U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

45–836 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 109–1028 

THE CONSEQUENCES OF LEGALIZED ASSISTED 

SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 25, 2006 

Serial No. J–109–80 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

AJIT PAI, Majority Chief Counsel 

ROBERT F. SCHIFF, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Brownback, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ....................... 1 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 57 

WITNESSES 

Coleman, Diane, President, Not Dead Yet, Forest Park, Illinois ........................ 25 

Imbody, Jonathan, Senior Policy Analyst, Christian Medical Association, 

Ashburn, Virginia ................................................................................................. 12 

Jackson, Ann, Executive Director, and Chief Executive Officer, Oregon Hospice Association, Portland, Oregon ..................................................................... 23 

Marker, Rita L., Executive Director, International Task Force on Euthanasia 

and Assisted Suicide, Steubenville, Ohio ........................................................... 21 

McMurchie, Julie S., Portland, Oregon .................................................................. 8 

Reitsema, Hendrik, Eck en Wiel, The Netherlands .............................................. 10 

Smith, Wesley J., Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute, Castro Valley, California ..................................................................................................................... 16 

Tucker, Kathryn, Director of Legal Affairs, Compassion and Choices, and 

Affiliate Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, 

Washington ........................................................................................................... 19 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ............................... 4 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of to Ann Jackson questions submitted by Senator Feingold ............ 33 

Responses of Julie McMurchie to questions submitted by Senator Feingold ..... 36 

Responses of Kathryn Tucker to questions submitted by Senator Feingold ...... 38 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Coleman, Diane, President, Not Dead Yet, Forest Park, Illinois, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 41 

Imbody, Jonathan, Senior Policy Analyst, Christian Medical Association, 

Ashburn, Virginia, prepared statement ............................................................. 59 

Jackson, Ann, Executive Director, and Chief Executive Officer, Oregon Hospice Association, Portland, Oregon, prepared statement .................................. 62 

Marker, Rita L., Executive Director, International Task Force on Euthanasia 

and Assisted Suicide, Steubenville, Ohio, prepared statement ........................ 66 

McMurchie, Julie S., Portland, Oregon, prepared statement .............................. 77 

Reitsema, Hendrik, Eck en Wiel, The Netherlands, prepared statement ........... 80 

Smith, Wesley J., Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute, Castro Valley, California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 84 

Tucker, Kathryn, Director of Legal Affairs, Compassion and Choices, and 

Affiliate Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, 

Washington, prepared statement ........................................................................ 105 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 122 

(1) 

THE CONSEQUENCES OF LEGALIZED 

ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 

THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2006 

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND

PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:02 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Brownback. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS 

Chairman BROWNBACK. The hearing will come to order. Thank 

you all for joining us today. My colleague, and the ranking member, Senator Feingold, I believe will be here shortly. He is carrying 

an amendment on the floor, and when he comes at the proper time 

we will have him do an opening statement. But I do want to get 

this moving forward because we will have votes coming up shortly 

on the floor and I would like to get as much of the testimony as 

we can. 

The fundamental duty of American Government, and indeed of 

any government, is to protect and defend the lives of their citizens, 

the sanctity of the lives of their citizens. It thus becomes the duty 

of every lawmaker to examine closely any policy that undermines 

either directly or indirectly the importance and value of each individual’s life. 

As Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have held hearings examining important issues such as abortion and the death penalty, 

both of which are legal in the United States, to examine whether 

they promote or inhibit the culture of life. Today, we will take the 

next step in this inquiry and focus on assisted suicide and euthanasia, and its effects on society and how we view our fellow human 

beings. 

To be sure, the constitutional question has long been resolved. In 

a 1997 case called Washington v. Glucksberg, the U.S. Supreme 

Court ruled that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not 

protect a fundamental right to assisted suicide. Recognizing that 

the state has an interest in protecting human life, the Glucksberg 

court upheld Washington State’s ban on assisted suicide. ‘‘To hold 

otherwise,’’ wrote the majority, ‘‘would require the invalidation of 

a consistent and almost universal tradition that has long rejected 

the asserted right, and continues explicitly to reject it today even 

2 

for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.’’ In order to invent 

this right, the Court, quote, ‘‘would have to reverse centuries of 

legal doctrine and practice, and strike down the considered policy 

choice of almost every State,’’ end quote. 

While the decision in Glucksberg left the door open for States to 

permit and regulate assisted suicide, it kept it firmly shut on those 

who demanded the novel discovery of this so-called individual 

right. On a State level, legalized assisted suicide is still in its infancy in the United States. Only one State, Oregon, has allowed 

the practice. Thirty-eight States have formally criminalized assisted suicide, and seven more States prohibit the practice under 

common law. 

This reflects a clear, enduring consensus of the people that assisted suicide is wrong and is objectionable. Nonetheless, a small 

but vocal minority have continued to push States to permit the 

practice, claiming that assisted suicide is nothing more than a 

modern expression of individual liberty. The Oregon law, which 

was narrowly approved by voters in 1994, permits physician-assisted suicide in cases involving competent terminally ill patients. 

According to official reports from doctors assisting patients who 

have committed suicide, the Oregon law has hastened the death of 

246 people. Some suggest this number may be understated because 

some doctors underreport how often they have prescribed a lethal 

dose of medication for the purposes of assisting suicide. Senator 

Wyden, from Oregon, will be here to testify regarding this on the 

first panel. 

Five years ago, the Federal Government determined that the Oregon law was inconsistent with the Controlled Substances Act, the 

CSA. The CSA authorizes physicians to prescribe federally controlled substances to patients when used for legitimate medical 

purpose. It also authorizes the Attorney General to revoke a physician’s prescription privileges if the physician’s actions render his 

registration inconsistent with the public interest. 

In 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a directive 

that physician-assisted suicide, as permitted by the Oregon law, 

did not qualify as a legitimate medical purpose under the CSA. As 

a result, physicians who prescribed lethal doses of controlled substances to patients to induce suicide could be prosecuted and their 

license to prescribe medicines could be revoked. The State of Oregon sued in Federal court to block this interpretation. 

In January of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 

Gonzales v. Oregon—wrongly, in my opinion, but they determined 

that the CSA did not permit the Attorney General to prohibit doctors in Oregon from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide. In his dissent, Justice Scalia observed that 

the Attorney General’s directive was an appropriate interpretation 

of the CSA. He found it illogical to consider a prescription of a controlled substance to kill another person to be a, quote, ‘‘legitimate 

medical purpose.’’ 

The legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia would be 

problematic for numerous reasons. First and foremost, I believe the 

danger involving involuntary euthanasia is shown by the ominous 

experience practiced in the Netherlands, and we will have a witness here today to talk about the Netherlands’ experience. They 

3 

have legalized assisted suicide and there have been numerous 

cases reported of doctors literally killing their patients without consent. 

In 2001, a Dutch doctor was found guilty of murder for 

euthanizing a patient, but was given no penalty for his action. The 

court said that he made an error in judgment, but acted in what 

he believed to be the best interests of his patient. I think most 

Americans could be quite disturbed that a doctor could act with 

such blatant disregard and lack of respect for human life, yet not 

be penalized. Patients who oppose euthanasia would have much to 

fear if they could no longer trust their own doctor. This nightmare 

scenario is antithetical to the proper role of a doctor as healer and 

caregiver. 

A second related danger drawn from the Dutch experience is the 

slippery slope leading to general disrespect for life, particularly 

when it involves the defenseless. Doctors in the Netherlands moved 

to allow euthanizing infants with terminal illnesses, highlighting 

how assisted suicide and euthanasia targets the weakest among us. 

Such policies devalue the lives of those who are ill and those 

with disabilities, but even more insidious is the devaluation of our 

own lives when we deem a certain population as having little 

worth. If we fail to recognize the significant contributions to society 

made by persons with disabilities, the notions that we are all 

blessed to be alive, that we are a compassionate society and that, 

above all, we are all equal are all meaningless. I doubt, again, 

whether Americans want Government to decide which life is worth 

preserving and which can be destroyed. 

Finally, expanding the use of assisted suicide would disregard 

our considered judgment about self-destructive behavior, which is 

that it is frequently a cry for help. It is for this reason we usually 

seek to help those who attempt suicide. Often, it is not death that 

someone in this situation seeks, but the reassurance that his or her 

life means something and has value. Particularly when one considers the prominent role played by depression and other psychological conditions, it cannot necessarily be said that a person seeking physician-assisted suicide is making a truly independent decision. 

There are many important issues related to this topic that I hope 

we can explore with our panels today. It is my hope that we can 

carve out the proper role for lawmakers in fulfilling the Government’s duty to promoting life and protecting individual liberties. 

We have excellent panels of witnesses on this very important topic. 

First, of course, we will hear from the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, the senior Senator from his State, who has a considered opinion on this and who has been around the topic a great 

deal of time. We don’t necessarily agree on it, but I certainly respect him and his viewpoints and his articulation of those. I look 

forward to hearing from him. 

We will then hear from a panel that will include Julie 

McMurchie, from Portland, Oregon. Next, we will hear testimony 

from Hank Reitsema. His grandfather was a victim of legalized euthanasia in the Netherlands. Last on that panel will be Jonathan 

Imbody, a senior policy analyst at the Christian Medical AssociaVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 045836 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45836.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4 

tion. Mr. Imbody has done significant research on personal experience with euthanasia in the Netherlands. 

On our next panel, we will hear from Wesley Smith, a Senior 

Fellow at the Discovery Institute, who has worked on this topic of 

euthanasia and has written books on it. Kathryn Tucker is Director 

of Legal Affairs at Compassionate Choices in Seattle, Washington. 

And then we will hear from Rita Marker, Executive Director of the 

International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide; Ann 

Jackson, Executive Director of the Oregon Hospice Association. 

And, last, we will hear from Diane Coleman, founder of Not Dead 

Yet, an organization giving a voice to persons with disabilities in 

this debate. 

It is a difficult topic, it is a hard topic. It is a topic involving life 

and death, choices, and the role of Government, all of which are integrally intertwined. 

