COVER MEMORANDUM UPON THE REISSUANCE OF THE NCD 

STATEMENT OPPOSING LEGALIZATION OF ASSISTED SUICIDE 

National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-272-2004 Voice 

202-272-2074 TTY 

202-272-2022 Fax 

Lex Frieden, Chairperson 

June 9, 2005 

Introduction 

On March 24, 1997, the National Council on Disability (NCD) issued “Assisted Suicide: 

A Disability Perspective,” http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/1997/suicide.htm 

as part of its role as the principal agency within the federal government charged with the 

responsibility of providing cross-disability policy analysis and recommendations 

regarding government programs and policies that affect people with disabilities. At the 

time the position paper was issued, the U.S. Supreme Court was preparing to rule on 

appeals from the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts, each of which had declared assisted 

suicide a constitutional right. 

After a thorough review of the forms of discrimination people with disabilities experience 

in American society, the Council decided to oppose legalization of assisted suicide, 

concluding that: 

Current evidence indicates clearly that the interests of the few 

people who would benefit from legalizing physician-assisted 

suicide are heavily outweighed by the probability that any law, 

procedures, and standards that can be imposed to regulate 

physician-assisted suicide will be misapplied to unnecessarily end 

the lives of people with disabilities . . . . At least until such time as 

our society provides a comprehensive, fully-funded, and 

operational system of assistive living services for people with 

disabilities, this is the only position that the National Council on 

Disability can, in good conscience, support. 

In the eight years since the position paper was issued, the U.S. Supreme Court has 

overturned the Second and Ninth Circuits and ruled that there was no constitutional right 

to assisted suicide, but that the states could experiment with state laws allowing it. There 

has been an opportunity to observe the implementation of the Oregon assisted suicide 

law, and the evolution of cultural attitudes toward so-called “mercy killing,” of both the 

medical and non-medical variety. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second degree 

murder for committing active euthanasia of a man with ALS, utilitarian euthanasia 
advocate Professor Peter Singer was hired for a prestigious bioethics chair at Princeton 

University, two movies favorably depicting euthanasia of people with quadriplegia won 

Oscars, and numerous courts upheld the right of a guardian to starve and dehydrate a 

severely brain injured but healthy woman in Florida. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case this year about the Oregon “Death 

with Dignity Act.” Congress has also begun taking a look at federal legislation to address 

laws governing surrogate decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatment in the aftermath 

of the Schiavo case. Accordingly, in the context of the current public debate, NCD 

reaffirms its position opposing the legalization of assisted suicide by reissuing its 1997 

position paper along with this statement of its reasons for doing so. 

The Oregon Assisted Suicide Law 

The Oregon “Death with Dignity Act” has been challenged by the U.S. Department of 

Justice under the Controlled Substances Act, asserting that federal law prohibits 

physicians from prescribing controlled substances for assisted suicide, on the grounds 

that it is not a “legitimate medical purpose” for their usage. District and Circuit Courts 

have upheld the Oregon law, and the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case in 

2005. The legal issues pertain to the respective roles of federal and state government. 

At the same time, bills to legalize assisted suicide have been introduced this year in a 

number of states (Hawaii, California, Vermont), as have bills to de-criminalize or reduce 

penalties under state laws prohibiting assisted suicide (Connecticut). 

It should be noted that suicide, as a solitary act, is not illegal in any state. 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 Oregon 

law grants civil and criminal immunity to physicians providing lethal prescriptions based 

on a stated claim of “good faith” belief that the person is terminal, acting voluntarily, and 

that other statutory criteria are met. This is the lowest culpability standard possible, even 

below that of “negligence,” which is the minimum standard governing other physician 

duties. 

As the Oregon reports on physician-assisted suicide make clear, the state has not been 

able to assess the extent of non-reporting or noncompliance with the law's purported 

safeguards, but only obtains brief interviews with physicians who file their paperwork. 

There are no enforcement provisions in the law, and the reports themselves demonstrate 

that non-terminal people are receiving lethal prescriptions.1

 As the Oregonian newspaper 

stated on March 8, 2005 in "Living with the dying 'experiment,'” examining the case of 

David E. Prueitt who woke from his assisted suicide after two weeks and did not try 

again, "The rest of us . . . still need an answer from a system that seems rigged to avoid 

finding one." 

Increasingly, the reasons doctors report for issuing lethal prescriptions are the patient's 

"loss of autonomy" (87%), “loss of dignity” (80%), and "feelings of being a burden” 
(36%).2

 People with disabilities are concerned that these psycho-social factors leading to 

assisted suicide are being widely accepted as sufficient justification for assisted suicide. 

