At least 4 New Zealand suicide deaths linked to Canadian

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Two of the suicide substance victims

The Agence France-Press reported on July 22 that at least 4 New Zealand suicide deaths are linked to a Canadian who sold "suicide kits" online.

Kenneth Law was charged with 14 counts of second degree murder in December 2023. Law is believed to have distributed "suicide kits" to 1200 people world-wide who ordered the kits online. Recent news reports indicate that Law's trial will begin in September 2025.

According to Agence France-Press:

A New Zealand coroner has formally linked four deaths to the sale of “suicide kits” bought online from a former Canadian chef, according to findings published Monday.

Coroner Alexandra Cunninghame found that three students, aged 18 to 21, and one 40-year-old personal trainer killed themselves after buying kits from businesses linked to Canadian Kenneth Law.

Canadian police believe Law sent as many as 1,200 “suicide kits” to people in more than 40 countries between 2020 and his arrest last year — specifically targeting vulnerable people online.

Agence France-Press reported that at least 88 people died in Britain after receiving the suicide kit.

Imogen Nunn

On August 27, 2023 Jon Woodward reported for CP 24 that:

The British mom of a TikTok star is coming forward demanding justice after she found out her daughter died using a so-called suicide kit allegedly sold by a Canadian man, as deaths possibly tied to Kenneth Law rise to over 100.

Louise Nunn said it was sickening to learn that the death of her daughter Imogen, known as “Deaf Immy” to 710,000 TikTok followers, was one of 88 British people local police say died after ordering products from Law’s websites over a two-year period.

Nunn said it was heartbreaking to learn of other deaths months and years before Imogen’s, and believes many lives could have been saved if authorities had acted earlier.

Charges against Law include a 16-year-old suicide death in Ontario. CBC News reported on May 8 that 17-year-old Anthony Jones from Michigan allegedly died in connection to Law's suicide kit.

Law appeared for a bail hearing on Friday August 25, 2023 and plead not guilty. Woodward reported:

Police in Canada have warned about the websites, allegedly run by Mississauga’s Kenneth Law, ...Peel Police said at the time of his arrest that they had tracked some 1,200 products to 40 countries.

Law claims that he is innocent of the charges and had no control over what people did with his suicide substance. Law was selling a legal product, that was packaged in a lethal dose. Law was promoting and selling the "suicide kit" allegedly purpose of suicide.

Teaching about euthanasia for mental disorders and suicide prevention.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Canadian Medical Education Journal has published an editorial by Marcel F D’Eon, Mark S Komrad, Jeremy Bannon called: Teaching suicide prevention: a Canadian medical education conundrum. The article focuses on the medical education curriculum and the tension around suicide prevention and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) also known as euthanasia, for patients with mental disorders. The editorial asks the question:

What are we educators to do when we find ourselves needing to teach about MAiD for mentally ill patients alongside suicide prevention and what we might consider for MAiD in general?

The editor writes:

At White Coat Warm (the) Art (International Congress on Academic Medicine, 2024), I was struck by the artwork and accompanying text by Nicole Graziano (University of Alberta) published in this issue of the CMEJ. Nicole’s art poignantly depicts what she called “the torment, grief, and freedom of suicide.” The white noose portrayed over a backdrop of light and dark sheds small white flowers filling the space. Her enigmatic set of words on its own caused me to pause. For me, her art juxtaposed the tragedy of suicide, liberation, and the expansion of MAiD, especially for those with psychiatric disorders. How does one help students and residents grasp the need to prevent suicide while offering MAiD to the psychiatrically ill?

The editor then examines the word suicide in relation to MAiD. He quotes Dr John Maher who stated:

Dr. John Maher, editor of the Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, has also pointed this out. How are educators then, supposed to teach students to provide suicide prevention to some patients who exhibit “self-directed behaviour with an intent to die” and simultaneously assist patients who request MAiD thus also demonstrating “self-directed behaviour with an intent to die”? Learners will notice this incongruence and have questions. We need to help them find some resolution.

