Great news: Delaware assisted suicide Bill HB 140 was defeated.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director,
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have incredible news. 

The Delaware State Senate defeated HB 140 in a tie vote today 

A key reason that HB 140 was defeated was that Senator Bryan Townsend (District 11) a sponsor of the bill, voted NO at the final vote. (Link to the vote).

There are several reasons why some Senators shifted their votes and voted NO.

The key reason was the many people worked to defeat HB 140. Congratulations. You have truly made a difference.

Another reason is that during the Senate debate several key questions came up. One of those questions was - How do the assisted suicide drugs work? This is a significant question since we know that many assisted suicide deaths are not quick or peaceful.

• Here is an article concerning the research on how assisted suicide drugs cause death (Link).
• What the assisted suicide lobby doesn't want you to know (Link).
  
• Recently Kelsi Sheren and Jordon Peterson did a podcast titled: The Horrifying Truth Behind MAiD that they aren't telling you (Link). 
• Another article was recently published on this topic titled: Canadian veteran slams euthanasia law for targeting her peers (Link). 

During the debate several Senators became concerned about how people die by assisted suicide. Delaware doesn't support capital punishment, why would they support assisted suicide?

As stated earlier, the key factor was the many people who worked so hard to defeat the assisted suicide bill.

Here are some more articles about the Delaware assisted suicide bill.

• Clarifying comments on Delaware assisted suicide Bill HB 140 (Link).
• Nearly every US State that has legalized assisted suicide has expanded their law (Link).

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports Congressional Resolution (HCR 109) on the Dangers of Assisted Suicide

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports Congressional Resolution (HCR 109) on the Dangers of Assisted Suicide as introduced by Rep Brad Wenstrup, D.P.M., (R-OH) and Rep Lou Correa, (D-CA). 

EPC urges Congress to expedite the debate and pass this Resolution.

Link to the full resolution (Link).

Congressional Resolution 109 does the following:

1. It defines the language as to what assisted suicide is as compared to suicide and it reiterates the importance of suicide prevention programs.

2. It recognizes that assisted suicide most directly threatens the lives of people who are elderly, experience depression, have a disability, or are subject to emotional or financial pressure to end their lives;

3. It states that: 

• the Oregon Health Authority's annual reports indicate that pain or the fear of pain is listed second to last (25 percent) among the reasons cited by people seeking assisted suicide drugs since 1998 and the top 5 reasons cited are psychological and social concerns: ‘‘losing autonomy’’ (92 percent), ‘‘less able to engage in activities that make life enjoyable’’ (90 percent), ‘‘loss of dignity’’ (79 percent), ‘‘losing control of bodily functions’’ (48 percent), and ‘‘burden on family friends/caregivers’’ (41 percent);
• the Supreme Court has ruled twice (in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill) that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, that the Government has a legitimate interest in prohibiting assisted suicide, and that such prohibitions rationally relate to ‘‘protecting the vulnerable from coercion’’ and ‘‘protecting disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice, negative and inaccurate stereotypes, and ‘societal indifference’;
• assisted suicide is not a legitimate health care service and that Congress passed, with a nearly unanimous vote, and President Bill Clinton signed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act to prevent the use of Federal funds for any item or service, including advocacy, provided for the purpose of causing, or assisting in causing, the death of any individual such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing;

4. It points out that States that authorize assisted suicide:

• do not require that such patients receive psychological screening or treatment, though studies show that the overwhelming majority of patients contemplating suicide experience depression;
• do not require a medical attendant or qualified monitor be present at the time the lethal dose is taken, used, ingested, or administered to intervene in the event of medical complications;
• do not require that a qualified monitor be present to assure that the patient is knowingly and voluntarily taking, using, ingesting, or administering the lethal dose;
• do not prevent family members, heirs, or health care providers from pressuring patients to request assisted suicide;
• use a broad definition of ‘‘terminal disease’’ whereby ‘‘going to die in six months or less’’ includes diseases (such as diabetes or HIV) that, if appropriately treated, would not otherwise result in death within six months and it is extremely difficult even for the most experienced doctors to accurately prognosticate a six-month life expectancy as required, making such a prognosis a prediction, not a certainty;

