SAVES is not affiliated with Exit International / Dr Philip Nitschke and opposes the public availability of a 'peaceful pill'.

The Oregon Health and Science University has recently completed a study of people who have considered assisted suicide. (1) It was based on a random sample of eight percent of death certificates lodged between 2000 and 2002, and involved interviewing 1384 willing family caregivers about the views of the deceased family member. It was found that one in six had contemplate assisted suicide but far fewer died in that way. Paradoxically it was found that the legalisation of assisted suicide might have led to a decrease in numbers of people requesting it.

The rate of legally assisted suicide in Oregon is approximately one in 1000, whereas a study of terminally ill patients in six states where assistance is still illegal showed that the rate was approximately one in 250.

Possible explanations are more referrals to hospice, the unwillingness of doctors to now act outside the law in Oregon, and the possibility that access criteria means that many patients do not ‘make it over hurdles’.

Commenting on the research Drs Linda Ganzini and Steven Dobscha claimed that there was no indication of a ‘slippery slope’ to increases in hastened death.

Of note in the study was that no dying African Americans had considered assisted suicide whereas 20% of white patients had. Also only half the number of those with a Protestant or Roman Catholic background had considered assisted suicide compared with those with no religious affiliation.

Forty eight percent of those surveyed also reported having their family member die in ‘severe or moderate pain or distress’ (2) compared with 30.8% of people surveyed in a survey in 1996-1997. Author of the latest study, Erik Fromme, Director of Palliative Care Research at the Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine at Portland, suggested that the debate on end-of-life care may have built up expectations that that there would be no suffering in the dying process. He speculated that rather than people experiencing more pain, there appears to be a changed perception of levels of suffering. There has also been an increase in demand for hospice services.

Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act is a citizens’ initiative that was introduced in November 1997. The Department of Human Services is legally required to collect information regarding compliance with the Act and to make the information available on a yearly basis. The legal right to assisted suicide has been challenged by the Bush administration, however on August 11th 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Attorney General John Ashcroft's petition for a rehearing of the case Oregon v. Ashcroft. He now has until September 29th 2004, to petition the United States Supreme Court.

It is a swift and certain denial of Ashcroft’s petitions for rehearing’, said Eli D. Stutsman, Portland Attorney and President of the Death with Dignity National Center (DDNC) which represents physicians and pharmacists in this important litigation. (3)

References:

Journal of Clinical Ethics

(2) Fromme EK, Tilden VP, Drach LL and Tolle SW (2004) ‘Increased Damily Reports of Pain or Distress in Dying Oregonians’ Journal of Palliative Medicine, Vol 7 No 3 pp 431-442

(3) ERGO distribution list 16th August 2004 http://www.finalexit.org/

Liam Mc Dougall a health correspondent for the Sunday Herald has reported that a bill based on the law in Oregon is to be drafted by Scottish Liberal Democrat Jeremy Purvis. It will be seen as a ‘natural progression’ from the existing right to refuse or withdraw treatment. The move was welcomed by pro-choice groups and some parliamentarians but condemned by the Catholic Church as "a licence for the legalised killing of people, possibly against their will".

Jenny Saunders, a spokes woman for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, said "The current law doesn't prevent assisted dying, it simply makes this practice dangerous by forcing it to happen behind closed doors where there are no safeguards. She also claimed "It is vitally important assisted dying is brought into the open, so that parliament can introduce regulation to better protect the terminally ill, medical staff and vulnerable people."

Carol Stewart, of the Disability Rights Commission Scotland was also concerned that disabled people needed protection from having decisions imposed upon them.

It has been reported that the Tel Aviv District Court has upheld a family’s request to remove a comatose man from life support equipment. (1) This was a precedent setting decision in that the family did not have written consent. Judge Uri Goren said that although there was no legal document he believed that the patient would not want his life extended by artificial life support. He also stated that the ruling was not a ‘green light for euthanasia’, but a decision suited specifically to the circumstances of the case.

Reference:

(1) Assaf Bergerfreund, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz.com, 13/07/2004

Following the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Vincent Humbert, who was left deaf, mute and paralysed from a car accident (reported on in an earlier edition of the VE Bulletin), France’s Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy has said that the terminally ill should have the right to die in dignity. The lower house of parliament will consider legislation that re-defines options for the terminally ill.

The draft law would change the public health code to allow patients, families and doctors to switch off life-support machines when all hope of a cure was lost. Under the present law, such an act is deemed to be murder. However the minister has ruled out legalisation of voluntary euthanasia. While the proposed legislation is a positive step, Marie Humbert, mother of Vincent, said any changes would do little to ease the suffering of people who are ‘locked up in their bodies’ and are asking to die.

Reference: News 24.com, circulated by ERGO (ergo@efn.org) 27th August 2004