End-of-Life Choice, Palliative Care and Counseling

Death with Dignity

Mar 25, 2013Wife Dying of Cancer No Option for Aid in Dying

Letter to the Editor
Montana Standard
March 19, 2013

I wish my wife had the option to discuss aid in dying with her physician.

My name is David “Doc” Moore. I am the current Republican Representative from House District 91 in Missoula County. Eleven years ago my wife passed away from Stage 4 malignant melanoma. She fought the disease for five years, and her quality of life was good up until the final three weeks, when she went downhill fast. My wife was a strong woman, but when her cancer came back it had spread to her lungs, liver, spleen and brain. The cancer in her liver was crushing her from the inside out making her breathing labored. When she finally slipped into a coma, we thought there would be relief.

Unfortunately, it was clear from her facial expressions and the constant death rattle that she was still suffering. Her pain ended only when she died. This was before the Baxter decision, so my wife did not have the option to use aid in dying. I wish she had the option to discuss this choice with her physician.

Most Montanans agree that it is not the government’s role to interfere in private medical decisions.

Politicians are the last people needed at the bedside of a dying person. House Bill 505 would allow the government to undermine the sacred relationship between doctor and patient. It is so broadly written that physicians will be scared of being second-guessed by prosecutors and legislators when treating dying patients for pain.

In Helena, we like to know what regular folks are thinking. Please email the Senate Judiciary Committee using the MT.gov website and call your senator at 406-444-4800. Tell them to VOTE NO on House Bill 505. Don’t put doctors in prison.

– David “Doc’’ Moore, R-Missoula

Mar 22, 2013Support grows in Vermont for an end-of-life bill

Janice Lloyd, USA TODAY
March 22, 2013

Most states ban physician-assisted death, but a movement is growing to give terminal patients the right to choose their fate.

Dick and Ginny Walters envision a new approach to dying for Vermont residents: They want terminally ill patients with a prognosis of less than six months to live to have the right to request and take life-ending medication.

The Shelburne, Vt., retirees — he’s 88, she’s 87 — say they are both healthy and fit. They have devoted the past 10 years to the cause, meeting with supporters in their living room to track legislation — including the bill “Patient Choice and Control at End of Life.” It passed the Vermont Senate in February and goes to the House this month.

Although assisted dying is illegal in most states and opponents have been fighting proposals for the past 15 years, support is growing in Vermont and other parts of the Northeast. Connecticut and New Jersey legislators are also examining measures.

“It makes ultimate sense to people who have lived their lives in an independent way and don’t want to be reduced to an infantile existence and having other people make decisions for them,” Dick Walters says. “It’s taken us a long time, but we think Vermont will do this now.”

Vermont would be the first state to pass a doctor-assisted-death bill through the legislative process. Oregon and Washington voters passed similar bills in voter referendums. Massachusetts voters defeated a measure, 51% to 49%, in November.

“We may have lost this time in Massachusetts, but we won in the region,” says Barbara Coombs Lee, president of Compassion and Choices, a non-profit group dedicated to protecting the rights of the terminally ill. “I think the movements in the other states are evidence of that. Vermont is close to passing. In subsequent efforts, Massachusetts will have a leg up.”

Proponents of the Massachusetts measure were outspent 5 to 1 by religious, medical and disability groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, says Coombs Lee. Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston said in a statement after the vote that “we can do better than offering them the means to end their life.”

Walters says the Vermont mind-set is different: “Vermonters have a strong belief for respecting each other’s beliefs.”

When his time comes, Walters says, he doesn’t know whether he’d choose to end his life, but his father asked him for help “and it wasn’t legal to do it. It was really hard on me to not be able to help him. I’ve been bothered a long time by his suffering.”

He says a group of Vermont friends, including many retired physicians, got the idea to organize after Oregon passed the first referendum allowing physician-assisted dying in 1997. Oregon’s law went into effect in 1998, and a similar law went into effect in in Washington in 2009.