We will have Senator Feingold’s statement when he gets here, 

but first let’s go to Senator Wyden. I look forward to your testimony and your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 

me first commend you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your 

thoughtfulness in having me here today. When I asked to testify 

because, of course, thousands of Oregonians care so much about 

this issue, it probably would have been pretty easy for you to say, 

look, time is short and can we do it on another occasion. But you 

have always gone out of your way to make sure that a debate is 

fair and that those with whom you might disagree, like myself, on 

this would have an opportunity to be heard. I just want you to 

know how much I appreciate that, and thank you for your courtesy 

today. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, when Oregonians first adopted 

the Death with Dignity Act and then defended it on a second ballot 

initiative, it seems to me they were sending Government a clear 

message. When the American people resisted Government interference in the tragic case of the late Terri Schiavo, they too sent 

their Government a strong message. That message is that death 

and end-of-life care is an intensely personal and private moment, 

and at those moments the Government ought to leave its people 

alone. The Government ought not to attempt to override or preempt the individual and the family values, religious beliefs or wishes. 

I have said before, and just would repeat it here today, I personally voted against physician aid in dying both as an Oregon voter 

and as a Senator. As the former director of the Oregon Gray Panthers, a seniors advocacy group, I saw firsthand how many poor 

and vulnerable individuals received inadequate health care. I worried primarily about the adequacy of the ballot measure safeguards 

to protect poor older people, and as a result I voted against the Oregon ballot measure not once, but twice, as a private citizen. 

Despite my personal objections, I firmly believe that my election 

certificate doesn’t give me the authority or the right to substitute 

5 

my personal and religious beliefs for judgments made twice by the 

people of our State. I will continue to strongly oppose any legislative or administrative effort to overturn or nullify the will of Oregon voters on this matter. 

Now, had Oregon acted with haste or without a thorough examination and debate, I wouldn’t be in much of a position to defend 

the Oregon law. But certainly nobody can accuse the people of my 

State of acting precipitously in approving this measure. The voters 

of Oregon did so after two lengthy and exhaustive debates, Mr. 

Chairman, that dominates the water coolers and dinner table conversation of the people of my State like nothing else. 

The issue of physician aid in dying is settled as far as my State 

of Oregon is concerned. My State has endured two legal ballot initiatives, court challenges to stop the implementation of the law, attempts in Congress to overturn the law, an attempt to overturn the 

law through administrative action by the Federal Government, and 

finally a challenge that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. At each 

stage of this lengthy discussion, the will of a majority of Oregonians prevailed. 

During the eight years the law has been in effect, the opponents 

of the law have combed through it to look for possible pitfalls. However, the law still stands. During the 8 years the law has been in 

effect, the opponents said that there would be abuses and that 

there would be a stampede to Oregon. The law has not been 

abused. In fact, over 8 years, an average of about 30 Oregonians 

a year have used lethal prescriptions. This, of course, is a small 

fraction of Oregonians who faced terminal illness during that period. 

While I do not know how I would vote were the issue to appear 

on the Oregon ballot once more, I believe that it is time at least 

for me to acknowledge that my fears concerning the poor elderly 

were thankfully never realized, and the safeguards appear to have 

worked well in preventing potential abuses. 

What is often not discussed by opponents of the Oregon law is 

the Oregon Death with Dignity Act has brought about many improvements that are widely supported by all parties to this discussion in end-of-life care. For example, pain management has improved. My State remains the only State to discipline a physician 

for the under-treatment of pain. However, perhaps the most important side effect of the law is that families, health professionals and 

patients know they can and should have conversations about how 

they want to handle these extraordinarily difficult end-of-life challenges and what their wishes are with respect to treatment. 

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two important cases 

that should inform this discussion. The Court, in Washington v. 

Glucksberg and in the Vacco case, rejected any constitutional right 

of terminally ill patients to physician aid in dying. But more importantly, the Court in those decisions left the States free to permit 

or prohibit assistance in end-of-life matters such as dying. 

Indeed, the High Court encouraged States to proceed with their 

various initiatives in this area. So Oregon did, in fact, exactly what 

the Court encouraged be done. Historically and constitutionally, 

States have always possessed the clear authority to determine acceptable medical practice within their borders. States are responVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 045836 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45836.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
6 

sible for regulating medical, pharmacy and nursing practice. Even 

the preamble to Medicare states, ‘‘Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any 

jurisdiction or control over the practice of medicine or the manner 

in which medical services are provided.’’ 

The scientific health literature is full of studies documenting how 

medical practice differs from region to region, State to State, and 

sometimes from medical institution to medical institution. End-oflife care, in my view, should be no different. 

While other States have considered physician aid in dying since 

Oregon passed and implemented the Death with Dignity Act, they 

have not adopted it. I respect their choice, Mr. Chairman. Yet, no 

one challenged their decisions in court. Neither the Congress nor 

the administration attempted to overturn those decisions. Oregon’s 

decision, reached through legal means, ought to be respected as 

well. Fair-weather friends of States’ rights should be reminded that 

States’ rights does not mean just when you think a State is right. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to end by saying that it is my hope—and 

that is why I always appreciate the opportunity to talk with you 

about these and other issues—that we could find some common 

ground here, that we could find some ground where all sides could 

come together and thereby focus our efforts on those kinds of areas. 

I know of no member of the U.S. Senate, Mr. Chairman, who 

doesn’t want to reduce the desire and demand for physician assistance in terms of working through those difficult decisions. In order 

to do that, pain management needs a huge boost, not another setback. Previous attempts to negate Oregon’s law have damaged pain 

management in every part of our country. Even the New England 

Journal of Medicine editorialized against that attempt out of concern for the impact on pain management nationwide. They said 

many doctors are concerned about the scrutiny they invite when 

they prescribe or administer controlled substances, and they are 

hypersensitive to drug-seeking behavior in patients. Patients, as 

well as doctors, often have exaggerated fears of addiction and the 

side effects of narcotics. Congress would make this bad situation 

worse. 

It is my view that pain management has a long way to go in this 

country, Mr. Chairman. Senator Smith and I introduced something 

that we thought could be the bipartisan basis of bringing people together around this issue, and it is called the Conquering Pain Act. 

What Senator Smith and I seek to do is to help provide families, 

patients and health professionals with 24/7 assistance so that no 

patient anywhere in this country would be left in excruciating pain 

waiting for a doctor’s office to open up. 

Another area that I think would be ripe for bipartisan efforts to 

find common ground is in the Medicare hospice benefit, Mr. Chairman. I have legislation, the Medicare Hospice Demonstration Act, 

to test new ways of bringing hospice benefits to the patient. For example, Medicare currently requires terminally ill patients to choose 

between so-called curative care and hospice. In plain English, that 

means that you can’t get hospice benefits unless you give up hope 

in our country. That makes no sense, and I contend that people do 

not get into hospice soon enough to get its full benefits if they are 

forced to make this kind of choice. The idea that I have—and the 

7 

Aetna Company is now testing it—would set aside this either/or 

choice and allow hospice to begin while the patient continues with 

curative care. 

Finally, the Nation also has a shortage of providers, physicians 

and nurses who are trained in palliative care essentially, or what 

is also known as comfort care. The legislation that I authored here 

provides funding to assure that there is a medical faculty trained 

in comfort care for all ages. It is a sad fact that not everyone can 

be cured. As the number of ways to prolong life multiplies, end-oflife care issues are going to be more controversial, more difficult 

and more painful. The aging of our population will bring more families face to face with these issues. 

I contend that the more that is done to improve end-of-life care 

and to help support patient and family decisions, the less people 

will turn to physician aid in dying. For the citizens of Oregon, the 

Death with Dignity Act has brought about improvement in many 

areas and encouraged conversations that many would not have 

had. For many, it has brought a small measure of peace of mind 

knowing that they can remain in control of their lives if they 

choose to do so. It has decriminalized the end-of-life process. 

You can never prove a negative, Mr. Chairman, and I am not 

here to offer some kind of scientifically based theory. But I actually 

believe in Oregon, because of all of the debate we have had and because we have seen an increase in the use of hospice, an increase 

in the number of folks who spend their last days at home—I believe in Oregon we have fewer physician aid in dying cases than 

in other States where that kind of action is prohibited. 

Mr. Chairman, I know these are deeply personal issues. My State 

has chosen a unique path, but rather than pursue a bitter and divisive debate over physician aid in dying, what I want to do today, 

in addition to defending the law that has been adopted for my 

State, is to also outline a number of approaches such as that Senator Smith and I have proposed that could bring together the Senate and people of differing views on this issue in a fashion that 

would be good for our country. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden, 

and thank you for your very thoughtful, very dignified, and continued effort to try to bring people together on tough subjects. That 

is quite laudable and necessary to ever move much of anything forward and I appreciate it greatly. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. The next panel will consist of three panel 

on the panel, if they could come forward now: Julie McMurchie, of 

Portland, Oregon; Hendrick Reitsema from the Netherlands; and 

Jonathan Imbody from Ashburn, Virginia. 

I am told that Senator Feingold remains on the floor with an 

amendment, so we are going to continue to proceed forward. We 

will put all of your formal statements into the record, if you would 

care to summarize. I would like to run the clock at 6 minutes to 

give you an idea where you are just so we can get as much testimony in as possible. 

Ms. McMurchie. 

8 

STATEMENT OF JULIE S. MCMURCHIE, PORTLAND, OREGON 

Ms. MCMURCHIE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me. I am 

here to tell the story of my mother, who used Oregon’s law 5 years 

ago to end her life after a long battle with lung cancer. 

I would like to start out by asking that you refrain from using 

the term ‘‘suicide’’ in this context. I think it demeans my mother’s 

memory. To paraphrase the mental health amici in Oregon v. 

Gonzales, ‘‘End-of-life decisions by terminally ill patients are in no 

way related to what is commonly termed suicide, which is considered to be a self-destructive act often related to clinical depression.’’ 

My mother was not depressed when she made the decision to hasten her death. 

A decision to hasten death is more accurately parallel to a patient’s thoughtful decision to decline life-sustaining treatments, a 

product of judgment and reason based on the desire to maintain 

one’s dignity in a period where death is pending. That reason and 

judgment is fundamentally different from the reasoning a clinically 

depressed person uses to justify suicide. 

On January 25, 2001, my mother, Peggy Sutherland, a 67-yearold lifelong registered Republican, hastened her death under the 

rights afforded to her by Oregon’s death with dignity law. I would 

like to start out today by telling you a little about her background. 

My mother grew up in a very traditional household on the Philadelphia Main Line. She was raised to do what she was told and 

was given little freedom to make decisions for herself. She did what 

her parents and society expected of her, and when she graduate 

from a women’s Ivy League college, she immediately married my 

father and supported him while he went through medical school. 