In 2004, only 5% of patients requesting a lethal prescription were referred for a 

psychiatric evaluation by a physician. For all the reported years (1998-2004) the figure is 

only 16%.3 

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act authorizes physicians to make “end of life” decisions 

in their response to a patient’s expression of the wish to die based on the patient’s 

disability. The underlying practical basis for the physician’s determination that the 

individual is eligible for assisted suicide is the individual’s physical dependence on others 

for everyday needs, which is viewed as depriving them of what non-disabled people often 

associate with “autonomy” and “dignity,” and may also lead them to feel like a “burden.” 

This establishes grounds for physicians to treat these individuals completely differently 

than a physically able-bodied person considering suicide would be treated. This different 

treatment is inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability. 

The Erosion of Protections for People in Guardianship 

Assisted suicide laws and practices do not stand in isolation, but arise in the context of a 

larger health care system that also includes substitute decision-making affecting the lives 

of people who are deemed “incompetent” or not capable of making and communicating 

their own decisions. Determinations of “incompetence” are made both formally through 

the courts, and informally, depending on state laws and health care provider policies. 

Competent individuals may direct their future medical care during a potential period of 

incompetence through the use of an advance directive. An advance directive can specify 

the medical treatments that an individual would accept or refuse in various 

circumstances.4

 In addition or in the alternative, an advance directive can designate a 

substitute or proxy whom the individual trusts to weigh the complex information and 

factors that may be involved in a specific health care decision. 

Health care decisions for people deemed incompetent are generally governed by state 

laws. Substitute decision-makers may be proxies chosen by the individual while 

competent, surrogates appointed according to a priority list established in state law (the 

list usually beginning with the spouse and ending with the public guardian), or health 

care providers with whom the individual or family may not agree. Surrogate decisions 

are supposed to be based on what the individual’s wishes would have been, if competent. 

However, most states have laws permitting health care providers to avoid compliance 

with advance directives. When the provider refuses to withhold or withdraw treatment, 

these provisions are referred to as “conscience clauses” and usually require some effort to 

transfer the patient to another provider. When the provider refuses to provide desired 

care, these provisions are called “futile care” policies. 

Several court cases have arisen from family disputes involving people who became 

incompetent without executing an advance directive. In the case of Robert Wendland in 

California, both Mr. Wendland’s wife and mother agreed that he was not in a “persistent 
vegetative state,” and that he had not left clear and convincing evidence of his wishes. 

Nevertheless, his wife argued that she should be able to remove his tube feeding anyway. 

A state statute, based on a national model health care decisions code, gave her the right to 

withhold sustenance to him, and forty-three bioethicists filed a friend of the court brief in 

agreement. Ten disability rights organizations filed briefs arguing against lowering 

constitutional protections of his life and the presumption that people would not want to 

live with his disabilities. Ultimately, the California Supreme Court agreed that Mr. 

Wendland’s life could not be taken without clear and convincing evidence of his wishes.5 

Unfortunately, this ruling was issued three weeks after he died from pneumonia and lack 

of antibiotics. 

People who are labeled "terminal," based on a medical prediction that they will die within 

six months, are — or almost inevitably will become — disabled. Virtually all "end-of-life 

care" issues — access to competent health care, adequate pain relief, in-home personal 

care and flexible, consumer-responsive supports, peer counseling, family support — have 

also been disability rights issues for decades. Nevertheless, the perspectives of disability 

consumer organizations were consistently beneath the radar of the media giving 

prominent attention to Ms. Schiavo. 

By the time the Schiavo case reached major national attention in 2003, twenty-six 

national disability organizations had taken a position that Terri Schiavo should receive 

food and water, due to the highly conflicting evidence of her wishes and the fact that she 

had not chosen her own guardian.6

 Many of these groups also joined in one or more of 

three amicus briefs7

 filed at various stages of the proceedings by Not Dead Yet, a national 

disability rights group that advocates against legalizing assisted suicide and nonvoluntary euthanasia. 

The guardian’s and courts’ refusal to allow any attempts at providing oral fluids or food 

is perhaps most significant. The guardian has the right to refuse medical treatment, 

which has been defined by courts and state statutes to include tube feeding. This is not 

the same as a guardian refusing oral fluids or food, yet the courts, and most of the media, 

failed to make this distinction in Ms. Schiavo’s case. The view that no one would want 

to live like Terri Schiavo, regardless of her precise level of consciousness, led many in 

the public to view the guardian’s actions as delivering her from the suffering of her 

disabled life. 