5. It states that: 

• reporting requirements vary by State, but when required, they rely on prescribing physicians or dispensing pharmacists to self-report; and such reporting is neither conducted by an objective third party nor of sufficient depth and accuracy to effectively monitor the occurrence of assisted suicide. 
• there is an astounding lack of transparency in the practice of assisted suicide to the extent that State health departments and other authorities admittedly have no method of knowing if it is being practised within the bounds of State laws and they have no funding or authority to make such a determination; and some State laws actively conceal assisted suicide by directing the physician to list the cause of death as the underlying condition without reference to death by suicide; 
• based on the confidential nature of end-of-life decisions, it is virtually impossible to effectively monitor a physician’s behavior to prevent abuses, making any number of safeguards insufficient;
• the cost of lethal drugs is far less costly than many life-saving treatments, which threatens to restrict treatment options, especially for disadvantaged and vulnerable persons, as has happened in several known cases and presumably many more unknown in which insurers have denied or delayed coverage for life-saving care while offering to cover assisted suicide;
• access to personal assistance services such as in-home hospice and palliative care, home health care aides, and nursing care or assistance is regretfully limited and subject to long waiting lists in many areas, placing systemic pressure on patients in need of such personal assistance services to resort to assisted suicide; and
• For all these reasons, assisted suicide undermines the integrity of the health care system: 

It concludes:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that it is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should ensure that every person facing the end of their life have access to the best quality and comprehensive medical care, including palliative, in-home, or hospice care, tailored to their needs and that the Federal Government should not adopt or endorse policies or practices that support, encourage, or facilitate suicide or assisted suicide, whether by physicians or others.

The National Council on Disability: The Danger of Assisted Suicide Laws (Link).

Minnesota Assisted Suicide Bill is on a paved road to euthanasia.

Testimony in strong opposition to Minnesota Bill HF 1930 End of Life Option Act
March 12, 2024

Stephen Mendelsohn

By Stephen Mendelsohn

Rep. Jamie Becker Finn and members of the House Judiciary and Civil Law Committee:

I am an autistic adult and one of the leaders of Second Thoughts Connecticut, a coalition of disabled people opposed to the legalization of assisted suicide. I also serve on the board of directors of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition-USA.

I submit this testimony in response and opposition to previous testimony from Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD on March 7, 2024 before the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee.1 Pope argues that there is no “slippery slope” leading to a radical euthanasia regime like that in Canada. I will demonstrate that this “slippery slope” is actually a paved road, in which proponents have openly boasted about using an incrementalist, bait-and-switch strategy to first pass less ambitious legislation and then later expand the law whether by legislation or through the courts.

Pope erroneously claims that the Minnesota Legislature has total control to regulate the parameters of assisted suicide (which he calls “medical aid in dying” or MAID). Not so: Compassion & Choices has successfully sued the states of Oregon and Vermont to get them to eliminate their residency requirements. They currently have a lawsuit against New Jersey on the same issue. This shows that states that have legalized assisted suicide do not have full control over regulating the parameters of the legislation they pass.

It is true that under Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court has ruled there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, and state courts have consistently rejected attempts to compel enactment of these laws. Nonetheless, challenges to laws legalizing assisted suicide based on equal protection and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from both sides remains largely an untested issue.

While one case (Shavelson et al. v. Bonta et al.) seeking to force California to allow for lethal injections for persons who may not be capable or may lose the ability was denied, it is easily conceivable that another court in another jurisdiction would rule otherwise. The core “safeguards” of six months terminal illness, mental competence, and self-administration all make distinctions on the basis of disability, granting some people suicide prevention and others suicide assistance. I would also note there is currently a disability-rights lawsuit, United Spinal Association et al. v. State of California et al., seeking to overturn the End of Life Option Act on ADA and 14th Amendment equal protection grounds.2

Pope claims that “… no U.S. legislature has ever even considered removing the terminal illness requirement. No U.S. legislature has ever even considered removing the self-ingestion requirement.” His testimony was rendered utterly false a mere one day after it was submitted. On March 8, 2024, California State Senator Catherine Blakespear submitted a press release on SB 1196, explaining the provisions of her bill to radically expand that state’s End of Life Options Act.3 This legislation would eliminate the terminal illness requirement, replacing it with “a grievous and irremediable medical condition” similar to what was originally enacted in Canada. It would allow people with early to mid-stage dementia to access the law, and would also allow for lethal injection, moving from assisted suicide to active euthanasia. In addition, it would eliminate the meager 48 hour waiting period, allowing for a same-day death.