The editor points out that there are a wide range of views concerning the issue of MAiD and how it may apply to people with psychiatric conditions. The editor then writes:

For a broad discussion of this topic, we could also explain the history of human rights in Canada and around the world where Canada was considered a pioneer and model for other countries. But here too there are controversy and opposition: the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities; Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons; and Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights declared that MAID in Canada was not consistent with human rights. We need to acknowledge this wide range of local and international opinions on MAiD, including relevant rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada, and allow our learners to discuss these openly and transparently without repercussions.

The editor then deals with the question of autonomy:

First, that there are no choices that are completely and wholly autonomous. We all live in a context with intertwining relationships and limitations where our decisions are made, at least in part, after consideration of what is possible and desirable within our unique situations. Our teaching about the social determinants of health affirms this perspective. Patients with mental disorders face longer waits for care, have less access to state-of-the-art expertise in certain conditions, and are generally far less economically resourced then people with other illnesses. How could these circumstance not shape the  MAiD decision?

Second, autonomy is an instrumental value. Autonomy helps us lead a fuller, better life, one of our choosing. Self Determination Theory posits that autonomy supports two other major motivators in our lives. Namely, it helps us make a world of our choosing and to enhance our sense of both accomplishment and belonging. Looking back, we reflect and learn from what we ourselves have chosen, good and not so good. But the exercise of autonomy in the MAiD decision does not lead to a fuller life, and we do not get to live with an enhanced sense of accomplishment or belonging. For those who chose MAiD, they cannot ever say of their MAiD choice, the one facilitated by medical professionals, “I’m proud of what I’ve done” and hence their exercise of autonomy was for naught.

The editor completes the article by stating that there is a diversity of thought on these issues. One of the concerns in the Canadian culture is an attitude that "shuts down the debate" and imposes a point of view on the culture.

Marcel D'eon - professor Emeritus, University of Saskatchewan, Canada; Dr Mark Komrad - Faculty of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland, USA; and Jeremy Bannon - Assistant Clinical Professor (Adjunct), Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. Correspondence to: Marcel D’Eon, email: marcel.deon@usask.ca

Calgary man can't get experimental treatment for cluster headaches but he can get euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

This is not an easy issue, but a Calgary man has gone to court to obtain access to psilocybin, a compound in 'magic mushrooms' that he believes will reduce his cluster headaches. I do not know if psilocybin will help him, but the argument that is being made is that Jody Lance can be killed by euthanasia but he cannot access psilocybin which may reduce his cluster headaches.

Lance is currently self-medicating with psilocybin that he obtains illegally.

A National Post article by Sharon Kirkey that was published on May 29 states that:

Lance is in his early 50s, and has been suffering from cluster headaches for seven years. A former land surveyor, he’s unable to work and is on long-term disability. He’s lost his house, has been “unable to socialize outside his home,” Fothergill (Justice) wrote, and says he has contemplated suicide and medical assistance in dying, or MAID, “for which he is potentially eligible.”

Lance's lawyer, Nicholas Pope, told Kirkey that:

“He doesn’t want to die,”

“He’s found a treatment that works for him and makes life bearable. But it’s absurd: If he couldn’t get access to this treatment, then MAID really would be a legitimate possibility.”

Kirkey reports that Cluster headaches are sometimes referred to as “suicide headaches,” because of the unbearable pain they can cause. 

Lance's lawyer told Kirkey that:

“The government is making it a whole lot easier to access medical assistance in dying than psilocybin, which is non-addictive and impossible to overdose on.”

Kirkey reported that Health Canada has authorized 153 requests for psilocybin, a restricted drug, under the SAP since 2022, though none for cluster headaches.

I am concerned about the suffering that Jody Lance is living with but I do not know if psilocybin is effective for cluster headaches. I do know that this article confirms that it is much easier, in Canada, to be killed by euthanasia than to receive controversial treatments, and in many cases, everyday treatments.

Young people need suicide prevention not promotion.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Mary Fahey

Mary Fahey has written a powerful op-ed that was published in the Manchester Union Leader on April 10, 2024 in response to New Hampshire assisted suicide legalization bill HB 1283.

Fahey opposes assisted suicide based on her personal experience. She writes:

At 23 years old, I have more chronic, incurable, and life-altering diseases than I can count on one hand. I am also a survivor of a suicide attempt and have dealt with strong suicidal ideation as I’ve faced daily suffering and the loss of my health as I knew it. While I have gotten the help I need to learn to live happily with my near constant illness, it has been one of the hardest tasks of my life, a task further burdened by the countless doctors I saw who knew little to nothing of my conditions or how to treat them.

