The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition -- strategy

On October 7, 2009, Compassion & Choices announced its lawsuit, Blick v. Connecticut, which seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide for “terminally-ill” patients in Connecticut. The plaintiffs are two physicians. They are represented by Compassion & Choices’s legal director, Kathryn Tucker.

This lawsuit is not necessarily limited to people who are dying. Moreover, legalization will allow patients to be steered to suicide by health care insurers; it will provide perpetrators with a new avenue of abuse against the elderly.

Compassion & Choices’ claim is that Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-56, which prohibits assisted suicide, does not reach the conduct of a physician who provides “aid in dying” because aid in dying is not “suicide” within its terms. Aid in dying is, however, merely another name for physician-assisted suicide.

The claim that the statute does not apply to aid in dying, i.e., physician-assisted suicide, is like saying that by calling a fish a dog, there is no violation of a law against fishing out of season. If this lawsuit didn’t involve such a serious matter, it would be considered a bad joke.

On November 19, 2009, the State of Connecticut moved to dismiss Compassion & Choice’s complaint. Connecticut’s supporting memorandum states:

This is an action . . . by two Connecticut physicians who ask this Court to allow them to engage in physician-assisted suicide, despite a criminal statute clearly banning such conduct.” (Emphasis added).

Compassion & Choice’s use of the phrases, “aid in dying” and “terminally-ill,” implies that any legalized assisted suicide would only apply to dying people. This would not necessarily be the case. In Montana, where Compassion & Choices is involved in another “aid in dying” lawsuit, the phrase, “terminally ill adult patient,” is defined as follows:

[A] person 18 years of age or older who has an incurable or irreversible condition that, without the administration of life-sustaining treatment, will, in the opinion of his or her attending physician, result in death within a relatively short time. (Emphasis added).

This definition is broad enough to include an 18 year old who is insulin dependent or dependent on kidney dialysis, or a young adult with stable HIV/AIDS. (See Letter from Richard Wonderly, MD and Theresa Schrempp, Esq., October 22, 2009) . Each of these patients could live for decades with appropriate medical treatment. (Id.) Yet, they are “terminally ill” according to the above definition. (Id.)

Less Choice for Health Care
When someone is labeled “terminal,” an easy justification can be made that his treatment or coverage should be denied in favor of someone else. (Id.) In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, “terminal patients” have not only been denied coverage, they have been offered assisted suicide instead. Consider, for example, Barbara Wagner, who died last year. The Oregon Health Plan (Medicaid) refused to pay for a cancer drug to possibly prolong her life and offered to pay for her suicide instead. This position saved the plan money.

Oregon resident, Randy Stroup, had a similar experience. The plan would not pay for a drug to prolong his life, but would pay for his suicide. He said:

The above scenarios were only possible because assisted suicide is legal in Oregon. Where “aid in dying” is legal, those labeled “terminal” can be steered to suicide.

Elder Abuse
A recent report by MetLife Mature Market Institute describes elder financial abuse as a crime “growing in intensity.” (See http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-study-broken-trust-elders-family-finances.pdf , p.16). The perpetrators are often family members, some of whom feel themselves “entitled” to the elder’s assets. (Id., pp. 13–14). The report states that they start out with small crimes, such as stealing jewelry and blank checks, before moving on to larger items or coercing elders to sign over the deeds to their homes, change their wills, or liquidate their assets. (Id., p. 14). The report also states that victims “may even be murdered” by perpetrators. (Id., p. 24).
Compassion & Choices’ complaint in Blick has no provision for patient safeguards against coercion, fraud and/or undue influence. (See Complaint, attached here. http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/ConnMemo03.pdf) If “aid in dying” would be enacted, perpetrators would have a new weapon, the ability to coerce an elder to request a lethal overdose. Legal assisted suicide is a “recipe for elder abuse.”

Conclusion
Compassion & Choices’s lawsuit is frivolous, but must nonetheless be taken seriously given the potential consequences: patients unwillingly steered to suicide; and increased opportunities for abuse. A bad decision will lead to considerable consequences.