Dying Vermonters Deserve Adequate Palliative Care

British Survey, Public Favors Right to Live in Euthanasia Cases

Kent County Woman Arrested in Death of Her Husband

KY Authorizes Euthanasia...

DYING VERMONTERS DESERVE ADEQUATE PALLIATIVE CARE - The VT House Human Services Committee heard testimony recently on bill H.168, the proposal to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Much of the testimony was about patients with overwhelming suffering during the dying process.

These are sad and tragic cases — those patients should have received better palliative care services.

However, it is time to put to rest the misconception that assisted suicide is about suffering. Neither the OR law permitting physician-assisted suicide, nor the VT proposal requires that the patient experience any suffering at all — only that the patient has less than 6 months to live and wants to die.

An OR physician testified last week that not one of the 208 assisted deaths in OR was requested because of pain, though 22% feared pain in the future. The issue is one of control, not "overwhelming suffering."

Yes, patient control is very important. But let's deal with it face on, instead of pretending the issue is pain and suffering.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that assisted suicide in OR is also about cost. The most recent Prioritized List of Health Services for OR Medicaid patients added a new condition: No payment for diagnostic testing or active treatment for 26 types of cancer unless the patient has at least a 5% chance of living another 5 years.

So someone who is terminally ill with cancer of the stomach or bowel, for example and might live many more months or perhaps years cannot receive state funding for measures that could slow down the disease. But one of the "comfort care" measures the state will pay for is "physician aid-in-dying."

There must be a better way to address the Medicaid shortfall facing every state than to subtly encourage patients to end their lives prematurely. Let's instead ensure dying Vermonters have access to the full range of palliative and hospice services.

[comments of Robert D. Orr, M.D. President of the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare; http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050501/NEWS/505010329/1022, 1May05]

KENT COUNTY WOMAN ARRESTED IN DEATH OF HUSBAND - On 10March03, the 49-yr-old wife of Jerry Savoy said he was unconscious at their home. He died nine days later. An investigation showed that there was an extremely high level of insulin in Savoy's body; authorities say that is what killed him. She was arrested on murder charges. Her daughter-in-law reportedly told investigators that she approached her a few months before his death and asked if she knew a drug dealer that could help put Jerry "permanently to sleep." Kent County Sheriff's Department detectives found a partially used insulin bottle in the Savoys' home after the murder. The Savoys filed for bankruptcy the year before Jerry's death. Investigators think those bad finances may be why she killed her husband. [Note from Ron Panzer: when I interviewed nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, RN over a year ago on the Highway2health.net show, she mentioned that she found an insulin bottle in the room of Terri Schiavo (in the mid 1990s) when she cared for Terri in a nursing home. She stated that after Michael Schiavo left the room, nurse Iyer found Terri to be in hypoglycemic shock where the glucometer found Terri's blood glucose level so low that it would not register on the meter. Here, a woman is being prosecuted for killing her husband using insulin. May 6, 2005 Woodtv.com http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?s=3311086; 24 Hour News 8 show N Valko RN, 11May05]

BRITISH SURVEY: PUBLIC FAVORS RIGHT TO LIVE IN EUTHANASIA CASES -- A new survey conducted by a doctors group finds that the British public favors allowing patients to receive food and water if they have asked in advance not to have it removed. The polling results are similar to those in a recent survey conducted in the USA. First Do No Harm, a coalition of doctors and physicians who oppose euthanasia, conducted the poll of 1,000 people and found 77 percent thought patients who made a previous request to have food and water should not be deprived of it regardless of the views of doctors or family members. The survey also looked at the case of Leslie Burke, a patient with a degenerative brain condition. Burke won a case at the British High Court because he feared that doctors would refuse to provide him wanted food and water when his condition deteriorates to the point that he has to receive nourishment through a feeding tube. Current British Medical Association ethical guidelines permit doctors to stop tube-supplied nutrition/hydration if they believe the patient's quality of life is poor, leading to eventual death. The poll found only one-third of respondents favored guidelines for doctors allowing them to withhold food and water from patients who can't make their own medical decisions. [London, LifeNews.com, 11May05]

KY AUTHORIZES EUTHANASIA – KY Supreme Court decided that families of “permanently unconscious” patients may have their lives ended by removing their life support, even if a person had not declared a desire for this to happen. Persons in “persistent vegetative state” (still very open to interpretation) or when “inevitable death is expected by reasonable medical judgment within a few days” may be removed from “life support” without a court order unless there is “family disagreement”. [Dr. Willke, Rt to Life Greater Cincinnati, 4/05]