The Oregon law requires a patient to get two physicians to say he or she is terminally ill (expected to die within six months), to be mentally competent, an adult 18 or older and a resident of the state. The patient has to be physically able to swallow the medication; someone else can’t administer it. The written request for the medication must have two witnesses, one of whom cannot be an heir, and the patient must also make two oral requests.

“There are two waiting periods,” says Peg Sandeen, executive director of Death With Dignity, an advocacy group that helped write the laws. “The person is certain about what he wants.”

Sandeen says when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Oregon voters in 2006 the ruling paved the way for other states to create their own laws.

But fights continue: In Montana, a bill is pending that calls for imprisoning and fining a person “who aided or solicited a suicide.” The Montana Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that a state law protects doctors from prosecution for helping terminally ill patients die.

Physician Diana Barnard, a hospice and palliative care doctor in Weybridge, Vt., says “citizens are telling us they want this bill to pass. My professional responsibility is to supply the medication.”

Diana Barnard, a physician, says, “Recognizing that the end of your life is coming is important for so many reasons.”(Photo: Handout)

She says most patients want to know when they’re dying, but most doctors don’t know how to have that conversation.

“Recognizing that the end of your life is coming is important for so many reasons,” she says. “You get a chance to say goodbye to people, have closure on big issues. I always ask patients: ‘If time were short, what would be important to you?’ It’s criminal to not let people do this.”

Another part of the Oregon law requires the Health Department to track the number of people who request the medication, those who take it, and the doctors involved. In 2012, 115 requested it, a record number. Among that group, 77 took it and died. Sixty-one doctors filled orders for medications, one fewer than in 2011.

Dick Walters isn’t surprised more patients didn’t take the medication they requested.

“Just having the choice and knowing the medication is available can make a huge difference,” he says. “I think this thing will change how people talk about death and improve end-of-life care.”

Even in hospice care, when patients have stopped taking medical measures to prolong life, someone else administers the medication that helps control pain and eventually aids in ending life.

“That can leave an enormous amount of guilt on the family member,” Coombs Lee says.

“Laws like the one in Oregon relieve the family of the responsibility. It empowers the patient to be in control — to let the family be there, and say ‘Hold me while I do this.’ “

Mar 20, 2013HEARING SET ON DOCTOR IMPRISONMENT ACT OF 2013 – MARCH 26

by Compassion & Choices staff
March 20, 2013

MT BannerClick on the banner to hear our radio ad running in Montana.

HELENA – Legislation that would treat aid in dying as homicide will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, March 26, at 8 a.m. House Bill 505, sponsored by Rep. Krayton Kerns (R-Laurel), seeks to put physicians in prison for up to 10 years for providing aid in dying to terminal patients who request it. It would change the legal landscape established in a 2009 state Supreme Court decision, which found that a physician could not be prosecuted for prescribing medication that a terminally ill person could take to bring about a peaceful death.

The bill could create a government-imposed gag order on physicians and could land doctors in prison for answering their patients’ questions about end-of-life medical care. Physicians worry that they will be second-guessed by prosecutors and legislators when treating dying patients for pain or even patients with symptoms such as sleeplessness or anxiety.

Dustin Hankinson, a disability rights activist and dedicated advocate of end-of-life choice who suffers from muscular dystrophy, testified at the House Judiciary hearing on Feb. 20 against this threat to the right he helped secure in Montana, “By going through all this work – all this work to stay alive – because I want to make a difference in this world, what have I earned? I’ve earned the ability to have them starve me to death and dehydrate, or to drown in my own body fluid. Those are my only options. There should be another option. Palliative care by itself is not adequate. We’re not pro-death. We’re pro-choice. We want people to make decisions that allow them to take responsibility for their own lives.”

A 2010 Binder Research poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Democratic, Independent and Republican voters in Montana “support allowing dying patients in severe distress to make their own end-of-life choice to receive prescription for life-ending medication.”