Pope himself is a zealous advocate of expansion in this direction.4 He posted to his Medical Futility Blog, “California Makes Big Move on Medical Aid in Dying,” approvingly.5 Even under current law, he has advocated using voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (VSED) as a bridge to enable non-terminal patients to qualify for assisted suicide in states such as Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Hawai‘i which have either significantly shortened the waiting period or allowed it to be waived. Pope published an article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society approvingly citing the case of Cody Sontag, an Oregon woman with early-stage dementia who used VSED to qualify for lethal drugs under that state’s law.6 He notes that “if anyone can access VSED, then anyone can qualify for MAID,” thereby doing an end-run around the law’s terminal illness requirement.

The American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying (ACAMAID) has an “Ethics Consultation Service” report on “Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking and Medical Aid in Dying” noting that:

Legally, there is nothing in the letter of the law of any of the U.S. states’ aid in dying bills that explicitly prohibits accepting voluntary stopping of eating and drinking as a terminal diagnosis to qualify for aid in dying. This remains a legal gray zone.7
ACAMAID confirms that allowing VSED to qualify for lethal prescriptions would “essentially eliminate the criteria of terminal illness to qualify.”

Most significantly, if passed, HF 1930 would be the most expansive and permissive assisted suicide law in the nation to date. Similar to the extreme euthanasia bill in California, it has no waiting period at all, thus allowing anyone—theoretically even otherwise healthy people who may be depressed—to instantly qualify for the lethal dose and die on the same day. It would thereby enact two principal elements of Canada’s radical death regime—widespread eligibility for non-terminal conditions and same day deaths.

Passage of HF 1930 would also shift the Overton window toward more radical legislation. Over the past two years, while no new states have enacted laws to legalize assisted suicide, several states have moved to expand their laws. It is far easier to pass an expansion bill after a state accepts the principle that it is acceptable for doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients than it is to pass legislation to legalize the practice in the first place.

Proponents of assisted suicide bills across the United States have not been shy about their incrementalist bait-and-switch strategy and desire for future expansion. In my home state of Connecticut, Rep. Josh Elliott openly admitted he wanted to get anything on the books even if it was unusable so it could be later expanded. Paul Bass reports in the New Haven Independent:

Elliott has been sponsoring bills for years to allow terminally ill people to take their lives (aka “aid in dying”). The bill finally passed the legislature’s Public Health committee; it got stuck in Judiciary.

The version he plans to resubmit this year has been narrowed to cover terminally ill people with prognoses of less than six months to live, with sign-offs from two doctors and a mental health professional, monthly check-ins, and at least a year of state residence.

“Almost no one” would qualify under that restricted version of the law, Elliott said. But passing it would open the door to evaluation and expansion.8

Here is the full on-air quote from Rep. Elliott on Dateline New Haven:

The bill would be, um, exceptionally narrow in scope, it would be the most narrow in scope bill of this kind were we to pass it. It would be, uh, six months left to live, you have to get sign-offs from multiple doctors—two doctors and one mental health physician—uh, and then you need to go for frequent check ins—I think it's like once a month—and you have, there is a one year residency requirement, so there are so many ways we limit who could actually use this bill, to the point I believe if we were actually to implement the way that we are talking about it, almost nobody would use it. But the important thing for me is to get this bill on the books, and then see how it's working, and if it's not and people aren't using it, than make those corrections to actually allow people to use it. So that is what we've been discussing.9

