Sunday, September 17, 2017

The Nazis' First Victims Were the Disabled.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The sad reality is that people will often forget human history. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Kenny Fries
I think that everyone needs to read the article, 
The Nazi's First Victims Were the Disabled, that was published in the New York Times on September 13.

This excellent article is written by Kenny Fries, an author who recently published “In the Province of the Gods.” 
Fries is writing about his explanation to a young German neurologist of the truth about how the Nazi's T4 euthanasia program killed as many as 300,000 people with disabilities. The killing techniques were developed in the Psychiatric hospitals and then used in the Nazi death camps. Fries takes the killing of people with disabilities personally:
I have a personal stake in making sure this history is remembered. In 1960, I was born missing bones in both legs. At the time, some thought I should not be allowed to live. Thankfully, my parents were not among them. 
I first discovered that people with disabilities were sterilized and killed by the Nazis when I was a teenager, watching the TV mini-series “Holocaust” in 1978. But it would be years before I understood the connections between the killing of the disabled and the killing of Jews and other “undesirables,” all of whom were, in one way or another, deemed “unfit.”
Nazi euthanasia victims
Many facts about the Nazi T4 euthanasia program are not well known. Fries explains:
While he does know that approximately 300,000 disabled people were killed in T4 and its aftermath, he doesn’t know about the direct connection between T4 and the Holocaust. He doesn’t know that it was at Brandenburg, the first T4 site, where methods of mass killing were tested, that the first victims of Nazi mass killings were the disabled, and that its personnel went on to establish and run the extermination camps at Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. 
Three years earlier, when I first arrived in Germany, I was consistently confronted with the treatment of those with disabilities under the Third Reich. But I soon realized I had to go back even farther. In the 1920s, the disabled were mistreated, sterilized, experimented on and killed in some German psychiatric institutions. In 1920, the psychiatrist Alfred Hoche and the jurist Karl Binding published their treatise, “Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life,” which became the blueprint for the exterminations of the disabled carried out by the Third Reich. 
I am also Jewish. At the Karl Bonhoeffer psychiatric hospital in the Berlin suburb of Wittenau, where the exhibition “A Double Stigma: The Fate of Jewish Psychiatric Patients” was held, I learned about, as the exhibition title suggests, how Jewish patients were doubly stigmatized by being separated from other patients, denied pastoral care, and were cared for not at the expense of the Reich but by Jewish organizations. Jewish patients were singled out for early extermination; by December 1942, the destruction of the Jewish patient population at Wittenau was complete.
Nazi euthanasia victims
Fries explains why the history of the Nazi T4 euthanasia program important to us today:
Why is it important to know this history? We often say what happened in Nazi Germany couldn’t happen here. But some of it, like the mistreatment and sterilization of the disabled, did happen here.
A reading of Hoche and Binding’s “Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life” shows the similarity between what they said and what exponents of practical ethics, such as Peter Singer, say about the disabled today. As recently as 2015, Singer, talking with the radio host Aaron Klein on his show, said, “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.” 
These philosophers talk about the drain on “resources” caused by lives lived with a disability, which eerily echoes what Hoche and Binding wrote about the “financial and moral burden” on “a person’s family, hospital, and state” caused by what they deem lives “unworthy of living.”
Many people think that these attitudes towards people with disabilities are in the past. Fries asks the question:
What kind of society do we want to be? Those of us who live with disabilities are at the forefront of the larger discussion of what constitutes a valued life. What is a life worth living? Too often, the lives of those of us who live with disabilities are not valued, and feared. At the root of this fear is misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and a lack of knowledge of disability history and, thus, disabled lives.

Friday, September 15, 2017

Candice Lewis was pressured to die by euthanasia in Canada.

This article was originally published by OneNewsNow.

A case in Canada demonstrates that people who are seriously ill or disabled need to be accommodated, and doing that does not include a lethal injection.

Candice Lewis
Candice Lewis, who was born with multiple disabilities, lives in a small Newfoundland community. When she was hospitalized last year, two doctors pressured her to agree to be euthanized and strongly suggested it to her mother.

"It was obvious she was going through conditions, ..., which may have been very, very great," explains Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC). "But the fact is that there was no request for euthanasia, and as you know, in Canada euthanasia is legal now. There was no request, there was no desire for this, but there was pressure from the doctors."
Lewis was ultimately transferred to another hospital where doctors found the problem was simply a need to adjust her medication. She is now doing better than ever and recently participated in her sister's wedding.

As for euthanasia, Schadenberg says proponents claim it is all about personal choice, but that is a big lie.

"That's one of the big cultural lies that they sell us because, in fact, what it is is that it gives the doctor the right in law to cause your death. And once the doctor has that power, you have to understand that goes along with their own attitudes, their own levels of discrimination, their own feelings," the EPC executive points out. "Obviously the doctors were saying, 'I wouldn't want to live like you, Candice.'"
Yet Candice wants to live, and her family does not want to be deprived of the joy she bring them.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

2017 Euthanasia Symposium - October 28, 2017

Join us for the 2017 National Euthanasia Symposium. 