Fahey states that she has found happiness, in her struggles from her friends and family in her life. Fahey continues:

This legislation fails to reinforce the value of New Hampshire citizens. Rather, assisted suicide, by its nature, creates a cruel scale of value on human lives, deeming some more worthy than others simply based on their circumstances. With assisted suicide, we are no longer stating that we should protect all lives from suicide, instead, we are saying that some lives should be exempt from that protection, that some lives are simply not worth living.

Fahey, who has survived a suicide attempt continues:

As a society, we work diligently to prevent suicide in healthy individuals, because of the knowledge that their lives have inherent and immeasurable value, and we know their death would be a tragedy. Is it our place to remove that value and promote suicide simply because someone is challenged by suffering? Doing so has devastating and far-reaching consequences, especially for New Hampshire’s young people, for whom suicide rates are already on the rise.

The supporters of this bill assert that medical aid in dying (MAID) is not actually suicide, because those who utilize it do not wish to die, and those who end their lives by suicide do wish to die, and therefore it puts no one at risk. I find this claim incredibly false. When I attempted suicide, I did not wish to die, rather, I desperately wished to live. I simply saw no alternative to the mental and physical suffering I was experiencing.

Fahey has also lost several friends to suicide. She writes:

Recently, I lost a childhood friend to suicide. He was young, with a young family. Another young woman I know of took her life last month; her obituary reads “she made a heart-breaking decision in an effort to pursue peace.” Passing HB 1283 will clearly send the message to vulnerable young people that intentionally and unnaturally ending one’s life in the face of suffering is a legitimate solution to their pain.

Fahey lives with suffering but normalizing suicide and death are not the answer. Fahey writes:

One of the greatest burdens in my personal health journey has not been the illness itself, but reconciling the unavoidable pain, discomfort, and fear with the goodness of life. I believe many young people in a similar position would say the same. I still struggle to accept this, but while I can hardly remember a day without bodily suffering, I also cannot remember a day where I have not been able to find great meaning and joy.

When the proponents of this bill state that it is not only permissible, but dignified, to take one’s life when confronting great adversity, it undermines the efforts of all of those, like myself, who have fought so hard to live in the face of grave, and often silent, suffering. It puts countless New Hampshire young people at risk by normalizing suicide as an acceptable solution to their burdens.

Fahey ends her article by urging people to contact their state Senator to oppose assisted suicide.

Contrary to the message of this bill, our suffering doesn’t define us. Our lives, however difficult, however limited, are worth living and celebrating. The Granite State needs to protect lives, not legislate ways to end them. I urge those who value every life to reach out to their state senator and ask them to vote against HB 1283.

People with disabilities need help to live not to die (Link).

Irish Psychiatrist issues warning as physically healthy Dutch and Canadian autistic women are approved for death by euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

As Ireland debates legalizing euthanasia, a leading psychiatrist issued a warning that the recent case of a physically healthy 28-year-old autistic woman in the Netherlands, and a healthy 27-year-old autistic woman in Canada who have been approved for euthanasia could also become a reality in Ireland if euthanasia is legalized.

Maria Maynes was published by RIPT on April 9, 2024 concerning the debate to legalize euthanasia in Ireland. Maynes interviewed Consultant psychiatrist, Professor Patricia Casey, a specialist in Adult Psychiatry. Maynes reportes:

recent cases unfolding worldwide involving physically healthy young people should provide evidence to Irish lawmakers that “the slippery slope exists,” as she expressed particular concern about those with autism choosing assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Last month, this publication also reported on the Canadian case of an unnamed 27-year-old woman, who was also autistic, and had chosen to die by physician assisted suicide. While the father of the unnamed woman tried to intervene through court action, arguing that she did not have the ability to consent to the death under Canada’s MAiD programme, his intervention was unsuccessful.

There have also been cases in Belgium, where Asperger’s (now subsumed under the autistic spectrum) is among the most common conditions for which Belgians seek euthanasia on mental health grounds, alongside personality disorders and depression.

Maynes quoted Casey as stating:

“There is a danger that when young, autistic people see a problem that they will look for what they see is a simple solution, or a trendy solution,” she said.