Similarly, J.M. Sorrell, Executive Director of Massachusetts Death with Dignity, was quoted on a similar bill in his state, saying “Once you get something passed, you can always work on amendments later.”10 And Compassion & Choices past president, Barbara Coombs Lee said almost ten years ago regarding assisted suicide for people with dementia unable to consent, ““It is an issue for another day but is no less compelling.”11

There is much here that I have not covered. To cite a couple of examples, there is an explicit requirement in HF 1930 Section 12 to falsify the death certificate as to the cause and manner of death, thereby covering up foul play. There is also widespread evidence, most recently from ACAMAID, that the laws in other states are not being followed, and with no consequences to the prescribing medical practitioners.12 You will hear plenty of testimony on other problems with this legislation, particularly from others in the disability rights community.

I conclude by emphasizing that HF 1930 is not merely a “slippery slope,” but a paved road north to Canada’s radical euthanasia regime where disabled people are routinely denied services needed to survive but offered “medical aid in dying” instead. Please do not put Minnesota—and the rest of the nation—on this path. 

Please reject HF 1930. Thank you.

1 Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, Written Testimony in Support of H.F. 1930 , Before the Minnesota House of Representatives Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy: https://www.house.mn.gov/comm/docs/peqp-qSyH0aRdWY7Tn41Bw.pdf, pp. 95-98
2 United Spinal Association et al. v. State of California et al. https://endassistedsuicide.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Complaint_Accessible.pdf; for more detail, see https://endassistedsuicide.org
3 Senator Catherine Blakespear, Factsheet on SB 1196: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/cd607dce-3325-492b-b030-b0a22331af65/downloads/SB%201196%20(Blakespear)%20Factsheet.pdf?ver=1709911469736
4 Thaddeus Mason Pope (2023) Top Ten New and Needed Expansions of U.S. Medical Aid in Dying Laws, The American Journal of Bioethics, 23:11, 89-91, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2256244 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2023.2256244
5 https://medicalfutility.blogspot.com/2024/03/california-makes-big-move-on-medical.html
6 Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD, Lisa Brodoff, JD, Medical Aid in Dying to Avoid Late-Stage Dementia, “ https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jgs.18785?domain=author&token=VA68TTBJN9VDRCRMRPIP
7 American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying, Ethics Consultation Service, “Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking and Medical Aid in Dying, January 3, 2023: https://www.acamaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Voluntary-Stopping-Eating-and-Drinking-and-Medical-Aid-in-Dying.pdf Pope is part of ACAMAID’s Ethics Consultation Service’s team.

8 Paul Bass, Elliott Readies Next Legislative Steps Toward Freedom, New Haven Independent, January 4, 2004: https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/elliott_readies_next_legislative_steps_toward_freedom
9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0hWOjITspE at clip position 21:30

EPC-USA - Contact New York elected representatives to oppose assisted suicide bills.

EPC – USA needs you to Contact elected representatives or members of the respective Health Committee's that are considering New York assisted suicide Bills (A995/S2445).

Choose one or two of the following points to state why you oppose assisted suicide.

Some of the reasons to Oppose Assisted Suicide.

• The Safeguards in the bill are part of a bait-and-switch tactic. Nearly every state that has legalized assisted suicide, soon after, expanded their law.
• The data shows that it's not about pain, but the fear of pain, the unknown, or challenging depression or feelings of hopelessness. 
• Not necessarily a peaceful death. The data shows that many of the deaths are painful and “burning” and often last a long time, with the longest recorded assisted suicide death being 104 hours. 
• There are cases of Insurance Companies denying care. 
• Studies prove that legalizing Assisted Suicide Spawns More Suicides and suicide attempts.  
• Marginalized people understand how Assisted Suicide can be pressured upon them rather than actual care. 
• As the cheapest state-sponsored “treatment,” assisted suicide diminishes patient choice and takes away patient autonomy. 
• Mistakes, Abuse, coercion. Elder abuse is a common problem already and will worsen with death making. 
• Assisted suicide combined with a struggling healthcare and home care system is a deadly mix for people who are economically poor, lonely, elderly, disabled, and historically marginalized in the healthcare system.