When it came time for my father to decide where to start his 

practice, they decided to move to Oregon. My mother had never 

been west of the Mississippi and she moved her entire family 

across the country based on one photograph of the Oregon coast. 

My mom loved Oregon. She often talked about the constraints 

and societal expectations that had burdened her in the East and 

how much she loved the free thinkers and independent thought 

that she found in Oregon. She was intellectual and practical, and 

raised my four siblings and I to evaluate and make our own decisions and to take care of ourselves. 

In January of 2000, my mother was diagnosed with lung cancer. 

She had a surgery to remove the tumor and was pronounced cured, 

though, of course, she was not. When the tumor returned a few 

months later, she had another surgery to remove her lung. Each 

of these surgeries was an enormous undertaking and she had a 

great deal of pain and long recoveries. 

In June of that year, my mother’s sister in Pennsylvania was 

also diagnosed with lung cancer. My aunt spent 100 days in a 

small hospital room prior to her natural death. Most of that time, 

she was in a coma and her three sons did their best to travel from 

Seattle, Florida and Geneva to spend time in that small hospital 

room. 

My mother and I visited my aunt several times and it became 

very clear to my mom that she did not want that death for herself 

or her family. In August of 2000, she was diagnosed as terminal 

and began talking to her children about hastening her death under 

9 

Oregon’s law. Over the next 4 months, she had multiple hospitalizations, CT scans, PET scans, bone scans, chemotherapy, and 

radiation treatments. I went with her to almost every one of her 

doctor appointments and treatment appointments. 

At the same time, though, she very much continued to make the 

most of every single day. She stayed very active in her book club, 

her bridge club, and in the lives of her five children and nine 

grandchildren. I wanted my mom to come and live with me during 

her last months, but she really didn’t want to do that. She wanted 

to be independent. She had a great apartment overlooking the 

Williamette River and she loved it there, and that is where she was 

most comfortable and that is where she wanted to be. So I respected that. 

One morning in December, my mom woke up and could not get 

out of bed because the pain was too great. She was hospitalized for 

3 weeks while we tried to control the pain well enough to fulfill her 

wishes and take her to the Oregon coast to die. She had two M.D. 

pain specialists attending her during those 3 weeks, and had a 

morphine pump installed directly into her spine. 

This next point I think is very important. I have two siblings 

who are physicians, very sophisticated physicians, and they are 

both married to physicians. My mom and dad, while my parents 

were divorced when she died, had been married for 40 years and 

my dad is a cardiologist. My mother had the most sophisticated 

medical and palliative care available. She had more doctors than 

anyone knew what to do with and we were all paying very close 

attention to her care. 

I remember very clearly when my mom made the decision to 

switch from trying everything to stay alive one more day to letting 

go and allowing herself to die. She came home from that last 3- 

week hospital stay and made her first request to hasten her death 

under Oregon’s law. This request was very consistent with my 

mom’s personality and with the forthrightness and acceptance with 

which she had treated her illness and terminal diagnosis. 

My three sisters, my brother and I all immediately supported 

her. After watching this disease ravage her body and after watching the dignity and grace with which she had handled a terrible 

year, we all felt she deserved this final bit of control. She failed 

rapidly during the 15 days of the mandatory waiting period under 

the law. She had been bedridden for 6 weeks and had lost control 

of her bodily functions. She began having difficulty breathing because of the tumors growing in her airways and she began 

coughing up blood. My sister, who is a pulmonologist, began to 

worry that she would hemorrhage in her lungs and drown. 

On the morning of January 25, 2001, my mom made her final request to end her suffering and use Oregon’s death with dignity law. 

On that morning, she lay in her own bed, in her own room, surrounded by her five children, our five spouses, her remaining sister 

and a nephew, and her long-time internist and friend. 

We read some poetry. We listened to some music, and she wanted to hear the 23rd Psalm. We all hugged her, kissed her and told 

her how much we loved her. Her final words before she drank the 

medication were ‘‘I don’t think anyone has realized how much pain 

10 

I have been in.’’ She drank the medication and fell peacefully into 

a coma within 5 minutes. Fifteen minutes after that, she died. 

I feel that my family was given a gift that morning. My final 

memories of my mother are profoundly loving and supportive. May 

we all be so lucky to die surrounded by those we love the most in 

the world. May we all be so lucky to have the last eyes we see and 

the last touch we feel be that of our children. 

The inevitability of my mother’s death from her disease was not 

in question. Her choice to hasten that inevitability was a reflection 

of her values and emblematic of the personal freedom our country 

prizes. Her choice was not about making that choice for others, as 

in euthanasia, nor was it in any way about demeaning the life of 

or compromising the rights of people with disabilities. Her choice 

in no way degraded or sought to critique the end-of-life choices that 

others with different values make everyday. 

On the contrary, my mother would have wanted people with different values, whether grounded in their religion or otherwise, to 

be able to make their own choices about how their lives come to 

an end when faced with a terminal diagnosis. Oregon’s law is about 

preserving those choices for everyone. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McMurchie appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you for a very touching statement, and I appreciate your willingness to travel here and your 

willingness to give it. That had to be very difficult to do. Thank you 

for doing it. 

Mr. Reitsema, thank you very much, as well, for traveling here 

to speak to the Subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF HENDRICK REITSEMA, ECK EN WIEL, THE 

NETHERLANDS 

Mr. REITSEMA. Thank you very much for the privilege of testifying today, Mr. Chairman. I too agree that dying with dignity is 

dying being loved by others. Dignity is something that is attributed 

and given, not something that we possess by ourselves. 

It was January 1996 that my Dutch grandfather was euthanized 

in an old people’s home in the north of the Netherlands. My family 

has never quite been the same since then, and I would like to impress upon you and all present that policymaking relating to life 

and death has massive consequences for all those people involved 

and the families around people who are touched by these policies. 

Since that event in 1996, I have done my level best to keep up 

with the developments in the Netherlands and the policies relating 

to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. I would like to share 

a snapshot of that development and how it has impacted my own 

family. 

I was visiting my grandfather at the beginning of the week that 

he was killed, unaware, as the rest of my family, that a treatment 

of morphine overdose and starvation was being applied to him. My 

‘‘opa,’’ as I called him, being a rather stubborn individual and a 

very devout Christian man, had had a stroke a couple of years 

prior to that, and he for that reason was partially paralyzed on one 

side and needed the care that you get in a nursing home. 

11 

My grandmother, who lived two street blocks away from this 

nursing home, visited him everyday, and many cousins often visited my grandfather, as did I, because he was an awful lot of fun 

to be around, a real patriarch of this close-knit and large family. 

It is very unlikely that this man who loved life so much and was 

mentally still so much up and with it—he could play a very good 

game of cards right up to close before he died—it is very unlikely 

that he would have expressed the desire to die. It would have flown 

against everything that he believed. 

Yet, the medical staff that surrounded him was working on what 

they perceived as providing a speedy and dignified and painless 

death, as they saw it. Now, take note that the Dutch are not some 

kind of monsters. The fact that we as a society have embraced euthanasia and assisted suicide is not because we disrespect life in 

the first place, but because of the motivation to fight suffering. The 

consequences, though, have been disastrous for many of us. 

By the mid-1990’s, this kind of procedure, when requested by ailing patients, was not at all uncommon in Dutch medical facilities. 

It all started basically in 1973 with the Geetruida Postma case, 

and through a series of court decisions and medical association 

guidelines, the parameters for assisted suicide and euthanasia 

which proved to be inextricably linked because of the involvement 

of the physician and the motivation to fight suffering—these decisions broadened the parameters to the situation in 2002 when it 

was formally legalized. 

In that trajectory, a set of criteria were formulated. Basically, 

they boil down to patient consent, to suffering that is unbearable 

without the prospect of improvement, being well-informed and consulting at least one independent physician. 

In my grandfather’s case, it is rather clear that what happened 

did not meet these criteria very well, the primary reason being that 

what happened in his treatment was not really being considered 

euthanasia, euthanasia being reserved only for active killing with 

lethal injection under sedation, with the immediate result of dying. 

Let’s say the extension of using pain treatment to end life was 

more what happened in his case. 

Let’s say the shifting tide in terms of the terminology has also 

produced a sort of vague, unclear zone, a gray area where a lot 

more people are confronted with physicians making active decisions 

about death than those that are reported in the formal Government 

reports. 

He was diagnosed with lymph cancer in December 1996, and in 

January 1996 the doctor decided, when he asked for pain relief 

treatment for a thrombotic leg, to instigate progressive morphine 

application and subsequent withholding of food. I visited him and 

was surprised at how fast he was deteriorating. At the end of that 

week, my aunt was visiting and she was feeding him some water 

at the moment when one of the nursing staff said, don’t do that, 

you are prolonging his death. This was the moment when the family discovered what was happening. 

Needless to say, pandemonium broke loose and we tried to reverse the situation unsuccessfully. He had already contracted pneumonia from the morphine overdose, which makes your tongue swell 

and makes it hard to get the phlegm out. He died the next day, 

12 

and the death reason on his death certificate was listed as pneumonia, not active activity of physicians. 

The impact on our family was massive. My father, who had been 

living in South Africa for 35 years, at that point already sometimes 

feeling guilty for being so far away, had planned a trip in March 

the moment he heard that my grandfather was ill. He never got 

the opportunity to do that. He had to shift the ticket to go to a funeral. My grandfather would probably have had about 3 years to 

live, given the prognosis. My sister is a physician and she surmised 

that it would have been roughly three years. 

In all of this, my grandmother was feeling pressured into agreeing with some kind of pain treatment she didn’t understand. I find 

that the most cruel event in what happened to the family. She 

agreed because of respect for the medical profession to whatever 

the doctors thought was good, not understanding the exact implications, and later was so traumatized by it that she for the rest of 

her life had a heard time talking about the whole event around my 

grandfather’s death. She herself in the end moved 200 kilometers, 

which in the Netherlands is a long way—that is halfway through 

our country—to be in a nursing home herself when she became infirm, where she would be guaranteed that they would respect her 

life. That meant that she had been to be away from all the people 

that she had relationships with close to home and it meant that 

she was afraid of the medical system. 

I think the Dutch legal system has gotten itself into a catch–22, 

that of trying to legalize for the sake of fighting pain and suffering, 

but in so doing having to provide some kind of immunity for doctors before they are willing to report their activity. The result is 

that only 40 to 50 percent is being reported at present, and that 

can hardly be considered an effective policy. 