Casey also stated:

“I was struck by the photograph of 28-year-old Zoraya ter Beek in the Netherlands, who was pictured surreally embraced in the arms of her boyfriend while announcing that she was due to die on May 28th. This photograph conceals the turmoil and nihilism behind her decision and may well be used in the future to promote assisted dying as a calming answer to one’s problems.”

Professor Casey compares the issue to the romanticizing of suicide that was successfully countered by national campaigns. Professor Casey fears that the same type of romanticizing of death by euthanasia will also occur.

Professor Anne Doherty examined the issue of suicide rates in jurisdictions that have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. Professor Casey referred to her research and stated:

“Prof Doherty found that the rate of non-assisted suicide increased after assisted suicide was legalised, and I fear we will see exactly the same pattern. I also think it is very nihilistic to say to people, ‘There is no help. Why don’t you go for assisted suicide?’ I mean, it is such a dark thing to say to anybody. I think it should be absolutely taboo, but instead of that, it is now becoming glamorised.”

Professor also commented on the "bracket creep" in countries that have legalized euthanasia and stated:

“This is what has happened in a range of countries. The Netherlands, for instance, didn’t start with euthanasia for young people with mental illness. It legislated initially for those with terminal illness. Similarly in Canada and in Belgium. Now all of those countries are allowing assisted suicide for young people, or for people with mental illness – or a combination of both.”

As for the concern that people with Autism are more susceptible to requesting euthanasia, Casey stated:

“One of the reasons a young person with autism may be more susceptible is due to the fact that a lot of those with autism have unusual interests and hobbies. For example, some would have an interest in the afterlife, or the occult, or similar. We also know that some individuals who are on the autistic spectrum have very fixed beliefs about things, and so can be quite suggestible.”

“Once something has been suggested, the person can fixate on that. I think the interest in unusual things, something we often see in those with ASD, and some of the things that are outside the norm, along with their tendency to fixate on things, would make that person particularly vulnerable. For instance, people with rigid thinking, such as many of those with ASD, find it difficult to consider alternative solutions to problems. And this may render them more than willing to choose this particular pathway to death.”

Professor Casey also commented on the Social Contagion that is likely to happen with euthanasia:

“There will be a social contagion aspect, because as we know, teenagers and young adults are always online now. One person engaging in, or planning, an assisted suicide, will be in touch with others in their group and that contagion effect is very toxic.”

“We must not forget that suicide clusters existed in the recent past, because of social contagion. And it is difficult to escape that prospect in relation to assisted suicide, also.”

Ireland is currently debating the legalization of euthanasia. A recent parliamentary report was released which advocated that euthanasia be legalized for a person diagnosed with a disease, illness or medical condition that is both incurable and irreversible; advanced, progressive, and will likely cause death within six months (or within 12 months in the case of someone with a neuro-degenerative disease, illness or condition; and suffering in a manner that the person “cannot be relieved in a manner that the person finds tolerable.”

The Irish report obviously decided to push for the legalization of euthanasia in a fairly wide open manner.

For further reading, Gordon Friesen, the President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition issued a warning to Ireland in his article: If euthanasia is legalized as a cure for suffering, then suffering people will be "cured" with euthanasia!

Treatment Resistant Depression Disorder Recovery and Euthanasia

By Meghan Schrader

Meghan Schrader

Meghan is an autistic person who is an instructor at E4 Texas - University of Texas (Austin) and an EPC-USA board member.

In his 2015 essay “Treatment Resistant Depression Disorder and Assisted Dying,” Udo Schuklenk says that people with treatment resistant depression should be helped to die by suicide not only because the disorder can be excruciatingly painful, but because the person essentially has “two selves”: a real self that existed prior to the onset of the clinical depression, and a depressed self that has taken over the person’s life.  He asserts that for some people this former “real self” is never coming back, and so the kindest thing is to give them the option of being put out of their misery.