Contact Your Legislator

State Senate

NY State Senator contact information. (Link to the Members of the NY Senate).

NY Senate Health Committee: (Link to the Standing Health Committee).

State Assembly

NY State Assembly contact information (Link to the NY Members of the Assembly).

NY Standing Committee on Health:  (Link to the "Standing Committee on Health")

More information on this topic:

• The assisted suicide lobby wants to legalize assisted suicide in your state and expand the law later (Link). 
• The Nationalization of assisted suicide in America (Link).
• Vermont assisted suicide deaths more than quadruple (Link).

EPC - USA Statement to the New York Legislature in opposition to Assisted Suicicde

RE: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition-USA Statement in STRONG OPPOSITION to A995A Assisted Suicide-also known as “Medical Aid in Dying”

Dear ...

Please let A995A die this session. Assisted suicide proponents are trying to sell you a "pig in a poke". It's not about pain or a quick, peaceful death. It spawns more suicides and provides less healthcare. EPC-USA's physicians and disability advocates express strong opposition to assisted suicide.

“Medical aid in dying" is not healthcare and will exacerbate systemic inequities faced by people with disabilities and people from other marginalized communities. Assisted suicide combined with a broken healthcare and home care system is a deadly mix for people who are economically poor, lonely, vulnerable, elderly, disabled, and historically marginalized in the healthcare system.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA supports public policy that promotes positive measures to improve the quality of life of people living with a terminal illness and their families; we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. We are disability advocates, lawyers, doctors, nurses and politicians.

Any safeguards are part of a deliberate bait-and-switch tactic by assisted suicide advocates to get a bill passed and then come back to amend it by gutting those safeguards.

• Amy Pauline recently stated. At an event promoting A995A and S2445A , “We've been criticized by some organizations that actually want an expansion …. but we've held firm because we want to get this passed first.” (starting at 18:40).(1)
• J.M. Sorrell, Executive Director of Massachusetts Death with Dignity, who was quoted on a similar bill saying, “Once you get something passed, you can always work on amendments later.”(2)

Since 2020, there have been seven amendments to such laws across five states: in Oregon in 2020 and 2023; in Vermont 2022, and 2023; in California in 2022; in Washington in 2023; and in Hawaii in 2023 and an amendment has been introduced in New Jersey. All these changes expand access, for example, waive waiting times, allow nurses to prescribe the lethal medication, or drop residency requirements.(3)

It’s Not about Pain 

Dr. Lonny Shavelson, a California assisted suicide provider says promoting “aid in dying” as avoiding pain is a political sales pitch. See webinar(4) minutes 25:24-27:53. He says people choose assisted suicide because they are low energy or afraid of losing control.

It’s Not about a Peaceful or Quick Death 

Dr. Shavelson says the idea that assisted suicide creates a peaceful beautiful death is another myth. See webinar(5) minutes 37:35-41:00. Some people may suffer prolonged and difficult deaths from the experimental lethal drug cocktails.

Insurance Companies Use Assisted Suicide to Deny Curative Life-Saving Treatment 

Assisted suicide exacerbates the systemic problems patients face when seeking care for terminal illnesses. Dr. Brian Callister(6) of Nevada says he was stunned when insurance would not cover life saving treatment for his patients who were transferring to California and Oregon, but offered to pay for Assisted Suicide instead.

Assisted Suicide Spawns More Suicides and Attempted Suicides. 

Assisted suicide advocacy has already exacerbated the suicide crisis among people with disabilities. Disabled people have a higher rate of suicide than the general population and people are more likely to approve of suicide if the victim is disabled.(7) Worse, in 2023, the American Association of Suicidology (AAS) had to retract its 2017 statement that “Medical Aid in Dying” was not suicide, after it was used to justify expanding assisted suicide and euthanasia to disabled Canadians over the objection of the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention.(8)

Moreover, a 2019 report found teen suicides in California increased by 34%(9)  since that state legalized Assisted Suicide in 2016. Oregon’s youth suicides increased 79.3% from 2000 to 2018.(10) Research about completed suicides in four states that legalized Assisted Suicide (Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana) found it was associated with at least a 6.3% increase in the rate of all suicide deaths.(11)

