doubt that a person in Oregon could be prosecuted.  If you read the act carefully, there is no requirement of patient consent to administration of the lethal dose, and to the extent that's ambiguous, there's the rule of lenity.  In Washington State, prosecutors are required to report assisted suicide deaths as "Natural" - no matter what - at least, that's what the regulation says:   How can you prosecute someone for homicide if the death is required to be reported as "Natural?"

Here in Washington, we have already had some informal proposals to expand the scope of our assisted suicide act.  One in particular disturbed me.  A Seattle Times column suggested euthanasia as a solution for people unable to support themselves, which would be involuntary euthanasia.  See Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," March 8, 2012, which states:
"After Monday's column,  . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution."  (Emphasis added)
So, if you worked hard and paid taxes all your life and then your company pension plan goes belly up, this is how you want society to pay you back?

As a Democrat, I see us as looking out for the little guy, not passing laws to protect perpetrators, healthcare systems, etc. from legitimate claims.  I hope that you will vote against any effort to legalize assisted suicide/euthanasia.

Thank you for writing me back.

Margaret Dore

Friday, May 24, 2013

Vermont Passes Irresponsible Assisted Suicide Law

By Margaret Dore, Esq.

A.  Introduction

On May 20, 2013, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed S.77, an assisted suicide law, which creates legal paths of abuse and exploitation against persons who fall within its terms.  This article focuses on two of those paths.

B.  Abuse and Exploitation in the United States

Met Life Mature Market Institute has issued two landmark studies on elder abuse in the United States.  In the first study, from 2009, the estimated annual financial loss by victims was $2.6 billion.[1]  In the second study, from 2011, the estimated annual loss was increased to $2.9 billion.[2]  Again, these are yearly figures.

The Met Life studies also describe how financial abuse can be a catalyst for other types of abuse.  These are three examples from the second report:
  • Two elderly women were beaten to death with a crowbar by their trusted handyman.  He took and pawned all of their valuables.
  • A 74-year-old man was stomped to death during a home invasion burglary.
  • A son and his two friends extracted money from his dying mother by threatening to burn down her home and throw her dog against a wall.[3]
In the United States, abuse and exploitation are not limited to the elderly.  Last year, a 46 year old lottery winner died the day after receiving his winnings.[4] The cause of death was cyanide poisoning.[5]  In a more recent case, a man tricked his girlfriend into taking a pill to induce a miscarriage.[6]  According to an article by the Tampa Bay Times, "[t]he woman took a pill on her way to work, then quickly felt abdominal pain and began bleeding . . . She lost the baby at a hospital." [7]  The man, whose father is a doctor, had "forged the doctor's signature on a prescription for [an abortion drug], relabeled a pill bottle as 'Amoxicillin' and told the woman that his father wanted her on antibiotics."[8] According to the prosecutor, she asked:  "What did you give me, Andrew?"[9]

C.  S.77

1.  Patients may have years to live

S.77 legalizes physician-assisted suicide, which means that a doctor writes a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of a patient's committing suicide.[10]  Under S.77, the patient is required to have a "terminal condition," defined as having a medical prediction of less that six months to live.[11]  Such patients are not necessarily dying and can have years, even decades, to live.  This is because doctor predictions of life expectancy can be wrong and because the requirement of six months to live is based on the patient' s not being treated.[12]  

2.  How S.77 works

Under S.77, there is a formal application process to obtain a lethal dose.[13]  S.77 also requires that in 2016, that this formal process be replaced with a streamlined procedure with these five requirements:

(1) the physician determines that the patient is capable and does not have impaired judgment;
(2) the physician informs the patient of all feasible end-of-life services, including palliative care, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control;
(3) the physician prescribes a dose of medication that may be lethal to the patient;
(4) the physician advises the patient of all foreseeable risks related to the prescription; and
(5) the patient makes an independent decision to self-administer a lethal dose of the medication.[14]

When applying for the lethal dose, patients are allowed to request it "just in case." i.e., without a definite intent to take it.[15]

Once the lethal dose is picked up at the pharmacy, there is no oversight.[16]  The death is not required to be witnessed.[17] Indeed, no one is required to be present.[18] 

D.  New Paths of Abuse

1.  No witnesses at the death

As noted above, S.77 does not require witnesses at the death. Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for the patient’s heir, or for another person who will benefit financially from the patient's death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent.  Even if he struggled, who would know? 