Indeed, as someone who has experienced episodes of treatment resistant depression since my teens, I must say that the most painful thing about my disorder is that I have not felt like myself. Between the ages of about seven and 16, before my mental illness started, I was considered unusually mature, wise, caring and polite for my age. So how did I go from that to the F word being every other word out of my mouth? Why was I yelling at people all the time and sharing whatever immature or rude thought that came into my mind? I had always been a good student, so why was my mind so cloudy now, like I was trying to think through static? I was a talented vocalist, so why didn’t I have the energy to sing anymore? Why was my impulse control suddenly so bad that I impulsively did foolish things that “the real me” would never do?

These changes in myself caused deep hurt. When I was about nine, my mom’s good friend told me that everyone had a metaphorical “love light” inside of them that guided how they treated others, and she kindly remarked that my “love light” was very bright. But in my late teens I began thinking and acting in ways that made me feel as though my “love light” had gone out or was constantly flickering. The real me was still “in there somewhere,” but I couldn’t put her back in the driver’s seat. The mental illness was always at least partially in control, and the intense dysphoria that it caused was like a stalker that wouldn’t leave me alone. This change in myself has sometimes been very difficult to understand.

There are, however, some logical explanations for why I’ve felt as though my “love light” isn’t functioning properly. I’m an adoptee, and since meeting my biological family about 10 years ago, I’ve learned that a lot of these issues are genetic. My bio family has a lot of terrific people in it and I’m glad that they are my family, but also many of those terrific people have suffered from severe mental illness. So, clearly there is a biological component to my symptoms that would exist no matter what, and that’s one of the reasons that I’ve experienced the sense of my “love light” not burning brightly anymore.

The other reason for that change is lack of accommodation for my Nonverbal Learning Disability. The disability is not painful by itself, but it causes a severely impaired sense of direction, slow processing speed, and various executive functioning weaknesses. However, despite that disability coming from a mild brain injury that I got when I was being born, people often don’t believe me when I tell them it exists. Usually that disability is not accommodated properly, no matter how many times I patiently explain what accommodations I need. That situation causes toxic stress: I experience getting hopelessly lost in public and having to constantly ask strangers for help, panic-induced autistic hand-flapping, making loud exclamations of despair that everyone around me hears, and having people stare at me because of these embarrassing behaviors. That situation naturally incites anger and depression; indeed, these kinds of circumstances lead to many neurodiverse and disabled people having suicidal thoughts. (Link) And of course those kinds of feelings get in the way of adding fuel to one’s “love light.”

This lack of accommodation for my neurological impairment and its impact on my “love light” is cruel. It’s not a situation that I chose, it’s a result of how the world has been designed. I firmly believe that I would have landed in the psychiatric hospital far less often-and maybe not at all-if only people would stop complaining about what a terrible hassle accommodating me is and just consistently do it.

But, in the last few years, a wonderful thing has happened to me and my “love light.” A mentor who loves me helped me find my job at the University of Texas’s postsecondary program for people with intellectual disabilities. I get all the accommodations that I need for my learning disability, so much of the environmental impetus for depression has been removed. My employer basically allowed me to create my own job mentoring students, advocating at the Texas state capitol, and offering lessons in ethics, the fine arts, independent living and peer support. In 2021 I accompanied a student who had a diabetic crisis to an emergency room and stayed with him until his family arrived. I consoled another student who was having suicidal thoughts. Last year I helped a student advocate for a bill to add disability history to the Texas state history curriculum. I take students to music performances at UT’s school of music to expose them to opera and symphonies and Caribbean music. This year I helped a student who was struggling with incontinence when she had an embarrassing accident. And this is the best part of my job: because of my work with these students, I have felt as though my “love light” has been turned back on, and the real me is alive again.

In Schuklenk’s world, mentally ill people should die — I should have died — because their (my!) unaccommodated disorders contributed to people's “love lights” going out. What a terrible waste it would have been if policies created by Schulenk and his pals had been able to shape my fate in such a heartless, thoughtless, evil way!

Indiana Resolution opposing assisted suicide passes in Committee

Indiana Resolution 17 titled: A Concurrent Resolution opposing and condemning assisted suicide passed on Wednesday February 29 passed on the Indiana Senate Committee on Health and Provider Services by a vote of 9 to 2. The following is the wording of the resolution.  