I thank you for listening. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reitsema appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you for talking about another 

tough family situation and the practical events that happen. 

Mr. Imbody, thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN IMBODY, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CHRISTIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, ASHBURN, VIRGINIA 

Mr. IMBODY. Senator Brownback, thank you for this privilege of 

testifying. I serve as senior policy analyst with the Christian Medical Association, a professional organization of 17,000 members. 

I spent several months in the Netherlands a few years ago researching personal accounts of euthanasia. I knew from published 

medical studies that Dutch doctors admitted, on condition of anonymity, to putting approximately 1,000 patients to death a year 

without the patient’s request. 

I interviewed Dr. Zbigniew Zylicz, a Polish-born internal medicine and oncology specialist who practiced in the Netherlands since 

1979. Dr. Zylicz told me about his experience with an elderly patient in an academic hospital. He said, ‘‘My patient was afraid to 

go to the hospital,’’ similar to Mr. Reitsema’s grandmother, ‘‘because she was afraid of euthanasia. She was not asking for this. 

13 

She did not even want this, and they promised her that nothing 

would happen to her. I admitted her on the weekend to a bed of 

another patient who would be coming back Monday morning. I had 

no other facility for her. She was very ill and I expected she would 

die on the weekend, but she improved. With good treatment and 

pain control, she started to talk and she was not dead. On Monday 

morning when I went off my shift and went home, my colleague 

came and did something. I don’t know exactly what he did, but she 

died within 10 minutes. And the nurses called me at home. They 

were very upset about this and I was very upset about this, too. 

Dr. Zylicz added, and this was not the only single case. This was 

the whole system working like this.’’ 

The Dutch have a lot of faith in their dikes and in their regulations, but euthanasia introduces dangerous gray areas of decisionmaking by doctors and by vulnerable patients who feel pressured 

to die. These gray areas defy regulation. 

I interviewed a Dutch couple, Ed and Xandra, who told me about 

Ed’s father, Franz. Franz was a Dutch sailor who had reluctantly 

entered the hospital for pain relief. The doctors discovered that 

Franz had a terminal illness. 

Franz’s son, Ed, recalls, ‘‘We were all invited to the hospital 

when [the doctors] said the diagnosis. The doctors told my dad, 

well, you don’t have too long to live. We can’t guarantee anything, 

but if we operate, you could live longer and have more time to be 

with your kids.’’ Ed recalls, ‘‘When the doctors left, my sister said 

it very bluntly, just putting it on the table. ‘What about euthanasia’, she said.’’ 

Franz’s wife didn’t protest. Xandra suggests that is because 

Franz’s wife was angry with him and thought Franz had been unfaithful in their marriage. So Franz agreed to euthanasia. 

Xandra remembers the day the doctor came to put her father-inlaw to death. She said, ‘‘[The doctor] had all those little vials, and 

she had two injections, one to put him to sleep and one for the killing part. She was, OK, I need to do this now. Probably, she had 

another appointment after that.’’ 

‘‘Then she started injecting him,’’ Xandra recalls. ‘‘While she was 

giving the injection, I was standing at my father-in-law’s feet. He 

was really looking at me and at our baby. I was holding the baby 

at the time.’’ Then Xandra says her father-in-law suddenly cried 

out. He said, ‘‘I don’t want to die.’’ 

Xandra frantically looked to the doctor and at the others in the 

room, ‘‘but no one was reacting,’’ she recalls. She didn’t know what 

to do. ‘‘And then,’’ she says, ‘‘he was like he was in a deep sleep. 

So then the doctor started getting the other injection. Then I left 

the room.’’ Franz died from that second injection, whether he really 

wanted to or not. 

Once a country casts off millennia of Hippocratic and JudeoChristian prohibitions against suicide and euthanasia, the ship 

drifts farther and farther out to sea with no anchor. If we assume 

the power to kill patients who ask for it, why not kill disabled patients who cannot ask for it? If we assume the power to kill patients with physical illnesses, why not kill patients with emotional 

illnesses? If we assume the power to kill the elderly who have medical problems, why not kill infants who have medical problems? 

14 

This slippery slope is not theoretical. This is exactly what has 

happened in the Netherlands, and it can happen anywhere unless 

we provide truly compassionate alternatives to state-sponsored suicide. More doctors need advanced training in palliative care. In certain cases, more aggressive pain relief prescribing regulations will 

help doctors provide more effective relief for patients. Hospice care 

can provide tremendous benefits for patients and families. 

And this is something on which I think we all agree: Perhaps the 

most important help for terminally ill patients transcends medicine. The unconditional, persevering love of family, friends and God 

can provide us with incomparable strength, courage and hope beyond our physical condition. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Imbody appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. Imbody. Mr. 

Imbody, did you do a full report on the series of interviews that you 

did in the Netherlands? 

Mr. IMBODY. I have not. I have written a few articles, but I have 

not put it together in a full report. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. If you wouldn’t mind submitting for the 

record the articles, I would appreciate it, because if you did a series 

of interviews, it would be, I think, a good accumulation of information for us to be able to have as an examination for the Committee. 

Mr. IMBODY. I will. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. The Netherlands situation, Mr. 

Reitsema, you said started in 1973 when the law passed, or was 

it a court interpretation? What happened in the Netherlands? 

Mr. REITSEMA. It was a court interpretation where a physician 

aided her mother in killing her mother, euthanizing her. And the 

court, though they found her guilty of the crime of euthanasia, only 

applied a 1-week suspended sentence to her at that point. And this 

was the start of the courts giving a signal that as long as the criteria which the colleagues testified to in that court case, the physician colleagues of the physician involved—as long as those criteria 

of, let’s say, careful due process were being held to, the courts 

would then not litigate against or apply penalties against. So there 

was this development. 

The Dutch know more policy areas where we have what we call 

hedogbleit; i.e., something is formally illegal, but with a series of 

court decisions showing there will not be prosecution, it creates 

space for people as long as they are in contact with the Ministry 

of Justice and short of checking up— 

Chairman BROWNBACK. So you can do it. It is illegal, but there 

is no penalty? 

Mr. REITSEMA. Illegal, but no penalty, and to a certain extent 

having the blessing of the Ministry of Justice. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. This started in 1973 and then has 

been— 

Mr. REITSEMA. 1973, and slowly progressed right until 2002, 

where those criteria, basically the same criteria which were formulated then, became law, formalized law. Just in this last year, at 

the end of 2004 going into 2005, we have had the same process 

happening with infanticide where these basic criteria, save for paVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 045836 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45836.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
15 

tient consent, because babies are not capable of that, have been applied to infants in cases of unbearable suffering, et cetera. 

So the Department of Justice has agreed to not prosecute doctors 

as long as they stick within the parameters of this set of criteria. 

The Department of Justice has no intention of formally legalizing 

euthanasia for babies, or infanticide, at this point. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. How many cases of euthanasia a year 

now in the Netherlands? If you know particularly those of infants, 

I would like to know the number. 

Mr. REITSEMA. I will start with the question of adult euthanasia. 

It depends upon how you define euthanasia. The way the Department of Justice is defining it, there are about 3,500 cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. In a population of how many? 

Mr. REITSEMA. In a population of 17 million people. If one includes terminal sedation, as it is being called, which means putting 

somebody into a subconscious sleep state and not feeding them artificially, which is the only way you can feed somebody who is 

sedated, that number would increase to be about 14,000 people of, 

let’s say, the formally registered, which is about 10 percent of all 

deaths in the Netherlands. So about 10 percent of all deaths in the 

Netherlands at the moment have a physician-assisted component 

in the killing. That would be equivalent to about 420,000 people in 

the USA if you would compute it on the population here. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. And infants? 

Mr. REITSEMA. In infants, there is a report between 1997 and 

2004 where 22 cases were formally reported over that whole period. 

Government studies show that there are about 20 cases, where an 

independent British medical journal study shows that there were 

almost 100 cases, 20 with lethal injection and 80 by the withholding of food and the necessary means to stay alive. So probably 

about 100 per year is an accurate figure. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Do we have other countries to track that 

have had this much experience with euthanasia. The Netherlands 

is well-known. To me, it is always worthwhile to look at what has 

been the experience of other countries. 

Mr. REITSEMA. The Netherlands is unique in terms of the length 

of history with these policies, but a country like Belgium has similarly legalized up to a certain extent. The numbers in the Belgian 

situation are much lower than in the Netherlands. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. I want to thank the panel, and particularly, Ms. McMurchie, on your closeness to the difficulty. My apologies for language used that offended you. I did not intend to do 

that and I apologize to you for that. 

One of my biggest concerns here is where does this go once you 

start in it, and that is why the questioning here. And if you want 

to respond to that, I would be happy to have you respond to that 

point, because when you start down these policy roads, that is always a point you are really wondering at the end of it. Where does 

this go to? A lot of times, we are just trying to do what is good 

right, and then you get 20 years down the road and you ask how 

did we get here. 

Ms. MCMURCHIE. Oregon’s law has very defined and very clear 

safeguards to keep us from approaching that slippery slope. As you 

16 

said—and Kathryn Tucker can talk more about this; she knows a 

lot more than I do—in the Glucksberg case, it was sent back to our 

State as a test tube, if you will, to see how those safeguards would 

work, and it has worked beautifully. 

There have been zero reports of abuses, zero reports of coercion 

in this law. It is very much the individual’s choice. The safeguards 

include waiting periods, specific requests made both in writing and 

verbally. The medication has to be self-administered. My mother 

had to be able to hold that medication in a glass by herself and 

drink it by herself. We couldn’t touch it. And that is what she did. 

There has just been nothing to suggest that any of these fears— 

I mean, euthanasia is such a completely different issue than Oregon’s aid in dying law, completely different, and I have great respect for that difference. This is very much a personal choice about 

one’s own impending death. This isn’t about anyone trying to coerce a disabled person. It is not saying anything about a disabled 

person’s life or the value of that life whatsoever. It has nothing to 

do with that. It is an individual person’s choice. 

We keep a lot of data in Oregon and Compassion and Choices 

has a lot of data about the motivations that the individuals that 

use the law or request the law—the motivations that cause them 

to do so, and it is all about autonomy and enjoying life and a little 

bit about pain control. It is not about money. It is not about anything other than that personal choice. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. I appreciate that. The concern is that the 

Netherlands came into this by a daughter trying to help her mother in a difficult situation, and then you are 30 years out and you 

have got the kinds of numbers even on infants that you are looking 

at. When you enter that policy field and you are saying, OK, we 

are going to say this is all right, where do you end up? 