2.  An expansion of scope 

Under the streamlined procedure scheduled to come into effect in 2016, the scope of S.77 will be expanded to patients and doctors with no intention of assisted suicide.  Consider this scenario in which all five requirements of the streamlined procedure are met:

The patient is a competent woman with cancer.  Without surgery, she is terminal as defined in S.77 (she is expected to die in less than six months).  But, with surgery, her  prospects are good.  As part of informed consent, the doctor informs her about the risks of the surgery and end of life services including palliative care, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control.

With the stress of her situation, the woman has been experiencing insomnia, for which the doctor prescribes Pentobarbital (nembutal).[19]   If taken in excess, Pentobarbital may be lethal.[20].  He prescribes a month's supply and advises the woman of the foreseeable risks.  She obtains the prescription but doesn't take any.  The bottle with the unused prescription is in her home. She is scheduled for surgery in a few days.  She has no intention of killing herself.  The doctor has no intention of her killing herself.

A family member, interested in an inheritance, tricks the woman into drinking the pentobarbital mixed with water by saying that it's another medication - say for sinus congestion.[21]

He leaves.  She dies.

The situation looks like a suicide.

If it comes out later that the family member was present when the woman "self-administered" the drug, he's  immune from liability. This is because S.77 states:
"[N]o person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability solely for being present when a patient with a terminal condition self-administers a lethal dose of medication or for not acting to prevent the patient from self-administering a lethal dose of medication."[22]
So the woman was not in control of her fate.  She is legally murdered by her heir.

E.  Conclusion

S.77 is a dangerous and irresponsible law, in which there is no oversight over administration of the lethal dose such that it can be administered without the patient's consent.  Once the streamlined procedure goes into effect, patients and doctors with no intention of assisted suicide will also be under its scope.  Even if you are for assisted suicide, not this law.

[1]  The MetLife Study: "Broken Trust:  Elders, Family and Finances, " 2009, available at
[2] "The MetLife Study of Elder Financial Abuse:  Crimes of Occasion, Desperation, and Predation Against America's Elders," 2011, available at
[3]  Id., page 17.
[4]  Associated Press, "Urooj Khan Update:  Widow, siblings of poisoned Chicago lottery winner battle over estate, documents say," available at
[5]  Id.
[6]  Patty Ryan and Will Hobson, "Tampa doctor's son accused of killing unborn child," May 15, 2013, available at
[7]  Id.
[8]  Id.
[9]  Id.
[10]  Cf. AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 2.211, available at 
[11]  A copy of S.77, "An act relating to patient choice and control at end of life," as passed by the Senate and the House, can be viewed here:  The definition of "terminal condition" is in § 5281(a)(10)("Terminal condition" means an incurable and irreversible disease which would, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months).
[12]  See Nina Shapiro, Terminal Uncertainty — Washington's new 'Death with Dignity' law allows doctors to help people commit suicide — once they've determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they're wrong?, Seattle Weekly, January 14, 2009, available at  See also Affidavit of Kenneth Stevens, MD, September 18, 2012, available at ; and Affidavit of John Norton (when he was eighteen years old, he was told that he would die of ALS and paralysis in three to five years; he is now 75 years old).  Available at
[13]  In S.77, the formal application process is contained in § 5283, Requirements for Prescription and Documentation, available at and
[14]  S.77, Sec. 2, Repeal (stating that 5283 will be repealed on July 1, 2016).  See also S.77, Sec. 3 (providing that § § 5289 and 5290 will take effect on July 1, 2016)
[15]  I have had two cases in which my client's parent signed up for the lethal dose.  In both cases, the parents did not have a set wish to take the lethal dose. They signed up "just in case."
[17]  Id.
[18]  Id.
[20]  Id.
[21]  Pentobarbital is water and alcohol soluble so that it could be put in a cold medicine solution.  See 
[22]  S.77 § 5284 

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

House Passes Irresponsible Assisted Suicide Law

By Margaret Dore, Esq.

A.  Introduction

Yesterday, the Vermont House passed S.77, which if signed by the Governor, will create new legal paths of abuse and exploitation against persons who fall within its terms.  This article focuses on two of those paths.