Whereas, The State of Indiana has an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life and the State's prohibition on assisting suicide in IC 35-42-1-2.5 both reflects and advances its commitment to the State's interest;

Whereas, Neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitution of the State of Indiana contain a right to assisted suicide and neither include a right for one individual to authorize another to end their life in violation of federal or state criminal laws;

Whereas, Suicide is not a typical reaction to an acute problem or life circumstance, and many individuals who contemplate suicide, including the terminally ill, suffer from treatable mental disorders, most commonly clinical depression, which frequently goes undiagnosed and untreated by physicians;

Whereas, In Oregon, 46 percent of patients seeking assisted suicide changed their minds when their physicians intervened and appropriately addressed suicidal ideations by treating their pain, depression, or other medical problems;

Whereas, Palliative care continues to improve and altering the treatment focus to relieving pain and allows a person to die naturally, comfortably, and in a dignified manner without a change in the law;

Whereas, Experiences in Oregon and the Netherlands explicitly demonstrate that palliative care options deteriorate with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide;

Whereas, A physician's recommendation for assisted suicide relies on the physician's judgment — to include negative perceptions — that a patient's life is not worth living, ultimately contributing to the use of "futility care" protocols and euthanasia;

Whereas, The legalization of assisted suicide sends a message that suicide is a socially acceptable response to aging, terminal illnesses, disabilities, and depression and subsequently imposes a "duty to die";

Whereas, The medical profession as a whole opposes physician-assisted suicide because it is contrary to the medical profession's duty to the Hippocratic Oath and their role as healer, and undermines the physician-patient relationship;

Whereas, Assisted suicide is significantly less expensive than other care options and Oregon's experience demonstrates that cost constraints can create financial incentives to limit care and offer assisted suicide;

Whereas, As evidenced in Oregon, the private nature of end-of-life decisions makes it virtually impossible to police a physician's behavior to prevent abuses, making any number of safeguards insufficient;

Whereas, Assisted suicide is a direct threat to human dignity, patient rights, and the disabled when the medical goal must be to eliminate suffering rather than the person who suffers;

Whereas, Patients should be allowed to die naturally through the use of ordinary treatment to sustain needs, increase comfort, and place the focus from curing back to caring rather than obligate the use of extraordinary medical treatment that would prolong their dying; and

Whereas, A prohibition on assisted suicide, specifically physician-assisted suicide, is the only way to protect vulnerable citizens from coerced suicide and euthanasia: Therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring:

SECTION 1. That the Indiana General Assembly, in its unqualified interest in the preservation of human life, strongly opposes and condemns physician-assisted suicide.

SECTION 2. That the Indiana General Assembly strongly opposes physician-assisted suicide because anything less than a prohibition leads to foreseeable abuses and eventually to euthanasia by devaluing human life, particularly the lives of the terminally ill, elderly, disabled, and depressed, whose lives are of no less value or quality than any other citizen of this State.

SECTION 3. That the Indiana General Assembly strongly opposes physician-assisted suicide even for terminally ill, mentally competent adults because assisted suicide eviscerates efforts to prevent the self-destructive act of suicide and hinders progress in effective physician interventions, including diagnosing and treating depression, managing pain, and providing palliative and hospice care.

SECTION 4. That the Indiana General Assembly strongly opposes physician-assisted suicide because assisted suicide undermines the integrity and ethics of the medical profession, subverts a physician's role as healer, and compromises the physician-patient relationship.

SECTION 5. The Secretary of the Senate is hereby directed to transmit copies of this Resolution to Governor Eric Holcomb, the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Health, and the Indiana State Medical Association.

Madam President: The Senate Committee on Health and Provider Services, to which was referred Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 17, has had the same under consideration and begs leave to report the same back to the Senate with the recommendation that said resolution DO PASS.

(Reference is to SC 17 as introduced.)
CHARBONNEAU, Chairperson
Committee Vote: Yeas 9, Nays 2

People with disabilities need help to live not to die.

This opinion was published by the New Hampshire Union Leader on February 26, 2024

Jules Good

By Jules Good

As New Hampshire considers legalizing assisted suicide, also referred to as medical aid in dying (MAID), I would like to draw attention to the potential impacts this bill could have on disabled and other marginalized residents.

I was 19 years old the second time I attempted to die by suicide. I had just been diagnosed with a chronic but not life-threatening illness, I had rapidly lost about 70% of my hearing in the middle of completing a music degree, and I was struggling with untreated anorexia that was taking a serious toll on my health.

