Source: http://www.massagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/04/doctor-heir-protection-bill.html
Timestamp: 2017-08-17 13:28:57
Document Index: 574233478

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 18', '§ 16', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§18']

Mass Assisted Suicide Initiative: 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.
A. The Act Protects People who Cause or Assist a Patient’s Death and/or Suicide
B. How the Act Works
The act has an application process to obtain a lethal dose for the purpose of causing a patient’s death.[4] The application process includes a written request form with two required witnesses.[5] One of the witnesses is allowed to be an heir who will benefit financially from the patient’s death.[6]
The proposed act protects persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide, as follows.
1. Secrecy, privacy and protection from inquiry
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.[12] This makes it less likely that anyone will know that the person died under the act.
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?
Under the act, persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide are given immunity from criminal and civil liability, and also immunity from professional discipline. § 18(1)(a) states:
"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."
6. Patients are not allowed to opt out
Persons who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide are also protected because patients are not allowed to opt out of the act’s provisions. Consider, for example, a wealthy gentleman concerned that his daughters are more interested in his money than him and/or that they will be pushing him to request a lethal dose. A counter-move would be for him to make their inheritance contingent on his death not being via a lethal dose. Under the act, however, any such provision in a contract and/or will is invalid. The act, § 16(1) states:
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."
G.L. c. 54, § 53 states that one-sentence statements describing “the effect of a yes or no vote” shall be “fair and neutral.” § 53 also states that a court may issue an order requiring an amendment when the ballot question title or the one-sentence statements are “misleading.”
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 “fair and neutral” title would instead capture the central effect of the act, which is the protection of people who cause or assist a patient’s death and/or suicide under the act. A fair and neutral title would therefore be along these lines: “Protection for Persons who Cause or Assist Deaths and/or Suicides.”
D. The Yes Statement is Misleading
"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?
E. A Fair and Neutral Yes Statement
A fair and neutral yes statement would describe the effect of the act if enacted, which would be something along these lines:
To be fair and neutral, the no statement should read: “A No vote would make no change in the law.”
[2] See Nelson v. Massachusetts Port Authority, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 433, 435-6, 771 N.E.2d 209 (2002) (These cases fit into two patterns: (1) the defendant's negligence was the cause of the decedent's uncontrollable suicidal impulse; or (2) the decedent was in the defendant's custody and the defendant had knowledge of the decedent's suicidal ideation); Edwards v. Tardif, 240 Conn. 610, 692 A.2d 1266 (1997)(affirming a large judgment against a physician who had prescribed an "excessively large dosage" of barbiturates to a foreseeably suicidal patient who killed herself via the barbiturates); and Cramer v. Slater, 146 Idaho 868, 878, 204 P.3d 508 (2009), stating that doctors "can be held liable for [a] patient's suicide." In Cramer, doctors negligently informed a patient about his HIV/AIDS status, which allegedly caused him to commit suicide. For another example, see William Dotinga, “Grim Complaint Against Kaiser Hospital,” at
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").
[3] 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 …”).
[6] 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).
[7] See act, § 1(3) and Nina Shapiro, Terminal Uncertainty — Washington's new 'Death with Dignity' law allows doctors to help people commit suicide — once they've determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they're wrong?, Seattle Weekly, January 14, 2009, available at www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-14/news/terminal-uncertainty
[14] § 15.
[15] § 15(1).
[21] See: Washington State Department of Health, “Instructions for Medical Examiners, Coroners, and Prosecuting Attorneys: Compliance with the Death with Dignity Act,” Revised April 8, 2009, available here and at http://www.doh.wa.gov/dwda/forms/MEsAndCoroners.pdf
[22] §18(1)(a).
[23] See Westlaw printout attached here.
[24] Madeline McNeilly, “Elder Abuse is a growing problem that’s underreported,” The Sun Chronicle, August 14, 2011, at http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2011/06/15/columns/9727616.txt. See also: Jaclyn Reiss, “Elder-abuse cases on the rise in Massachusetts,” Metro West Daily News, February 19, 2011, at http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/lifestyle/health/x268608620/Elder-abuse-cases-on-the-rise-in-Massachusetts; and Steve Adams, “Elder abuse and neglect complaints on rise in Massachusetts,” Gate House News Service, September 6, 2010, at http://www.wickedlocal.com/swansea/archive/x128163064/Elder-abuse-and-neglect-complaints-are-on-the-rise-in-Massachusetts#axzz1V1xksjt4
Labels: Assisted Suicide, Elder Abuse, Legal Challenge, Murder, physican-assisted suicide
Bob Joyce: "Details of Mass. assisted-suicide bil...
Three years ago, voters defeated Ballot Question 2 seeking to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in Massachusetts.
Lisa Lehmann (2)
Montanans Against Assisted Suicide (3)