Policies on removal of food and water have serious and far-reaching implications. Many 

people in nursing homes are on feeding tubes not because they cannot eat orally, but 

because there are not enough staff to help them eat.8

 One study also found that in forprofit nursing homes, African-Americans with dementia are taken off hand feeding and 

put on a feeding tube sooner in the disease process than their white counterparts.9

 A new 

Alzheimer's study last year confirmed previous studies that caregivers have a lower 

opinion of their relative's quality of life with Alzheimer's than the persons themselves 

have. The explanation for the discrepancy was that the caregivers projected their own 

feelings about the burden of care-giving onto the person they cared for.10 Similarly, 

studies consistently demonstrate that physicians and other health care providers rate the 
quality of life of people with significant disabilities and illnesses significantly below the 

individual’s rating of their own quality of life.11 

Another conflict of interest arises in the context of a public guardian, appointed if no 

family member or qualified friend will serve. The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in 2004 

that a public guardian may deprive life sustaining treatment from a man labeled as having 

an intellectual disability, despite the financial conflict of interest for a state guardian of a 

ward on Medicaid.12 

Conclusion 

The Council’s position paper carefully examined the many forms of discrimination and 

devaluation people with disabilities experience in today’s society. The struggle to 

implement the social vision embodied in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

continues. In view of the aging of our population, policy-makers should turn to the 

disability rights movement for its expertise in cost-effective services to enhance selfdetermination and independence. While study and consensus building continue with 

respect to the formulation of public policies in the aftermath of Schiavo, some principles 

recently expressed to a Congressional subcommittee by attorney, parent and advocate 

Rud Turnbull seem clear: 

• Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way 

diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to 

society. 

• The nation’s policy for people with disabilities is to assure their equal 

protection under the law, advance their self-determination, and promote 

their independent living. 

• Discrimination against any person with a disability, regardless of the 

nature or severity of the disability, is morally and legally indefensible. 

• When medical care is clearly beneficial, it must be provided. 

• It is impermissible to take into account any anticipated or actual limited 

potential of a person or lack of resources. 

• The person’s disability itself must never be the basis for a decision to 

withhold treatment.13 

It is critical that the rights of people with disabilities, old and young, to choose home and 

community based long term care services be fully implemented, consistent with Title II 

of the ADA and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead. If individuals with 

disabilities feel that they have lost control in their lives, been devalued because of their 

impairments, and become a burden to others, the appropriate response from society is to 

support him or her to live independently in the community. Legalized medical killing 

solely based on disability should be rejected. People with disabilities are not better off 

dead, and society is not better off without us. 

Acknowledgment 
The National Council on Disability wishes to express its appreciation to Diane Coleman, 

J.D., President of Not Dead Yet, for drafting this document. 

1

 Seventh Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, Department of Human Services, Office of

Disease Prevention and Epidemiology, March 10, 2005, 

http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year7.pdf, pages 16, 25. 2

 Id. at page 24.

3

 Id. 

4 For a comprehensive review of relevant research, see, Fangerlin & C.E. Schneider, "Enough: The Failure 

of the Living Will," Hastings Center Report 34, no. 2 (2004): 30-42. 

5

 Wendland v. Wendland, 28 P.3d 151, 172 (2001). 

6

 Issues Surrounding Terri Schindler-Schiavo Are Disability Rights Issues, Say National Disability 

Organizations, Oct. 27, 2003, Ragged Edge Online,

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/schiavostatement.html 

7

 See, e.g., BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NOT DEAD YET ET AL. IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS 

AND REQUESTING REVERSAL, Filed In re GUARDIANSHIP OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO (2nd 

District Court of Appeal, Florida, February 21, 2003) http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/schaivobrief.html. 8

 Brad Heath, Nurse, aide shortage imperils patients: One-fifth of residents live in nursing homes where 

staffing levels could affect nutrition, The Detroit News November 28, 2004 

http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0411/28/A15-17471.htm 9

 Mitchell SL, Teno JM, et al., Clinical and organizational factors associated with feeding tube use among 

nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment, JAMA, July 2, 2003; 290(1), 73-80. 

10 Joan Arehart-Treichel, For Alzheimer's Patients, Life May Be Better Than Caretakers Think, Psychiatric 

News July 16, 2004, Volume 39 Number 14, © 2004 American Psychiatric Association 

 p. 32, http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/14/32-a 11 Gerhart, K. A., Kozoil-McLain, J., Lowenstein, S.R., & Whiteneck, G.G. (1994). Quality of life 

following spinal cord injury: knowledge and attitudes of emergency care providers. Annals of Emergency 

Medicine, 23, 807-812; Cushman, L.A & Dijkers, M.P. (1990). Depressed mood in spinal cord injured 

patients: staff perceptions and patient realities, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1990, 

vol. 71, 191-196. 

12 State can end life support of wards, Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader, Aug. 27, 2004 

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/9509486.htm 

13 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Health Care Provided to Nonambulatory Persons, Hearing Date: April 6, 2005, http://help.senate.gov/testimony/t231_tes.html