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baxter v. Montana, it was unclear whether physicians could help terminally ill patients who wished to end their suffering. On December 31, 2009, the Baxter decision made Montana the third U.S. state where aid in dying is a safe and legal medical choice. The ruling strengthened the 1991 Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, which allows mentally competent adults to make a declaration – Montana’s term for a living will. In 2009 the court ruled that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act specifically defers to a patient’s own decisions and affords patients the right to control their own bodies at the end of life. HB505 would take that right away and weaken the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act.

“Most Montanans agree that it is not the government’s role to interfere in private medical decisions. Politicians are the last people needed at the bedside of a dying person,” said Rep. David “Doc” Moore (R-Missoula). “House Bill 505 would allow the government to undermine the sacred relationship between doctor and patient.”

Many doctors are also speaking out against HB505. Family medicine and palliative care physician Eric Kress appears in a Compassion & Choices Montana radio ad campaign airing on stations throughout Montana this week.

“Sometimes I’m called upon to provide care and compassion to suffering, terminally ill patients at the end of their lives,” Kress said. “But legislators want to put doctors like me who help dying patients in extreme pain in prison. This would ignore the Montana Supreme Court and get big, invasive government into our private medical decisions.”

Kress, Moore and Hankinson will be available at the hearing on March 26 to speak with media representatives.

Mar 19, 2013Legislative Public Hearing: Aid-in-Dying Bill Weds. March 20. 10:30am

by Compassion & Choices staff
March 19, 2013

(Hartford, CT) — The legislature’s Public Health Committee will hold a public hearing Weds. March 20 on a bill that would allow terminally ill people in Connecticut to obtain a prescription to self administer for a safe and humane death.

The bill, H.B. No. 6645 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING COMPASSIONATE AID IN DYING FOR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS, was raised by the committee in January. The legislature has considered similar bills in past years, but Wednesday will mark the first time proposed legislation has been brought to a public hearing here.

The states of Washington and Oregon have allowed aid-in-dying for more than a decade after being approved by public referendum; a court case resulted in aid-in-dying being legal in Montana.

Supporters of HB6645, including patients, doctors, nurses, and clergy, are expected to testify starting at 10:30 am.

WHAT: Public hearing on HB6645 – Compassionate Aid-in-Dying for Terminally Ill Patients

WHO: Legislature’s Public Health Committee

WHEN: Wednesday, March 20 – 10:30 am

WHERE: Room 1D, Legislative Office Building

Mar 18, 2013Compassion & Choices Montana Announces Statewide Radio Campaign in Support of Aid in Dying

by Compassion & Choices staff
March 18, 2013

HELENA – Compassion & Choices Montana today announced a statewide radio campaign designed to educate the public on House Bill 505. The campaign, which begins airing ads this week, urges Montanans to contact their legislators and ask them to vote against a bill that would treat aid in dying as a homicide. Sixty-five percent of Montana voters want their own personal doctor to be able to comply with their end-of-life choices. HB 505, sponsored by Rep. Krayton Kerns (R-Laurel), seeks to put physicians in prison for up to 10 years for providing aid in dying to terminally ill patients who request it. It would change the legal landscape established in a 2009 state Supreme Court decision, which found that a physician could not be prosecuted for prescribing medication that a terminally ill person could take to bring about a peaceful death.

Dr. Eric Kress, featured in the ads, was a plaintiff in the Supreme Court case. Prior to his current position as a family physician at Western Montana Clinic in Missoula, Kress served as medical director at Hospice of Missoula for nine years.

“In my practice, I provide care and compassion to suffering, terminally ill patients at the end of their lives. But this bill would imprison doctors like me who help dying patients in extreme pain,” Kress said. “This bill would gut a Montana Supreme Court decision and allow big, invasive government into private medical decisions.”

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baxter v. Montana, it was unclear whether physicians could help terminally ill patients who wished to end their suffering. On December 31, 2009, the Baxter decision made Montana the third U.S. state where aid in dying is a safe and legal medical choice. The ruling strengthened the 1991 Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, which allows mentally competent adults to make a declaration – Montana’s term for a living will. In 2009 the court ruled that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act specifically defers to a patient’s own decisions and affords patients the right to control their own bodies at the end of life. HB505 would take that right away and weaken the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act.