Delaware Euthanasia Bill: Purported "Safeguards" Unenforceable

Margaret Dore, Esq.

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

Representative Paul Baumbach's proposed, but as yet unfiled, "End of Life Option Act," seeks to legalize medical "aid in dying," which is a traditional euphemism for active euthanasia.[1]

The Act seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined. The bill also promotes itself as having “robust" safeguards.[1] Indeed, the bill goes so far as to say that its "rigorous safeguards would be the strongest of any state in the nation and will thoroughly protect patients and their loved ones from any potential abuse."[2]

The purported safeguards are enumerated and include that the attending provider “shall” refer the patient to a consulting provider, and that the attending provider “shall” offer the patient an opportunity to rescind the lethal dose request.[3]

The bill, however, also says that the attending provider is merely to ensure that all “appropriate” steps are carried out, and that the provider is held to an “accordance” standard. The bill, § 4, states:

The attending provider shall: . . .

(11) Ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with this chapter . . . .  (Emphasis added).[4]

The bill does not define "appropriate" or “accordance.”[5] Dictionary definitions of appropriate include "suitable or fitting."[6] Dictionary definitions of accordance include “in the spirit of,” meaning “in thought or intention.”[7] 

With these definitions, the attending provider’s mere view of what is "suitable or fitting" is enough for safeguard compliance. The provider's mere "thought or intention" is similarly sufficient. The touted safeguards are thus neutralized to whatever an attending provider happens to feel is appropriate and/or had a thought or intention to do. They are unenforceable.

Legal Memorandum: Euthanasia Act Must Be Rejected

By Margaret Dore, Esq.

 I. INTRODUCTION

The Act, HB 140, seeks to amend Title 16 of the Delaware Code, to thereby create Chapter 25B “Relating to End of Life Options.” If enacted, the Act will legalize physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined. This will be on both a voluntary and involuntary basis. The Act terms these practices medical aid in dying.

Aid in dying has been a euphemism for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia since at least 1992.[1] The proposed Act is based on similar acts in Oregon and Washington State. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act went into effect in 1997. Washington’s nearly identical act went into effect in 2009.  

All three acts apply to persons with a six month or less life expectancy. Such persons may in fact have years or decades to live. A well known example is Jeanette Hall. In 2000, she made a settled decision to use Oregon’s act. Her doctor convinced her to be treated for cancer instead, such that she is alive today, twenty-two years later.

Euthanasia Bill Fails to Move

Bess McAneny
testifying against bill

HB 140 is dead for now. The bill had sought to legalize medical "aid in dying," which is a euphemism for active euthanasia.

After a hearing before the House Health & Human Development Committee, the main sponsor, Paul Baumbach, requested that the committee forgo holding a vote.

No vote was taken.

Margaret Dore

Dore Letter Opposing HB 160 (Prior bill)

I am an elder law and guardianship attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  Like HB 160, our law is modeled on a similar law in Oregon. I urge you to not make our mistake. 

I have three points:

Death Certificate Falsification Requires Bill's Defeat

Kirk Allison, PhD, MS

Dear Legislators:

I directed the Program in Human Rights and Health at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health from 2006-2016 and am a past chair of the American Public Health Association's Ethics Special Primary Interest Group (now Ethics Section).

While working on my dissertation I was a visiting preceptor (research rotation) at the Hennepin County (Minnesota) Medical Examiner's Office. It was greatly impressed upon me the need for scientific accuracy in the medico-legal documentations of death.

Compassion & Choices Is a Successor Organization to the Hemlock Society

Theresa Schrempp

Dear Editor:

I am a lawyer in Washington State where assisted-suicide is legal. 

Your readers should know that Compassion & Choices is a successor organization to the Hemlock Society, originally formed by Derek Humphry. In 2011, Humphry was the keynote speaker at Compassion & Choices’ annual meeting here in Washington State. In 2011, he was also in the news as a promoter of mail-order suicide kits from a company now shut down by the FBI. This was after a 29 year old man used one of the kits to commit suicide.

Assisting Persons Can Have an Agenda

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

Michelle Carter assisted boyfriend's 
suicide,"wanted sympathy, attention"

Persons assisting a suicide or performing euthanasia can have an agenda. Consider Tammy Sawyer, trustee for Thomas Middleton in Oregon. Two days after his death by assisted suicide, she sold his home and deposited the proceeds into bank accounts for her own benefit.[1]

In other states, reported motives for assisting suicide include: the “thrill” of getting other people to kill themselves; a desire for sympathy and attention; and “want[ing] to see someone die.”[2]

Medical professionals too can have an agenda, for example, to hide malpractice. There is also the occasional doctor who just likes to kill people, for example, Michael Swango MD, now incarcerated.[3]