At my intake appointment with a new therapist a few days after my attempt, I explained my situation and the hopelessness I was feeling. She nodded along, then looked me in the eyes and said something I will never forget:

“I would probably kill myself if I were you.”

She wasn’t the first person to say this to me as I started becoming more noticeably disabled, but she was probably the last person I expected to do so. Now that I work in disability policy, nothing surprises me. I hear stories from other disabled people about doctors pressuring them to sign DNRs because they are assumed to have a low quality of life due to their disability. I get messages on social media from people asking me how to advocate for appropriate pain management when their doctors don’t believe the amount of pain they’re in. I pore over story after story of people like Michael Hickson and Tinslee Lewis having treatment withdrawn, withheld, or threatened because of the pervasive view that it’s better to be dead than disabled.

This is why I am critical of policies that are biased toward ending the lives of people with significant disabilities rather than toward preserving them — policies like legally-assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide and the discussion around terminal illness in general has historically been framed as an issue for older adults. Young people aren’t “supposed to” have to think about death, yet adulthood for twenty-somethings like me continues to be shaped by a deadly pandemic, mass shootings, and systemic violence. We’ve heard story after story of perfectly healthy young people who got infected with COVID and are now permanently and significantly disabled.

One of my neighbors, a man in his early 30s, was a victim in a shooting that claimed the life of his 8-year-old son. He sustained permanent physical disabilities from the gunshot wound. Now more than ever, young people need to be invested in equitable treatment for disabled people, not only because we are human beings who deserve care, but also because the odds of younger people becoming disabled or caring for a disabled person are continually rising.

While proponents claim that assisted suicide is only for “terminally ill people who are about to die anyway,” they ignore the fact that many disabilities can become terminal if left untreated. In our for-profit healthcare system, denying or merely delaying care can make an otherwise manageable disability terminal. Medical racism and transphobia increase barriers to care, resulting in BIPOC and trans people reporting postponing or avoiding medical care due to discrimination.

Up to a quarter of people with chronic illnesses have chosen not to fulfill a prescription to manage their condition because of cost. The more vulnerable a person is, the more likely they are to be “steered” toward assisted suicide. It doesn’t take direct coercion to make this happen; a system where death seems like the best or only option for the most marginalized patients is not a system that needs a legal avenue for doctors to help us die.

As my colleague and prominent disability justice activist Anita Cameron has written, disabled people need “supports to live, not tools to die.” A policy of assisted suicide is not an avenue for bodily autonomy or choice; it is yet another tool that can be used to deny care to those who need it most.

Newmarket’s Jules Good is a disability policy professional and activist.

Jacqueline Abernathy opposing Colorado assisted suicide expansion Bill SB 068

Dear Honorable Members of the Colorado State Assembly Senate Health & Human Services Committee,

Jacqueline Abernathy

I write today to urge you to oppose SB 068 and its blatant attempt to welcome suicide tourism in Colorado and put Coloradans at risk by expanding assisted suicide access to non-residents. I implore you as a public policy scholar fearful of how Colorado could betray the safety of its own most vulnerable citizens simply to put other citizens at risk as well. Your bill is a gross overstep to endanger citizens in other states while increasing the threat to your own constituents. 

I speak as an expert on this very topic, a bioethicist with a Ph.D. in Public Administration and Policy and a bibliography of scholarly peer-reviewed publications on assisted suicide and end-of-life medical decision-making. Where your duty is to the people of Colorado, entertaining the overreach inherent to SB 068 betrays the health and safety of those you are called to protect. This is why all eyes are upon you and non-residents like myself, who have an equal entitlement to weigh in on your decision in Colorado.