Ms. MCMURCHIE. But they take the choices away from the individual, which we do not at all in any way do. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. I thank the panel very much. 

Ms. MCMURCHIE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. I will call up Wesley Smith, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute; Kathryn Tucker, Director of Legal 

Affairs, Compassion and Choices; Rita Marker; Ann Jackson; and 

Diane Coleman. 

If I could ask this panel if you would stick to the timeframes, we 

have got a large panel and I am told a vote in 45 minutes and I 

would like to conclude this by that period of time. So if we could 

stay with your timeframes, I would certainly appreciate that. 

Mr. Smith, thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF WESLEY J. SMITH, SENIOR FELLOW, 

DISCOVERY INSTITUTE, CASTRO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Senator Brownback, for having me. I appreciate it very much. I will omit my biographical data, since it is 

attached to my written testimony, and go right into the presentation. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Please, and all of your written testimony 

will be included in the record, so you can summarize. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

17 

I appear today to argue that there is a proper public policy role 

for the Federal Government against assisted suicide, such as prohibiting federally controlled substances from being used to intentionally end life and in the application of other Government policies 

consistent with the standards of federalism. This would be in keeping with the existing Government policy that prohibits Federal 

money from being used to fund assisted suicide under the Medicaid 

program. 

There are two deep ideological beliefs asserted by advocates for 

justifying the legalization of assisted suicide. The first is a radical 

individualism that perceives personal autonomy as being virtually 

absolute, as including the individual’s right to self-determination, 

including a right to control the time, place and manner of death. 

The second ideological principle underlying assisted suicide is that 

killing, which simply means ending life—that is descriptive—can 

be an acceptable answer to the problem of human suffering. 

Assisted suicide advocacy in the U.S. is usually couched in terms 

that would limit assisted suicide to those who are terminally ill. 

But given the philosophical and ideological principles that underlie 

the assisted suicide movement that autonomy is paramount and 

killing is a valid answer to human suffering, restricting assisted 

suicide to the dying becomes utterly illogical. After all, many people experience far greater suffering and for a far longer period than 

people who are terminally ill. 

Thus, once the premises of assisted suicide advocacy become accepted by a broad swath of the medical professions and the public, 

there seems little chance that the eligibility for permitted suicide 

will remain limited to the terminally ill. We need only look to the 

experience of the Netherlands to see the destructive force that the 

implacable logic of assisted suicide ideology unleashes. 

The Dutch have permitted euthanasia and assisted suicide since 

1973, when it was, in essence, decriminalized by a court ruling so 

long as certain protective guidelines were followed. And as you 

heard, they were formally legalized in 2002. In actual practices, 

these guidelines have provided scant protection for the weak, vulnerable and despairing. 

Indeed, since 1973, Dutch doctors have gone from killing terminally ill people who ask for it, to chronically ill people who ask for 

it, to disabled people who ask for it, to people who aren’t sick but 

depressed who ask for it. The assisted suicide of depressed people 

was explicitly approved by the Dutch supreme court in the death 

of Hilly Bosscher. Bosscher wanted to kill herself because she had 

lost her two sons. Bosscher had one desire left in life, which was 

to be buried between her two dead children. 

Her psychiatrist, Dr. Boudewijn Chabot, met with her on four occasions without attempting to treat her. Believing her to be suffering from what he called incurable grief, he helped Bosscher kill 

herself. The Dutch supreme court validated Chabot’s actions on the 

basis that the law cannot distinguish between suffering caused by 

physical illness and suffering caused by mental anguish. 

In the Netherlands, infants are killed by doctors because they 

have birth defects. A 1997 study published in the British medical 

journal, the Lancet, revealed how deeply pediatric euthanasia had 

18 

implanted itself into Dutch neo-natal medical practice. And as you 

heard, that amounts to almost 100 babies per year. 

Dutch doctors also euthanize people who have not asked to be 

killed. This practice even has a name—termination without request 

or consent. Dutch Government studies show that at least 900 such 

people are killed each year, and even though this is murder under 

Dutch law, virtually nothing meaningful is ever done about it. 

The Netherlands is a very small country, Mr. Chairman, with 

about 130,000 total deaths per year. We are not small. About 2 million of us die each year. To see the death toll that would occur in 

the United States if assisted suicide became normalized, we need 

only apply Dutch euthanasia statistics to the United States population, and these are older statistics in which fewer people were 

being euthanized based on the Remmelink report of 1990. 

In that year, 2,700 patients were euthanized or assisted in suicide by their doctors upon request. We are not talking about involuntary or nonvoluntary—upon request. Based on our higher population, the equivalent number of deaths by assisted suicide in the 

United States would be approximately 41,500 hastened deaths per 

year. Clearly, the stakes for America’s seriously ill, disabled and elderly patients in this debate are very high indeed. 

I would like to finish my testimony by quoting a friend of mine 

who died of ALS. His name was Bob Salamanca, and I met him as 

a hospice volunteer. I had been a hospice volunteer. I was trained 

specifically as a hospice volunteer that if any patient was suicidal, 

I was to tell the team so that intervention could be done to prevent 

the suicide—suicide prevention, which almost always works when 

it is actually applied. It doesn’t always work, but it quite frequently 

does. 

Bob Salamanca was quite aware of the debate about assisted suicide, and he was spitting nails because what he said was, you 

know, if somebody has one situation for wanting suicide, the state 

will prevent it, but if I ask for suicide, some people say the state 

should permit it to be facilitated. And he wrote a piece in the 1997 

San Francisco Chronicle and this is what he said, and I would like 

his voice to be heard. 

‘‘Euthanasia advocates believe they are doing people like me a 

favor. They are not. The negative emotions toward the terminally 

ill and disabled generated by their advocacy is actually at the expense of the dying and their families and friends, who often feel 

disheartened and without self-assurance because of a false picture 

of what it is like to die created by these enthusiasts who prey on 

the misinformed. What we the terminally ill need is exactly the opposite, to realize how important our lives are, and our loved ones, 

friends, and indeed society need to help us to feel that we are loved 

and appreciated unconditionally.’’ 

Bob Salamanca died peacefully in his sleep of Lou Gehrig’s disease. I gave his eulogy, and he would be so proud today to be able 

to have testified in front of this panel. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. That is very powerful, very good. 

Professor Tucker. 

19 

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN TUCKER, DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, COMPASSION AND CHOICES, AND AFFILIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF 

LAW, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

Ms. TUCKER. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks for inviting me 

to testify at this important hearing. As Legal Director for Compassion and Choices, I speak on behalf of our supporters who strongly 

believe, as do a majority of Americans, that dying patients should 

be empowered to control their dying process. 

Even with excellent pain and symptom management, a fraction 

of dying patients will confront a dying process so prolonged and 

marked by such extreme suffering and deterioration that they determine that hastening their own impending death is their least 

worst alternative. 

I represented the patients in the Glucksberg and Quill cases and 

in the Oregon v. Gonzales case, so I do know a bit about this area. 

In Glucksberg and Quill, the terminally ill patients and physicians 

brought action against the States of Washington and New York for 

States laws that criminalized so-called assisted suicide to the extent that it would apply to a mentally competent, terminally ill patient who wanted to control the time and manner of death. 

They sought the right to do so under the Federal Constitution. 

Those claims were successful in both the Second and Ninth Circuit 

Courts of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court refrained from finding 

a Federal constitutional right in 1997, believing that the issue 

should be left to the States in the first instance. And the Court’s 

decision encouraged the earnest and profound debate about the 

matter to continue. 

Eight years of experience in Oregon—Ann Jackson will testify to 

that. I won’t speak in great detail in deference to her testimony. 

However, I will say that with this 8 years of experience, objective 

observers nationwide have now published studies and publicly spoken out that what we can see from Oregon is that—and here is a 

quote from the State of Vermont examining this question, quote, ‘‘It 

is quite apparent from credible sources in and out of Oregon that 

the Death with Dignity Act has not had an adverse impact on endof-life care, and in all probability has enhanced other options.’’ 

The Director of Bioethics at Pennsylvania Medical School, an objective outside observer, said after reviewing the Oregon data, 

quote, ‘‘I was worried about people being pressured to do this, but 

the data confirms that the policy in Oregon is working. There is no 

evidence of abuse, coercion or misuse.’’ 

Just recently this term, the American Public Health Association 

submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 

Gonzales v. Oregon case in which the group advised the Court that 

researchers have consistently found that the experience in Oregon 

does not bear out concerns that physician-assistance would be disproportionately chosen by or forced on terminally ill patients who 

are poor, uneducated, uninsured, or fearful of financial consequences of their illness. 

Terminally ill Oregonians do not choose assisted dying because 

they have untreated pain. On the contrary, Oregonians have access 

to good pain and symptom management. Only the relatively few 

who find that the cumulative burden of their illness is intolerable 

20 

persist in the desire to hasten death and go on to use the Dignity 

Act. 

Nationwide, although Oregon is yet the only State to legalize this 

option, support is wide and deep. All of the polling shows 65 or 70 

percent of Americans support this choice and would like to see it 

enacted in their own States. Recently, in California, which is a 

State considering a similar measure, 70 percent of Californians 

across all demographics, all religious groups, all ages, support the 

idea that incurably ill patients have the right to ask for and receive 

life-ending medication. I should say that that is the California 

Compassionate Choices Act that is pending. 

Support is found among persons of diverse religious faiths. In the 

Oregon v. Gonzales case, an amicus brief was filed by a religious 

coalition which advised the Court as follows, quote, ‘‘Numerous 

faiths, religious organizations and religious leaders strongly support physician-assisted dying as an entirely legitimate and moral 

choice.’’ 

Support is also strong among physicians, with all polling showing 

a majority of physicians favoring patients being empowered to 

make this choice for themselves. And all of my written testimony 

has citation to those studies. Mental health professionals also recognize that dying patients can choose to hasten impending death 

and be fully mentally competent and, in fact, be acting to preserve 

sense of self. Again, an amicus brief submitted in the Gonzales case 

details that and I quote that at length in my written testimony. 

Although only legal in Oregon, there is a widespread back-alley, 

underground practice where patients want the freedom to make 

this choice and they have to turn to the back alley. Many studies 

document this and many patients and families have spoken of this 

publicly. 

