Source: http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/florida/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:04:29+00:00

Document:
2017 POLST bill (SB 228) proposed in Florida.
Sixteen days without a morsel of food. Sixteen days without a gulp of water….”[I]f someone asked me do do this again, I’d tell them I want no part of it,” says Helen. “I’d strongly suggest they look into all the reasons they want to leave — and then that they get some goddamn pills.”….”I don’t think Dorothy ever considered the burden you are putting on people by asking them to help.”….
Davis’ decision and its wording posed a serious threat to all Florida residents.
This fact sheet described what was at issue in the case.
If assisted suicide is considered a medical treatment under Florida’s right to privacy provision, wouldn’t it be limited to competent adults?
No. If it is found that assisted suicide is a beneficial “medical treatment” guaranteed under the right to privacy, it is logical and, indeed, necessary that this same treatment would be available to children and to those who are incompetent. In fact, Florida courts have specifically declared that the right to privacy provision of the state constitution applies to all persons, not just to competent adults.
Assisted suicide could be requested by minors.
The Florida Supreme Court has clearly noted that the state’s right to privacy provision, as it pertains to medical procedures, extends to every person, not just to adults. (5) Therefore a teenager could exercise the right to request and obtain assisted suicide.
Assisted suicide could be requested on behalf of children and incompetent patients.
The Florida Privacy Amendment permits parents to exercise a child’s right to privacy regarding medical treatment. (6) Thus a parent could make the assisted suicide decision for a child.
A person does not need to be an adult or competent to take the “last act” that would be required for assisted suicide.Assisted suicide advocates argue that — because a person who dies of assisted suicide must take the last act — competency would be necessary. This is not true. For example, the act of swallowing a lethal dose is the “last act” — an act which even an infant or a demented individual could easily perform.
What is the difference between this case and the assisted suicide cases now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court?
At issue in the cases before the U.S. Supreme Court (9) is whether there is anything in the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit states from having laws against assisted suicide. It is expected that the Court will find that states do have the right to prohibit assisted suicide.
The Florida case is based on the state, not the federal constitution. This means that — even if the U.S. Supreme Court decides that states can ban assisted suicide –. the Florida Supreme Court could still declare the assisted suicide law unconstitutional under the state constitution.
Do other states have right-to-privacy provisions in their constitutions?
What are the circumstances surrounding the Florida case?
The case is a joint effort of Florida’s Hemlock Society and the Florida ACLU. It was in the strategic planning for several years.
Hemlock actively recruited patients and doctors for the case.
Finally, semi-retired physician Cecil McIver, 74, and Charles Hall, a 35-year-old restaurant manager who contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion, became the plaintiffs in the case which has reached the Florida Supreme Court.
Doctor and patient had never met before the case began.
Can’t guidelines be drafted so that assisted suicide would only be used as a last resort to be chosen by a competent adult after considering and rejecting all other options?
As explained above, if the “treatment” of assisted suicide is a medical option, it would be both illogical and discriminatory to limit this treatment to competent, terminally ill adults.
Of additional importance in considering assisted suicide and its implications, is a recognition of the context in which it would be practiced.
Thousands of Floridians (young and old alike) have no health insurance. They find it difficult to receive any health care. Do we really think that legalized assisted suicide will magically cause health facilities in Florida to offer “all options” to the uninsured?
Even those who have health insurance are finding it difficult to get needed care. That’s because health care is largely dominated by managed care programs and HMO’s where stockholder benefits, not patient well-being, is the bottom line.
No longer do doctors or hospitals get paid for all they do for a patient. Instead, their incomes often depend on how little they do. Some managed care programs require that doctors limit patient visits to 20 minutes for new and 10 minutes for returning patients. And contract terms with the program may prevent doctors from telling patients that physicians who save money for withholding care get cash bonuses.
Do we really believe that managed care corporations that currently limit doctors’ time to 10 minutes per patient will let doctors spend hours discussing and providing “all options” before prescribing the fatal overdose?
Would assisted suicide be permitted as a “compassionate last resort,” but practiced as a cleverly disguised form of medical cost containment?
No matter how one might feel about assisted suicide, two things are certain: Dead patients don’t take up time, and they’re not a drain on the health care budget.
1.) Krischer v. McIver, Case No. 89,837; District Court of Appeal Fourth District No. 97-039; Circuit Court No. CL-96-1504-AF.
2.) Fla. Stat. Ann., § 782.08.
3.) Art. I, Sec. 12., Fla. Const.
4.) McIver v. Krischer, No. CL 96-1504-AF, slip op. at 19, n. 6 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. Jan. 31, 1997) (emphasis added).
5.) B.B. v. State, 659 So.2d 256, 258 (Fla. 1995), citing In re T.W.. 551 So.2d 1186, 1193 (Fla. 1989; Jones v. State, 640 So.2d 1084, 1087 (Fla. 1994) and Jones v. State, 640 So.2d 1084, 1087 (Fla. 1994).
6.) In re Guardianship of Barry, 445 So.2d 365 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. 1984) in which parents were permitted to assert a ten-month-old child’s privacy rights.
7.) In re Guardianship of Barry, 445 So.2d 365, 370 (Fla.App.2d Dist. 1984) .
8.) In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4,12-13 (Fla. 1990).
9.) Washington v. Glucksberg, No. 96-110 and Vacco v. Quill No. 95-1858.
11.) Kevorkian & Doe v. Arnett, Medical Board of California, & Lundgren, CV-94-6089 CBM (Kx), Order, Sept. 11, 1996.
12.) “Hemlock of Florida Legal Plans Update,” Hemlock Beacon Newsletter (Florida Hemlock Society), Summer 1994.
13.) “The Search Is On,” Hemlock Beacon Newsletter, (Florida Hemlock Society), Fall 1995, p. 1.
14.) “A ‘Pugnacious’ Attorney, Hemlock Beacon Newsletter (Florida Hemlock Society), Fall 1995, p. 1.
16.) Lade, “Group carefully orchestrated doctor-patient right-to-die test,” Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale), Jan. 12, 1997.
17.) McIver v. Krischer, No. CL 96-1504-AF, slip op. at 22 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. Jan. 31, 1997)..
19.) McIver v. Krischer, No. CL 96-1504-AF, slip op. at 6 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. Jan. 31, 1997)..

References: v. 
 § 782
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.