Source: https://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/04/doctor-heir-protection-bill.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:10:49+00:00

Document:
Massachusetts: A "Doctor & Heir Protection Bill"
A "Doctor & Heir Protection Bill"
On April 2, 2012, the Attorney General issued draft ballot question title and draft yes/no statements for the assisted suicide initiative. Below please find my objection based on the initiative's being a doctor and heir protection bill. For a print copy, please click here.
The proposed act in Petition 11-12 protects persons who cause or assist the death and/or suicide of another person. This memo discusses why the draft title and one-sentence statements for the act are misleading and should be amended.
Under current law, people who cause or assist another person’s death or suicide face serious legal consequences. They can be convicted of a crime, including murder. They can be found civilly liable for assisting a suicide, committing malpractice and/or causing a wrongful death. They can also be deprived of an inheritance or life insurance proceeds payable due to the death.
With the proposed act, however, persons who cause or assist another person’s death and/or suicide are protected from these consequences. The act also opens the door to new paths of elder abuse.
How the act works, some of its protections and how it will promote elder abuse are described below.
The act has an application process to obtain a lethal dose for the purpose of causing a patient’s death. The application process includes a written request form with two required witnesses. One of the witnesses is allowed to be an heir who will benefit financially from the patient’s death.
The act also requires that the patient be “terminal,” which does not necessarily mean that the patient is dying anytime soon. The act states that only substantial compliance is required with its provisions.
Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. The death is not required to be witnessed. Indeed, no one is required to be present.
The proposed act protects persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide, as follows.
Under the act, § 4(2), the death certificate is required to list a terminal disease as the cause of death, not the true cause of death, a lethal dose. This makes it less likely that anyone will know that the person died under the act.
Under the act, § 12, required record keeping regarding a doctor’s compliance with the act is maintained in the patient’s medical record, which is a private document protected by HIPPA. This makes it less likely that any lack of compliance by the doctor will be exposed.
"shall not be a public record to the extent it contains material or data that could be used to identify individual patients, physicians, or other health care providers."
In Oregon, one of just two states with a similar law, the Oregon Health Authority has interpreted a similar provision to prevent legal representatives and law enforcement from obtaining access to the information. Once again, it is less likely that any lack of compliance will be exposed.
As noted above, the act does not require witnesses at the death. This creates the opportunity for an heir, or another person who will benefit from the patient’s death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent, in private. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?
"No person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action by any regulatory agency for any actions undertaken in compliance with this chapter."
"shall not constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide under any criminal law of the commonwealth."
In Washington state, the other state with a similar law, similar language has been interpreted to require medical examiners, coroners and prosecuting attorneys to treat the death as “Natural.” If so interpreted in Massachusetts, persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide would be given another layer of protection against prosecution.
"A person who substantially complies in good faith with the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be in compliance with this chapter."
The act does not define what is meant by good faith. In the context of former G.L. c. 106, § 65(2), “good faith” was interpreted to mean “in fact done honestly, whether it be done negligently or not.” If so interpreted here, the above provision gives participants a further protection from liability.
"No provision in a contract, will, insurance policy, annuity, or other agreement, whether written or oral, made on or after January 1, 2013, shall be valid to the extent the provision would condition or restrict a person’s decision to make or rescind a request for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner."
In Massachusetts, elder abuse is on the rise. If the proposed act is enacted, new paths of abuse will be created against the elderly, with the most obvious path being due to the lack of witnesses at the death. Even if the elder struggled, who would know?
A Yes vote would enact the proposed law allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at a qualifying, terminally-ill patient’s request, to end that person’s life.
A No vote would make no change in the laws relating to prescribing medication to end human life."
A. Whether the ballot question title should be amended and replaced because it is misleading?
B. Whether the one-sentence statements should be amended and replaced because they are misleading?
C. Whether the replacement title and statements proposed herein should be adopted?
As described above, the proposed act is a multi-layer protection bill for people who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide. The persons protected include heirs and other people who benefit financially from the deaths. The act is also a major change in the law, for example, conduct that is now “murder” would be legalized and/or allowed to occur without penalty.
In this context, the draft title, “Prescribing Medication to End Human Life,” is misleading for three reasons. First, the title’s central thrust, “prescribing medication,” is only a small part of the act and a side issue to the act’s central effect, which is the protection of people who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide. Second, with the title’s focus on “prescribing medication,” there is the implication that the act is limited to doctors or healthcare, when the act also protects heirs. Third and finally, the title uses the term, “human life,” which is not a term used by the act. In common parlance, “human life” includes the unborn. Reading the title, a voter could reasonablely understand that the act seeks to legalize a “morning after” pill or some other method of prescription abortion.
"A Yes vote would enact the proposed law allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at a qualifying, terminally-ill patient’s request, to end that person’s life.
The above statement is misleading because it focuses on “medication,” not the essence of the act, which is to protect people who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide. The statement is also misleading because it refers to a patient’s “request,” thereby implying that the act is always voluntary for patients, which is not the case. As described above, the act does not allow patients to opt out of its provisions. There is also a complete lack of oversight when the lethal dose is administered. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?
"A Yes vote would enact the proposed law providing protections for persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide, under circumstances that would not necessarily be voluntary for the patient."
"A No vote would make no change in the laws relating to prescribing medication to end human life."
The statement is misleading due to its use of the term, “human life,” which again, is not a term used by the act and which also connotes abortion. The statement is also misleading because with the last part of the statement, “relating to prescribing medication to end human life,” there is the implication that a No vote might change some other law (not “relating to prescribing medication to end human life”).
G. A Fair and Neutral No Statement.
The draft title and one-sentence statements are misleading. They should be amended and replaced as submitted herein.
 See Commonwealth v. Bowen, 13 Mass. 356 (1816)("If one counsel another to commit suicide, and the other, by reason of the advice, kill himself, the advisor is guilty of murder, as principal"); and In re Joseph G., 194 Cal.Rptr 163, 165-167 (1983), citing Bowen, supra, as authoritative.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/06/43641.htm (Patient’s son suing Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and affiliates, a doctor and two social workers arising out of the intentional death of his father via a "terminal extubation").
 See Minasian v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 295 Mass. 1, 3 N.E.2d 17 (1936), (“It is settled law that a mentally responsible person who commits murder loses all right to the proceeds of a life insurance policy on the life of the person murdered”) An inheritance can be set aside for undue influence, for example, when an heir actively participated in the making of the will and/or was present when the will was executed. See e.g., M.G.L.A. 190B § 2-505(b) and Burns v. Kabboul, 595 A.2d 1153, 1163 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)("It will weigh heavily against the proponent [of the will] on the issue of undue influence when the proponent was … present at [its] dictation …”).
 The act, §§ 2-13, and 21.
 Id., §§ 3 and 21.
 Id. (providing that one of two required witnesses on the lethal dose request form cannot be a patient’s heir or other person who will benefit financially from the death; the other witness may be an heir or other person who will benefit financially from the death).
 See the act in its entirety.
 See E-mail from Alicia Parkman, Mortality Research Analyst with the Oregon Health Authority, to Margaret Dore, January 4, 2012 (“We have been contacted by law enforcement and legal representatives in the past, but have not provided identifying information of any type”), available here.
 See Westlaw printout attached here.

References: § 4
 § 12
 § 65
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v.