What happens when a patient cannot find a physician who feels 

safe in discussing this and helping the patient is the patient often 

acts alone with violent or uncertain means or calls on family members. And there was a dramatic case in Connecticut just this past 

year exemplifying that. The amicus brief in the Quill, Glucksberg 

and Gonzales cases of surviving family members speaks to that experience as well—the stories of loved ones who didn’t have access 

or authority to empower their own decisionmaking at end of life, 

a very different story than you heard from Julie McMurchie today 

about a peaceful death at home, in bed, with loved ones present in 

a peaceful and humane manner. 

The question is not whether assisted dying will occur, but rather 

whether it will occur in a regulated and controlled fashion with 

safeguards and scrutiny or whether it will occur covertly, in a random, dangerous, unregulated manner. 

In conclusion, in the Glucksberg and Quill cases, the Court recognized that Justice Brandeis’ concept of the States as laboratories 

was particularly applicable to physician-assisted dying. The Court’s 

conclusion in those cases that the Federal Constitution does not 

bar States from prohibiting the practice rested in a reluctance to 

reach a premature constitutional judgment that would cutoff the 

process of democratic decisionmaking. 

It is timely, prudent and humane for States to enact laws to empower terminally ill, mentally competent adult citizens to control 

21 

the timing and manner of their deaths by enabling them to obtain 

medications from their physicians that could be self-administered 

to bring about a peaceful and humane death, subject to careful procedures. Passage of such a law harms no one and benefits both the 

relatively few patients in extremis who make use of such a law and 

a great many more who draw comfort from knowing this option is 

available should their dying process become intolerable. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tucker appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Professor. 

Ms. Marker, thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF RITA L. MARKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

INTERNATIONAL TASK FORCE ON EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE, STEUBENVILLE, OHIO 

Ms. MARKER. Thank you for inviting me to be here today and to 

testify. 

In 1994, Oregon transformed the crime of assisted suicide into a 

medical treatment when it passed the Death with Dignity Act. In 

November of 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued an interpretive ruling, known as the Ashcroft Directive, in which he stated 

that doctors could risk losing their Federal registration to prescribe 

federally controlled substances if they did so for the purpose of suicide. He based that ruling on the fact that he interpreted prescribing for suicide as being not in the public interest and that 

such prescribing would not be a legitimate medical purpose under 

the Controlled Substances Act. 

Contrary to widespread misunderstanding, the Ashcroft Directive, if it had been upheld, would not have overturned Oregon’s 

law. Assisted suicide would still have been legal in Oregon. Doctors 

could still have carried it out. Doctors could still have prescribed 

any of a number of other prescription drugs that were not federally 

controlled. 

Now, as you have heard, the directive was immediately challenged, and in January of this year the U.S. Supreme Court found 

that the Attorney General had actually exceeded his authority 

when he issued his directive. However, that decision was not an endorsement of Oregon’s law. It was a very narrow decision and it 

was based on the fact that the Controlled Substances Act does not 

explicitly prohibit prescribing for suicide and does not explicitly 

state that such prescribing of federally controlled substances for 

suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose. But the Court was 

clear that if Congress wishes to make such an explicit statement, 

it can definitely do so by explicit language in the statute. So it is 

up to Congress to decide. 

Now, it helps to examine a bit more what is happening in Oregon, and we do hear about the safeguards. We hear a lot about 

that. In fact, the Court even referred to some of those safeguards, 

so why don’t I just go over a few of the so-called safeguards that 

are in the Oregon law. 

One is reporting, and that was intended to prevent abuses and 

to assure that there would be compliance. In the annual reports, 

it is found that there were 246 reported cases of assisted suicide 

22 

in Oregon since it went into effect. However, those numbers may 

or may not be accurate. As Dr. Katrina Hedberg, who is no opponent of Oregon’s law—she was one of the lead authors in most of 

the official Oregon reports—she had said there is no way to know 

if additional deaths were reported, and she said that there is no 

way to know because there is no regulatory authority or resources 

to ensure compliance with the law. 

Likewise, as far as complications, Dr. Hedberg said that not only 

do we not have the resources to investigate, but we don’t have the 

legal authority to do so. All information in the annual reports, the 

reports that sound so glowing, actually come from the very doctors 

who are doing the prescribing. As the State of Oregon said in its 

first official summary, we just have to assume that doctors are 

being their usual careful, accurate selves, but we have no way of 

knowing if the information is accurate or complete. 

Then there is the whole requirement that patients be referred for 

counseling if their judgment is impaired, if the physician believes 

that to be the case. Well, in fact, in each of the last 3 years, only 

two patients have been referred for counseling before getting the 

prescription for the lethal drugs. 

But even more importantly, the State of Oregon’s Death with 

Dignity Act refers to what happens when the prescription is written, but there is no requirement that the patient be competent at 

the time the prescription is filled or taken. And again, as Dr. 

Hedberg said, the law itself only provides for the writing of the prescription, not what happens afterwards. 

A final safeguard that is mentioned is that the patient to be 

qualified has to have a six-month life expectancy or less. But according to Dr. Peter Rasmussen, who acknowledges having participated in suicide deaths under Oregon’s law in the double digits, he 

said the prognosis is undoubtedly inaccurate. His exact words were 

that ‘‘We can easily be one hundred percent off.’’ He said we could 

say 6 months, but it could really be 12, but he said I don’t think 

this is a problem. Well, so much for that safeguard. 

When you get right down to it, the safeguards are mere illusions. 

They are about as protective as the emperor’s new clothes. So the 

question is, is it the intent of Congress to have federally issued registrations to prescribe federally controlled substances used in this 

manner? It is obviously up to Congress. 

The CSA can be amended. Congress has never endorsed suicide, 

as you well know, and went a long way in refusing to facilitate it 

by passing the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997. 

This precludes the use of Federal funding for suicide. It does not 

prevent using State money for it and, in fact, the State of Oregon 

uses State money for suicide. 

Likewise, Congress can say Federal registrations to prescribe 

federally controlled substances may not be used for the purpose of 

suicide. This would indeed leave States to permit doctors to use 

their medical licenses, which are run by the State, to prescribe 

other substances. 

In closing, I want to just mention a couple of facts about suicide. 

By the way, suicide, as it is being used here and as I am using it, 

is just very explicitly meaning the act or instance of taking one’s 

23 

own life voluntarily or intentionally. That is not emotionally 

charged or value-laden. 

In the United States, in 1999, the Surgeon General actually announced that suicide had become a serious public health problem. 

As of 2004, there were twice as many suicides per year as homicides in the United States. When Congress last amended the CSA 

in 1984, it could not have envisioned that it would be considered 

appropriate to use a Federal registration to prescribe for the purpose of suicide. Congress can easily remedy this and it is up to 

Congress. 

Thank you very much, and I stand ready to assist in any way 

or answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Marker appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thanks, Ms. Marker. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Jackson, thank you for coming. 

STATEMENT OF ANN JACKSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OREGON HOSPICE ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, OREGON 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, thank you very much for inviting me to join 

you today. I have been Director of the Oregon Hospice Association 

for the past 18 years. OHA is a charitable public-benefit organization whose goal is to make sure that all Oregonians can have highquality care, care that is consistent with their personal values 

when facing a life-threatening illness. I am a co-investigator of research concerning hospice workers’ experiences with Oregon’s 

Death with Dignity Act and with hastening death. 

In January of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, as we 

have mentioned before, that it was the States, not the Justice Department, that have the authority to regulate medical treatment 

for the terminally ill. OHA was relieved by the Supreme Court’s decision, not because we support or oppose the Death with Dignity 

Act, but because a decision in favor of the Justice Department 

would have added to the chilling impact that regulatory scrutiny 

has on pain management, and because a decision against Oregon 

would have interrupted important research in our laboratories of 

the States without good reason. 

In fact, in the first 8 years, the Act has been very responsibly implemented. None of the predicted dire consequences has occurred. 

Reports issued by the State of Oregon, as required and supported 

and augmented by numerous independent studies, are closing a 

data void. Assisted dying has never before been practiced in a legal 

environment. We are learning from this wealth of knowledge, applying it to approved end-of-life care in Oregon, and it is knowledge 

that has application well beyond our borders. 

We have learned that physician-assisted dying is not disproportionately selected by those who lack financial resources, health insurance, family support, or education. These individuals tend to be 

more highly educated, have as much or more social support and 

adequate financial means. Only two have not had health insurance. 

We have learned that assisted dying is not disproportionately 

used by minorities or the disabled. While fearing pain is a concern, 

experiencing pain is not a factor. Assisted dying is not used by peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 045836 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45836.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
24 

ple without access to hospice and palliative care. Every Oregonian 

has access, even in the most remote and rural areas of the State. 

Every Oregonian has access to all legal end-of-life options, regardless of who they are or where they live in Oregon. 

We have learned that Oregon’s hospice workers strongly support 

a dying Oregonian’s right to choose from among all end-of-life options. We have learned how important it is for them to set aside 

their own needs, as health care professionals must often do, to 

meet the needs of their patients. We have learned that depression 

is not an important factor. Hospice workers rank depression and financial concerns among the least important reasons an individual 

will ask for or use a prescription. 

Mental health referrals have declined because physicians routinely refer patients to hospice. Psycho-social and mental status is 

constantly assessed, addressed and monitored by hospice social 

workers and the hospice team. 

Hospice workers have noted that violent suicide among hospice 

patients, rare in the past, is virtually non-existent now. Suicide 

rates in Oregon have always been among the highest in the Nation, 

but not among the dying at this time. Having health insurance is 

not an issue. Oregon’s hospices provide care without regard to a patient’s ability to pay. In addition, hospices can identify at admission 

individuals as immediately eligible for the Oregon health plan’s 

hospice benefit. 

The perspective of hospice workers is important. They visit patients and family caregivers often in the last weeks of life and can 

compare hospice patients who ask for a prescription with those who 

do not. Almost all who have used assisted dying have been offered 

hospice and 90 percent were enrolled. 

Patients’ physicians identify autonomy, the ability to enjoy life 

and loss of dignity as primary concerns of those who use assisted 

dying in Oregon. Hospice workers consistently identify controlling 

circumstances of death, loss of dignity and the desire to die at 

home as the most important reasons. 

