With last week’s vote on A2270, New Jersey’s Assembly approved physician assisted suicide. Oregon, Washington and Vermont have also passed AS (Assisted Suicide) laws.
State courts in Montana and New Mexico have affirmed the rights to physician assisted suicide.
What’s wrong with that, you might well ask. If a person is terminally ill and wishes to end his or her suffering, why should this not be permitted?
In fact, this issue is not as clear cut as some might wish you to believe. The effect of such legal permissions, as seen in other countries which have historically permitted doctor- assisted suicide, is worth reviewing.
Before we look at how this issue has played out in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium, let’s first define our terms. Euthanasia is also called “mercy killing,” and is defined as the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person (or animal) suffering from an incurable disease or condition. The law generally differentiates between active and passive euthanasia. As defined in Wikipedia, “Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life. Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces, such as administering a lethal injection, to kill and is the most controversial means.”
Assisted suicide, on the other hand is defined as follows: “Suicide facilitated by another person, especially a physician, who organizes the logistics of the suicide, as by providing the necessary quantities of a poison.”
Switzerland became the first country to legalize assisted suicide in 1942. In the 1980’s, the law was reinterpreted to allow the existence of organizations to provide aid in dying. There are now six organizations in Switzerland which, for a fee, will help you to die. According to a recent study in the Journal of Medical Ethics, about six hundred people a year –many of whom are foreigners–avail themselves of these services in Switzerland. Hence the term—“suicide tourism.”
In 2002, Netherlands passed the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act, which legalized euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in specific cases, and for people twelve years old and up. In 2004, the Groningen Protocol came into effect, which allows doctors to euthanize infants, who are obviously not able to request or consent.
According to EPC-Europe, “In the Netherlands the number of deaths by euthanasia has increased by 64% between 2005 and 2010 … In comparison, the Dutch population grew by less than two percent over the same period. Yet the Dutch are now discussing the extension of euthanasia to people with dementia despite huge concerns about proper consent.” In addition, euthanasia is now being performed on psychiatric patients in the Netherlands, with 42 such cases reported in 2012.
We have seen the expansion of the concept of relieving a person’s pain to apply to emotional and psychiatric problems.Recently, an 89 year old retired art teacher took her life at Dignitas in Switzerland. In an interview given to the London Times, she stated that she couldn’t adapt to modern life and found that other people were acting increasingly like
“robots.” She had no terminal illness.
Dignitas also recently accommodated the end- of- life wishes of an 85 year old Italian woman, who was depressed that she was “losing her looks.” Oriella Cazzanello had no terminal illness and, other than wounded vanity, had been in
excellent health.
There is a slippery slope through which assisted suicide is becoming acceptable for those with emotional rather than terminal physical pain. This incurs uncomfortable recollections of the treatment of psychiatrically ill people in medieval times. Modern medicine seemed to go a great distance to reverse the perceptions and fate of those who were mentally ill, only to have a contemporary pathway carved out for their termination, via “choice.”
Belgium’s laws have also raised concern. In recent reports, at least 32% of the euthanasias in Belgium appear to have been done in the absence of a request. It is of concern that these “unrequested euthanasias” are not being investigated as possible murders. In addition, a great number of euthanasias are considered to be unreported. Many of the unreported assisted suicides are apparently being done by nurses. Belgium’s law explicitly prohibits this.
Earlier this year, Belgium lifted the ban on child euthanasias and now allows children to request to be euthanized.
The intersection between adult guardianship and AS needs careful attention. Under the law in many venues, guardiansmay make end- of- life decisions for their wards. The potential for abuse here is undeniable. The guardian may sign a “do not resuscitate order” for her client, and may order an assisted suicide without the individual’s knowledge or consent.
This scenario, as alarming as it may seem, is becoming quite common in guardianships throughout the US. In one publicized case, a guardian in Southern California, Melodie Scott, ordered that the physician for Elizabeth Fairbanks not provide her client with needed antibiotics when Fairbanks came down with pneumonia. Fairbanks succumbed to a treatable illness due to the decisions made by Melodie Scott, decisions which were in fact protested by Fairbanks’ adult children. Fairbanks was under a mental health guardianship.
It was subsequently revealed that Fairbanks’ bank accounts had nearly run dry. As guardian of person and estate, Melodie Scott was paid by Fairbanks’ savings.