The Marginalized understand this will be used to provide them with poorer care. Even with insurance, people of color get poorer hospital care and pain relief. According to a New York Times article,(12) people of color disproportionately died of COVID-19. (article)Medical prejudices and neglect result in racial disparities in diagnosis and treatment of diabetes, cancer, and heart trouble. COVID-19 has killed Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) at a much higher rate than Whites.(13)

There Are Very Clear Cases of Abuse 

The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) has cataloged a long list of abuse cases.(14) Moreover, a doctor suggested assisted suicide to her anorexic patients and helped them carry it out. Compassion and Choices has acknowledged this abuse of the law, yet repeatedly asserts that the law has never been abused.(15)(16)

EPC-USA's physicians remind us that Assisted Suicide laws exacerbate systematic inequalities that disabled people experience in the medical sphere. A "Federal study found that the nation's assisted suicide laws are rife with dangers to people with disabilities".(17)

EPC-USA’s physicians remind us that Physicians, clinicians, insurance companies, and healthcare systems are fallible. Misdiagnoses and unreliable terminal prognoses are documented by the cases of: Jeanette Hall,(18) John Norton,(19) and Rahamim Melamed-Cohen.(20) More and more diagnoses qualify for Assisted Suicide. As mentioned, the latest effort to stretch “terminally ill” treats anorexia as a qualifying terminal disease.

In 2021, the NY based United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of People with Disabilities asserted that all assisted suicide laws violate its Convention On The Rights of People with Disabilities.(21)

As the cheapest state-sponsored “treatment,” assisted suicide diminishes patient choice and takes away patient autonomy. Assisted suicide combined with a broken health care and home care system is a deadly mix for people who are economically poor, lonely, vulnerable, elderly, disabled, and historically marginalized in the US healthcare system.

We urge you to allow A995A to die this session because exacerbating systemic social inequalities so that the proponents can plan their deaths is unwise and unjust.

Sincerely,

Colleen E. Barry, Chairperson
Josephine L.A. Glaser, MD.,FAAFP
Meghan Schrader
Kenneth Stevens, MD
William Toffler, MD
Gordon Friesen
Alex Schadenberg

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA, EPC_USA@yahoo.com

End Notes

1. Amy Pauline recently stated. At an event promoting A995A and S2445A , “We've been criticized by some organizations that actually want an expansion …. but we've held firm because we want to get this passed first.” (starting at 18:40) (Link).

2. Comerford to reintroduce medical aid-in-dying bill in wake of court decision (Link).

3. Journal of Medical Ethics. Twenty five years (Link).

4. COMPLETED LIFE APRIL 2021 LUNCH HOUR WITH LONNY SHAVELSON (Link).

5. COMPLETED LIFE APRIL 2021 LUNCH HOUR WITH LONNY SHAVELSON (Link).

6. Insurance companies denied treatment to patients, offered to pay for assisted suicide, doctor claims - Washington Times (Link).

7. Is suicide an option?: The impact of disability on suicide acceptability in the context of depression, suicidality, and demographic factors. (Link).

8. Statement on recent MAiD Developments. (Link) (Link).  

9. New health report for California shows 34% increase in teen suicide (Link).

10. National Vital Statistics Report. Suicide Rates Among... (Link).

11. How Does Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide Affect Rates of Suicide? (Link).

12. The Never-Ending Mistreatment of Black Patients (Link).

13. One Man's COVID-19 Death Raises The Worst Fears Of Many People With Disabilities (Link).

14. Some Oregon and Washington State Assisted Suicide Abuses and Complications (Link).

15. Terminal Anorexia Is Dangerous Justification for Aid in Dying (Link).

16. (Link).

17. The impact of disability on suicide acceptability (Link).

18. Jeannette Hall on dying well (Link).

19. Affidavit of John Norton (Link).

20. Twelve years after contracting Lou Gehrigs disease, Dr. Rahamim Melamed-Cohen (Link).

21. Disability is not a reason to sanction medically assisted dying – UN experts (Link).