Oregon’s home death rate is the highest, its hospital death rate 

the lowest. Eighty percent of Oregonians have an advance directives and they are followed. When the POLST, physician orders for 

life-sustaining treatment, is in place, respect for wishes is virtually 

one hundred percent. The POLST, which was developed in Oregon, 

is being adopted throughout the country. 

Hospice utilization is and has been among the highest in the 

country. In fact, Oregon was declared the national leader in endof-life care in 1998, just before the Death with Dignity Act was implemented, and maintains its position as the leader today. It is not 

true that the quality of hospice and palliative care in Oregon has 

suffered. Only 246 individuals, not thousands, have ended their 

lives under provisions of the Act—246 of 240,000 Oregonians who 

died in the same period. 

A study published in 2004 revealed that just 1 of 200 individuals 

who considers assisted dying and 1 of 25 who makes a formal request will actually use a prescription. Oregon’s hospices describe as 

typical an individual who asks for a prescription on day 1, becomes 

qualified on day 15, and because he has a plan for his worst fears, 

25 

is able to get on with life. That the Oregon law is available, regardless of whether it is used, offers great comfort. 

One explanation for the very low rate may be the high quality 

of hospice and palliative care in Oregon. Oregon’s hospices recognized early in the public debate that hospice support, or the lack 

of it, would be a determining factor in whether a patient would 

choose to hasten death. Hospice addresses most fears identified by 

the public as reasons for supporting the legalization of assisted 

dying. 

But autonomy and control, not uncontrolled symptoms, are the 

reasons people use a prescription. The medical community has not 

taken such preferences into great consideration in the past. But 

those are among the few reasons Congress should consider carefully before it takes further action against Oregon. The Oregon 

Hospice Association would like to think that Congress will consider 

the potential repercussions on pain management and end-of-life 

care. Even a proposed law can have an immediate effect of undermining physician willingness to prescribe controlled substances, as 

we saw in its previous attempts to compromise Oregon’s law. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Ms. Jackson, we are going to start wrapping it up. I just want to make sure we get some time— 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I am. 

The Oregon Hospice Association would prefer to think that Congress will recognize and respect the Supreme Court’s belief in the 

value offered in the laboratory of the States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you, Ms. Jackson. 

Ms. Coleman. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE COLEMAN, PRESIDENT, NOT DEAD YET, 

FOREST PARK, ILLINOIS 

Ms. COLEMAN. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on behalf of Not Dead Yet, a disability rights group that 

opposes legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. 

The first thing I want to emphasize is that I am sick and tired 

of the ways that the culture war has been used to exclude and 

marginalize the disability community in the public debate on these 

issues. I am sick and tired of our opponents on the family privacy 

issue— 

[Applause.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Please, no outbursts. I appreciate people’s opinions, and everybody is certainly entitled to that, but let’s 

not have an outburst here. 

Ms. Coleman. 

Ms. COLEMAN. I am sick and tired of our opponents on the family 

privacy issue, often our progressive allies on other issues, who talk 

about the Schiavo case as a conservative travesty and over-simplify 

the dangers facing people who depend on others for basic needs. 

The most common elder guardians are the spouse and adult 

child, who are also the most common perpetrators of elder abuse. 

If we were talking about child abuse, everyone would admit that 

there is a legitimate role for Government intervention, carefully 

26 

balanced against privacy rights. Do people in guardianship deserve 

less? 

Nor can we trust State courts as the final word. If we were talking about death penalty, most would admit that the courts are far 

from infallible and that a right of Federal review is an important 

protection for the constitutional rights of the accused. Do people in 

guardianship deserve any less? 

I am also sick and tired of our allies on this issue, often our conservative opponents on other issues, who see assisted suicide and 

euthanasia as violating their principles, but see no contradiction as 

they slash budgets for the health care we need to survive. This is 

nothing less than back-door euthanasia. 

Assisted suicide is supposedly about terminal illness, not disability. So many question the legitimacy of disability groups meddling and trying to take away what they see as the general public’s 

right to choose assisted suicide. The real issue is the reasons people 

ask for and doctors give assisted suicide. 

Although intractable pain was sold as the primary problem, it is 

really a bait-and-switch. The reasons doctors actually report are 

the patient’s loss of autonomy, loss of dignity, feelings of being a 

burden. Unfortunately, popular culture has done virtually nothing 

to educate the public about how people with severe disabilities actually live autonomous and dignified lives. Our lives are portrayed 

as tragedies or sensationalized as heroism, but the real-life issues 

and coping styles that most people will need if they live long 

enough are left out of the picture. No wonder people who acquire 

disabilities so often see death as the only viable solution. 

Disability concerns are focused on the systemic implications of 

adding assisted suicide to the list of medical treatment options 

available to seriously ill and disabled people. The disability rights 

movement has a long history of healthy skepticism toward medical 

professionals who are assisted suicide’s gatekeepers, which has 

grown to outright distrust since managed care took over. 

But perhaps the most important question is not whether the 

rights of the few people who request assisted suicide and get it 

have been compromised, though that is a concern, but whether legalizing these individual assisted suicides has a broader social impact. 

Does it matter that a society accepts the disability-related reasons that people give for assisted suicide, declares the suicide rational and provides the lethal means to complete it neatly? Does it 

harm people who are not deemed eligible for assisted suicide under 

the current version of the law, but still experience the same sense 

of loss? 

I think we should look at the fact that Oregon has the fourth 

highest elder suicide rate in the country. In the face of constant social messages that needing help in everyday living or being incontinent robs one of dignity and autonomy, makes one a burden and 

justifies State-sponsored suicide, maybe Oregon’s elders have taken 

this disgusting and prejudicial message to heart. What looks to 

some like a choice to die begins to look more like a duty to die to 

many disability activists. 

There is also the problem of doctors as gatekeepers. This week, 

I received a phone call from a woman with three children. Her exVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 045836 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45836.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
27 

husband, age 35, had been in a car wreck April 2nd. She said that 

he had been on a ventilator until 2 weeks ago. She described ways 

in which he seemed to be slowly improving in responsiveness, but 

from the beginning the doctors had urged the man’s mother to 

withhold treatment. Last week, they finally persuaded her to remove his food and fluids, and he died Sunday. I am getting too 

many calls like this from people being pressured to withhold treatment. 

Another key issue is the problem of State guardians who have 

an inherent conflict of interest due to the State’s role in Medicaid. 

Now, increasingly another type of third-party medical decision 

threatens older and disabled people—decisions by physicians in 

open opposition to the patient, their surrogate or their advance directive; i.e., futility. 

A Muslim family from Naperville, Illinois, visited my office recently with detailed records of how family members were pressured 

to sign a ‘‘do not resuscitate’’ order for their mother. They complained that the ethics committee had no one from their own religion. When they finally refused the DNR, the doctor denied resuscitation anyway and the mother died. 

Basically, the bioethicists have warped so-called end-of-life care 

into life-ending non-care. They have had hundreds of millions of 

dollars to work with and they have used it to build a guardianship 

and futile care steamroller that is decimating the civil and constitutional rights of people whose lives are viewed as too marginal 

or costly to merit support. That is the system in which people are 

talking about introducing assisted suicide. 

While disagreeing with mainstream bioethics, the conservatives 

have their own way of rationing health care. Instead of rationing 

based on the person’s health status, they ration based on economic 

status. For those who depend on publicly funded health care, Federal and State budget cuts pose a very large threat. I can’t help but 

note that the power for much of the end-of-life movement has come 

from the fact that Medicare, including the new Part D, does not 

cover the primary pain relieving medications, continuing a pattern 

of extortion— 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Ms. Coleman, in all fairness, I need to 

have you also wrap up, if you could. 

Ms. COLEMAN. OK. Regardless of our abilities or disabilities, 

none of us should feel that we have to die to have dignity or that 

we have to die to be relieved of pain or that we should die to stop 

burdening our families or society. Reject the script you have been 

given by the right to die and the right to life movements. Instead, 

listen to the disability rights movement. We offer a very different 

vision, as well as the practical know-how and leadership to build 

a society and a health care system that respects and welcomes everyone. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Coleman appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. I want to thank 

the whole panel. It was a thoughtful set of comments, and a good 

chiding, too, from Ms. Coleman, and good and appropriate. 

Let me pick up on, Ms. Coleman, your comments, and I want to 

ask just a couple of questions, given where the time is on it, beVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 045836 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45836.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
28 

cause I agree with what you are saying about the messages that 

society sends out. I think those are important. I think the messages 

that the law sends out are important, as well, and I am concerned 

about what those do. 

I believe that we should message that all life at all stages at all 

times in all places, no matter who it is, is beautiful and sacred life; 

that that should be the message coming out. I grow concerned 

when laws come forward like these that seem to send another message out in the system. OK, it may be true, it may not be true, but 

I think from what I hear you saying people receive the message as 

that there is more pressure to die. 

Am I correct in hearing what you are saying, and then do you 

see statistics that then back that up? You cite some in Oregon. Do 

you see that in other places? 

Ms. COLEMAN. There is very little data. In fact, it seems to me 

that there has not been much research about people requesting to 

die and what happens as they evolve through their own process of 

being terminally ill or the processes that people go through in acquiring disabilities. Frankly, we would like to see a lot more research about this end-of-life area than has been conducted. Right 

now, the causes of death are hidden. The things that doctors say 

to people are not analyzed in terms of their impact on the decisions 

people make. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. You don’t think we know very much 

about why people in a disability situation die and what is happening surrounding them? 

Ms. COLEMAN. Or in a terminal illness situation. I mean, most 

people who are terminal go through phases of disability before they 

get there and that is a source of great concern to us because we 

see people trying to say, well, there is some fundamental difference 

between the terminally ill and the disabled, and that is not the 

case at all. Terminally ill people are a subset of people with disabilities. 

The issues that they are raising about the concerns they face are 

the same as disability issues, that sense of being a burden on family if there is not enough home and community-based services or 

other services to make it practical. And that burden feeling is a 

source of great concern. We are all in favor of the implementation 

of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead which would give 

consumers a choice in long-term care, and that is not happening 

yet in most States. Those choices are not there and many people 

are forced into institutions where they pretty much say, well, I 

would rather die than go to a nursing home. That could be considered understandable, but we are really trying to push for much better options that give people the kind of support they need and are 

not forcing them into situations where they feel like a burden on 

family. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Let me ask Mr. Smith, if I could, I ran 

across statistics and held a hearing on it a year ago—Senator Kennedy and I have a bill addressing it—on the percent of children diagnosed with Down’s syndrome in utero that are aborted. We are 

at nearly 90 percent now of children in the United States diagnosed in utero with Down’s syndrome that are then aborted. 