In another recent case in California, a probate attorney, J. David Horspool, put his father under a guardianship and promoted the appointment of one of his sisters, Margaret Updike, as the guardian. Updike decided not to have the batteries replaced in her father’s pacemaker and to let him die of heart failure.
J. David Horspool’s law office then reported that Raymond Horspool’s Will had been “misplaced.” Raymond Horspool’s daughter, Barbara Howard, has sued for wrongful death. The case is winding its way through court.
In an Illinois guardianship case, Alice Gore’s teeth were mined for their gold content prior to her demise
Margaret Dore, a Seattle based attorney and anti-AS activist, raised concerns about the New Jersey bill. In a recent article on her website,
choiceisanillusion.com, Dore writes, “…there will be pressure to expand “eligibility” to broader groups of people who are not close to death.”
She cites the debate ongoing in the State of Washington, where there are now discussions recommending the extension of euthanasia to people who do not have the funds to support themselves. Dore also cites a recent Washington Post article, which states that there “appears to be a surge in hospices enrolling patients who aren’t close to death.”
With advancements in medicine, the spectre of suffering unbearably while one is in the process of dying is pretty much a thing of the past. The current state of palliative care has largely erased that concern. So the rallying cry for “Death with Dignity” must be carefully scrutinized. Particularly when those who may profit from the death of others are waving this banner.
The New Jersey Bill now goes to the Senate. A petition is being circulated asking New Jersey Governor Christie to veto the bill.
AS bills are pending legislative consideration in several other states. The UK, Canada, France and Germany are also considering legislation.
There are going to be cases where good people have totally opposed ideas of what the best course of action is, and the unfortunate result is that each side thinks the other is wicked and cruel.
I used to practice law. Once, when I went to court, some officers of the court thought I was someone that had given Ms. Solo a lot of grief, and it looked like they wanted to take me out and beat me up. In other words, she was very well liked and highly respected in that courtroom.
I'm sorry you experienced the hardship that has resulted in such consuming hatred.
You are a person who is in love with Ms. Solo so therefore any observations or comments that I would make to you would have no effect on your opinion. Granted, your ProbateShark has also suffered hardships in life, both physical, financial and emotional...some of them caused by Ms. Solo and her associates.
That reminds this Shark of a yarn heard in the shark tank about an old hammerhead shark. This hammerhead shark had a habit of eating her own remoras, also known as pilot fish, that guide a nearsighted shark. Sharks can’t eat their own young since they are egg layers. Well this old lady shark kept eating the remoras until all the remoras abandoned her and she led a very lonely and dangerous life. Well, that is just another fish story.
Obviously, the record of Ms. Solo being a party to her family’s exclusion of a disabled brother’s substantial estate sheds a different picture of the same person. A reasonable person would only have to check the court records of the Estate of Irving Fisk Faskowitz to corroborate her notarized signature on the court documents in Sebring, Florida that mentions only four siblings.Mordy was excluded. Moreover, comments of the Florida AG stated that they felt that Ms. Solo or her siblings did not have a right to the half of the Irving Faskowitz Estate not yet dispersed.
One would examine her involvement with the “Estate of Alice R. Gore”, a 99 year old disabled ward of the Probate Court of Cook County. Ms. Solo was knowingly responsible for electing a mentally ill person who had been a resident in 54 specialized mental health placements as guardian for Alice R. Gore. This “guardian” was court adjudicated as borderline psychotic, “a person who is a danger to herself and others”... Does this appear to be the act of a “ameliorate the suffering of others” or “intentionally caused any innocent person to suffer”. As far as “ has not enriched herself, as others in her field have.”...just check the dispersal checks for tens of thousands of dollars payed from the Estate of Alice R. Gore to Ms. Solo to refute that statement. If Alice were alive and lucid today she certainly would question the veracity of Ms. Solo’s decision.
As far as “she was very well liked and highly respected in that courtroom” just refer to the paucity of GAL selections by probate judges that she has received since 2010...not as many as before, for sure. Speaking of judges, two probate court judges have been mysteriously removed from the court within the last couple of months, one of whom was a “supporter” of Ms. Solo.
Barzilai, included in the Irving Fisk Faskowitz Estate file is information from private detectives who gleaned many confidential files that I am sure you have never been apprised of. These of course are only available to law enforcement and are not suitable or appropriate for dissemination in a public blog. The ProbateSharks and ProbateSharkettes appreciate your commentary into the ProbateSharks.com blog. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com