Regardless of what instigates it, suicide is generally an impulsive act of desperation, most often borne of fear. Enabling hasty irreversible decisions to self-destruct is not meant to limit any negative outcomes to the patient through delays. This bill will simply accommodate non-residents who travel to Colorado to obtain a deadly prescription from a total stranger who will only have them as a patient as long as it takes to dispense the lethal dose. SB 068 would create a market for these niche practices that do nothing but dispense deadly suicide drugs. The provisions negated in SB 068 include competent physician requirements, reflection and review periods, second opinions about prognoses and mental capacity, and the independence of physician assessments of each patient’s case. This bill eschews any semblance of an existing doctor-patient relationship by a physician well acquainted with the patient and their particular set of circumstances. SB 068 does not feign to value doctor opinions at all, striking every use of the word “physician” in favor of provider in order to allow lesser-qualified non-physicians to dispense the deadly poisons in a fraction of the time. This appears to accommodate specialty death clinics of ideologically pro-euthanasia on-demand doctors and nurses who can blindly validate each other’s conclusions out of their position that death on demand is a personal right for those who meet any legal or ethical criteria. This directly affronts the reason for the Colorado law to require a consultative review: as a safeguard to independently assess and concur with the attending physician’s conclusion that a patient is indeed terminally ill and mentally competent without signs of coercion or duress.

SB 068’s embrace of logistics to enable vendor suicide businesses negates any remaining provisions meant to protect Colorado citizens as total smokescreen. Whereas 14 days was the length of time for a resident advised by their existing doctor, surrounded by their family, greater community, extended support network and familiar resources, now anyone can visit a clinic for a rubber-stamped approval to kill themselves within two days. It strikes time for an adequate review of each patient’s case, limiting opportunity for further reflection by patients. There is no time for scrutiny or basic due diligence regarding someone’s alleged terminal prognosis and increases the likelihood of patient misdiagnosis and the possibility of treatable depression. A review of studies also determined that physicians’ medical diagnoses were often incorrect, both in declaring a patient to have a terminal condition and estimating their life expectancy at six months or fewer. Another study of physicians who were willing to prescribe the lethal dose found that 27 percent were not confident that they could determine if a patient only had six months or fewer to live. There is also substantial evidence that many patients opting to end their lives suffer from treatable depression and physicians report that patients for whom interventions were made (like treating depression) were more likely to change their minds about wanting to end their lives.

Whereas tax exportation to increase state budgets by encouraging tourism is within your scope as lawmakers, this would only increase revenue at the invaluable health and safety expense of those citizens who no longer have any safeguards thanks to enabling non-residents, but furthermore, this does not factor in the actual monetary and human costs of cleaning up after the deceased. 

The bill assumes that non-residents would just be trying to subvert their own state laws against assisted suicide but how many might be trying to subvert loved ones back home as well or have no one to return to anyway? While it is true that most suicides (77%) occur at home, those who travel here from their homes out-of-state just to obtain deadly drugs because SB 068 designed this option for that express purpose that they will not leave alive. Where do suicidal people who don’t have as ready access to their home as a place to end their lives? National parks are prime suicide destinations as is, particularly in the west where suicide the second leading cause of death, costs over a quarter-million dollars in recovery and identification efforts per victim. The Colorado National Monument attracts dozens of despondent people who self-destruct each year, but with the means to death in their pocket, any public place can become the spot someone chooses to die if they are inclined. There can only be added costs and psychological trauma to the Colorado residents who will face the aftermath of inviting this added violence. Mere exposure to suicide often leads to suicide among the responders and survivors, and this is true of those who discover a deceased loved one at home. For every quick, exported suicide that was started in Colorado but completed in a neighboring state for those residents to deal with the unpleasant consequences, there are sure to be secret, expedited death plans of residents enabled by SB 068. Making suicide so quick and easy can only mean more shocked survivors of hasty death plans by Coloradans hiding their intentions, leaving notes for their children or spouses explaining that they sought a hasty overdose from a nurse in Denver just days after learning their diagnosis because they “didn’t want to be a burden,” never knowing that their grieving survivors would give anything to have had a chance to tell them how desperately their family wanted to care for them for what precious time they had left.

In a state that ranks among the highest for per capita suicides (46 out of 50), so this would merely add a so-called legitimate form of self-violence to what your state calls a “public health crisis” and cost enormous sums of tax dollars to prevent. SB 068 only serves to usher in more death and destruction of Colorado residents by inviting the death and destruction of non-residents. Attempting to usurp the laws of other state legislatures to impose your will can only be done by endangering and burdening the citizens you are called to protect. 

Do your duty. Vote NO on SB 068.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Harvey Abernathy, Ph.D., M.S.S.W.
Dallas, Texas