29 

Senator Kennedy and I have a bill. We are obviously on different 

sides in the abortion issue, but both of us feel like that number is 

just way too high. And it is very troubling that you would get 

somebody that has Down’s syndrome—if they get here, feet on the 

ground, they are protected and we try to work with the situation 

with the Americans With Disabilities Act. But if you are in the 

womb, you are disproportionately killed. It is one of those things 

that you look at and you say, OK, is that an unintended consequence of saying, OK, this is the right to choose, this is where 

we are? 

I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it, period, that this is taking 

place, and yet it almost seems to be a product of, OK, we have got 

a right to choice in 1973, in Roe. Then the science further develops 

and we can determine the information better. We are going to be 

able to do soon over a hundred tests in utero for what the child 

looks like, or features. 

These sorts of unintended consequences when you start down a 

path—it seems like to me we have seen one there and you have got 

a similar path you could argue we may well be looking at in this 

feature; that we don’t know in 20, 30 years where we end up if you 

open this door and what technology will drive you to at that point 

in time. 

Have you seen papers? Are there people who have written on 

this topic that you look at and you say, OK, this is a reasonable 

place we would be in 30 years if we opened this door, or given the 

technology trends that we have, given the change of law that this 

would be? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, I have, actually. It strikes me that what you are 

describing is a return of eugenics thinking, and that is a subset of 

a belief that human life does not have intrinsic value simply and 

merely because it is human. I remember once giving a speech to 

a medical school in which I proposed that we have to look, especially medical professionals, at each human being as having equal 

human dignity. That is the fundamental basis of universal human 

rights. 

I had a bright young medical student come up to me afterwards 

and he said, you know, I am involved in genetic counseling. What 

am I supposed to tell people when a woman presents having tested 

to have a baby who is Down’s? And I said, well, why don’t you 

bring in a Down’s family and let the family and the Down’s human 

being present their own story instead of seeming to push in a certain direction? 

I think the spread of the idea that there are some lives not worth 

living is already happening in Belgium, which has only legalized 

assisted suicide and euthanasia for a couple of years. The very first 

person who was killed by euthanasia violated the Belgian guidelines. It was a patient with multiple sclerosis, and nothing, of 

course, was done about it. 

In Flanders, they have done studies where infanticide is raising 

to the levels already of Dutch proportions. In the Netherlands, the 

day the—in fact, I have it with me—the day the Dutch formally legalized euthanasia—the very next day, the Dutch Minister of 

Health said we have to have suicide pills for elderly people who are 

30 

tired of life, because this creates a mind set that begins to see 

death as an acceptable answer to human suffering. 

In Oregon, it has not been problem-free. In fact, I think it would 

be a tremendous benefit to the country if the Congress at some 

point did a detailed investigation. And because of time, I will only 

talk about one issue. It is the issue of what I call doctor-shopping. 

Let’s assume I am a patient who wants assisted suicide and I go 

to my doctor and I request the lethal prescription and my doctor 

says no. My doctor says, you know what, I am not sure you are 

going to die within six months, or, you know what, I think there 

are things we can do that would help you not want to kill yourself. 

I then just go off and go to an assisted suicide advocacy organization and they refer me to a doctor, often Dr. Rasmussen, who facilitates a lot of these assisted suicides. And if I meet the criteria for 

the law, I will get the lethal prescription. In my view, that is 

Kevorkianism. That is not as it is sold that it is going to be just 

an intimate decision with a long-time family doctor who knows 

your values, and so forth. It is not necessarily happening that way. 

In the first couple of years of the statistics that were published, 

you saw that some patients died from assisted suicide after only 

knowing the prescribing doctor for 2 weeks or less. And the responsive organ to the people such as myself who raised a concern about 

that was to keep tracking that statistic. They just stopped tracking 

it. 

So there is a lot going on in Oregon that I think could use a real 

thorough exploration rather than the facile kinds of statistics we 

get based mainly on information provided by the lethally prescribing doctors who are about as much as likely to tell the State 

they violated the laws as they are to tell the IRS they cheated on 

their taxes. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. I want to get, if I could, Professor Tucker, a question to you on this point. You are very accomplished and 

you have worked on this area a lot in the legal field, but I want 

to take you, if I can, to another area. You may feel like you are 

just not competent to address it because it is a numbers and it is 

the trend lines; it is not the legal issue. 

In 1973, we had—this is according to CDC numbers—just over 

615,000 abortions in the United States. In 1990, we were at 1.4 

million, more than double. Then several years ago, President Clinton, when he vetoed the partial birth abortion ban, was saying we 

want abortions in the United States to be safe, legal and rare. And 

a lot of people were saying, OK, I like that idea; I want it to be 

safe, I want it to be legal, I want it to be rare. I don’t think you 

can argue it is rare. We may be able to argue the other points. 

But I take you to the debate you are in right now on this particular issue, and you may not want to answer this because it is 

where does the trend line take us to. And I think you would want 

assisted suicide to be safe, legal and rare. 

Ms. TUCKER. Indeed. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. But the trend lines of these sorts of 

things don’t appear to go that way once you open these issues up 

on the projections of it. I mean, the trend line seems to be it opens 

in one area and then it really expands substantially to where you 

31 

could have it as safe and legal, but certainly not in the rare category, and it expands into a whole series of fields. 

I am sure you have thought about that and I would appreciate 

your thought on that subject. 

Ms. TUCKER. I think that in Oregon it is, in fact, quite rare. The 

deaths in Oregon have not exceeded 30 per year. It started out 

with fewer per year. Ms. Jackson has, I am sure, the details in the 

forefront of her mind, but it stayed very rare. 

An interesting aspect in Oregon, however, is that more patients 

every year start the process, go through the process, obtain the 

medications, than go on to take them. And patients are comforted 

by knowing that they have this option, and few of them actually 

go on to take the medications. 

And I should say I hear a lot of concern about are we starting 

down a dangerous road. Oregon’s law is only about patient self-administration of medication. So these stories that we have heard 

about the Netherlands where physicians are euthanizing patients 

are not at all on the table in Oregon or any other State here. The 

support in the United States among the American people is for patient self-administration. 

The Netherlands has always permitted euthanasia—different 

culture, different choice. In this culture, the public support is for 

patient self-administration. So that is where the line is drawn. It 

has been rarely used in Oregon, with safeguards that hold that line 

very well indeed. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. And you don’t buy this messaging that 

we are doing to people and that this has an impact on them, or 

that once you start down these roads, the likelihood of substantial 

expansion that we have seen in other countries that have gone— 

you just don’t think that applies here? 

Ms. TUCKER. No, because no one races to make this decision. As 

you heard from Julie McMurchie’s story, her mother, upon receiving the diagnosis of cancer, went through extensive curative therapy. There is surgery, there is radiation, there is chemotherapy, 

there is palliative care. Patients who receive these diagnoses want 

to access as much curative and palliative care as possible. They 

pursue that aggressively. 

But for some, they come to a point where the illness has ravaged 

their bodies so tremendously and they have so lost their ability to 

bear this cumulative burden that they choose to have a peaceful, 

comfortable death. It is not a question about life versus death. It 

is a question about a horrific death that is prolonged beyond endurance and a death that is peaceful and on their own terms. And 

those people love life. Those are culture of life people. They love 

their life and they want that life to come to a peaceful closure. 

Chairman BROWNBACK. Well, it is a very good, well-spoken, wellthought panel. I appreciate it, and I am sure it won’t be the last 

time that the topic is visited. 

We will keep the record open for the requisite number of days. 

We will accept Senator Feingold’s statement into the record, if he 

cares to submit one. I know he would have liked to have been here, 

but he is carrying an amendment on the floor. 

I do hope the panelists here and maybe those who watched will 

think about these topics. I do think it is important that we conVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:00 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 045836 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\45836.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
32 

sider, when you enter, where it is that you exit on these massive 

policy issues. You know the lawyer’s statement of good facts make 

bad law. You can look at a situation and say that is just—I mean, 

factually you look at it and you say this is terrible. 

But then once you consider entering into it and you expand into 

it, which is the logical way that these things happen—that has 

been the history of our country and of mankind that I have seen— 

they have consequences as you move on down. I hope people can 

consider that and I hope we will get some good written statements. 

I particularly want to thank Ms. Coleman. I thought you had 

really an interesting and a good thought, and it was a good reminder of some of the things we need to look at. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:49 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

33 


45836.001
34 


45836.002
35 


45836.003
36 


45836.004
37 


45836.005
38 


45836.006
39 


45836.007
40 


45836.008
41 


45836.009
42 


45836.010
43 


45836.011
44 


45836.012
45 


45836.013
46 


45836.014
47 


45836.015
48 


45836.016
49 


45836.017
50 


45836.018
51 


45836.019
52 


45836.020
53 


45836.021
54 


45836.022
55 


45836.023
56 


45836.024
57 


45836.025
58 


45836.026
59 


45836.027
60 


45836.028
61 


45836.029
62 


45836.030
63 


45836.031
64 


45836.032
65 


45836.033
66 


45836.034
67 


45836.035
68 


45836.036
69 


45836.037
70 


45836.038
71 


45836.039
72 


45836.040
73 


45836.041
74 


45836.042
75 


45836.043
76 


45836.044
77 


45836.045
78 


45836.046
79 


45836.047
80 


45836.048
81 


45836.049
82 


45836.050
83 


45836.051
84 


45836.052
85 


45836.053
86 


45836.054
87 


45836.055
88 


45836.056
89 


45836.057
90 


45836.058
91 


45836.059
92 


45836.060
93 


45836.061
94 


45836.062
95 


45836.063
96 


45836.064
97 


45836.065
98 


45836.066
99 


45836.067
100 


45836.068
101 


45836.069
102 


45836.070
103 


45836.071
104 


45836.072
105 


45836.073
106 


45836.074
107 


45836.075
108 


45836.076
109 


45836.077
110 


45836.078
111 


45836.079
112 


45836.080
113 


45836.081
114 


45836.082
115 


45836.083
116 


45836.084
117 


45836.085
118 


45836.086
119 


45836.087
120 


45836.088
121 


45836.089
122 


45836.090
123 


45836.091
124 

Æ 


45836.092