It is an opportunity for us to learn from each other and network with like-minded people. It is happening this year on Saturday, October 28 from 9 am - 5 pm at the Best Western Premier Toronto Airport Carlingview Hotel

You can register online (Registration link) or you can also register by calling the EPC office at: 1-877-439-3348 or by emailing

Dr. Mark Komrad
The cost for the Symposium is $50, and includes lunch

New this year, we are live streaming of the Symposium to enable anyone to watch the Symposium live, anywhere in the world. We will send you the link and code to log in for only $30.

We have arranged for many amazing speakers:

Dr. Mark Komrad is an American professor and psychiatrist who will speak about opposing euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. He has written a book on how to convince troubled family members, loved ones and friends to get psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Mark specialized in medical ethics in mental health care.

Jen Romnes
Jen Romnes is an artist, author and advocate who will speak about her personal experience opposing euthanasia. Jen has recently released her second book entitled Entangled 2: Betrayed From Within which continues the story of how she fought to protect her Mom from abuse. Her advocacy focuses on protecting people who become vulnerable due to diseases like Alzheimer’s.
Dr. Jacqueline Abernathy
Dr Jacqueline Abernathy is Assistant Professor of Public Administration at Tarleton State University in Texas and an end-of-life researcher. She will talk about her analysis of the defeated assisted suicide legislation in the US.

Kevin Dunn
Kevin Dunn is a movie producer who co-produced The Euthanasia Deception and many other documentaries for social change. Kevin is currently working on two new films for EPC and will speak on the topic of using media to drive social and cultural change.

Taylor Hyatt
Amy Hasbrouck, President of EPC and Taylor Hyatt, Policy Analyst and Outreach Coodinator for Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet will speak about the federal debate on expanding the euthanasia law in Canada from the perspective of people with disabilities.

Dr. Ramona Coelho
Dr. Ramona Coelho, a Medical Doctor in London, Ontario, will be speaking on physicians' conscience rights. 

Charles Lewis, a former columnist with the National Post and a member of the EPC Board, will be speaking about the need to care for and protect people from euthanasia.

Amy Hasbrouck
EPC President.
When booking your room at the Best Western, be sure to mention you are attending the Symposium to get the special conference rate of $109 (includes breakfast). Visit their website at or call: 1-800-780-7234.

Please share this information with any family members and friends who may be interested in learning more about how they can better resist the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in their community. We need you to become more involved in our work to create positive change.

For more information call: 1-877-439-3348 or email:

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

“World Suicide Prevention Day” Omits Disabled Population

September 11, 2017
Taylor Hyatt – Policy Analyst & Outreach Coordinator, 
Toujours Vivant-Not Dead Yet

September 10th, was World Suicide Prevention Day. The decision to end one’s own life should always be met with sorrow and grief; every effort should be made to prevent human beings from reaching that level of despair. However, our society seems to make an exception for old, ill and disabled people.

Disabled people encounter a variety of obstacles to living secure, fulfilling and independent lives compared to the general population. There is a shortage of affordable and accessible housing, as well as home-based assistance services. Many people end up being forced into institutions as a result. These environments severely restrict residents’ personal freedoms, while unsanitary conditions and unhealthy practices may rise to the level of inhumane treatment. People with disabilities are also more likely to be unemployed or live in poverty. Income supports often do not cover basic living expenses. Moreover, correcting any of these problems is commonly thought to be a burden. It’s no wonder that some wrongly believe it is better to die than be disabled.

When suicidal tendencies become obvious, self-destruction is assumed to be a reasonable choice because a disability is present. Should the person seek help, medical professionals overlook typical sources of stress. Instead of investigating the underlying problems – strained relationships or social isolation – the person’s behaviour is assumed to be motivated by the disability, and therefore rational. For people with mental health issues, the wish to die may even be a symptom of their condition. In fact, the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) released a position paper this week stating that assisted suicide solely for psychiatric disabilities “should remain illegal” for this reason. People with all kinds of disabilities are therefore at greater risk of suicide. This situation cannot be overlooked.

To make matters worse, the Canadian government legalized “medical aid in dying” or “assisted death” last year. The procedure should be called by its true name: assisted suicide and euthanasia. A false distinction between two “types” of suicide has been created. Current suicide prevention efforts disregard the legally-sanctioned form in an effort to avoid limiting personal choice. This approach makes no sense. Whether or not you are disabled, and whether or not you engage medical professionals to participate in your death, suicide is suicide.

Suicide prevention should apply equally to everyone – including and especially people with disabilities. Until that happens, we will be denied our rights to self-determination and full participation in society. / / 450-921-3057

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Euthanasia and assisted suicide - contagion and corruption of compassion.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Arthur Goldberg and Shimon Cowan have written an excellent analysis of euthanasia and assisted suicide laws from the point of view of Jewish scholars. The article: The contagion of euthanasia and the Corruption of Compassion was published in Public Discourse on September 11.

Goldberg and Cowan write about the issue based on several topic areas. They start their article by referring to the quick expansion of euthanasia "MAiD" in Canada.

In Canada, “natural death” must be “reasonably foreseeable” before a doctor may euthanize a patient. In spite of such statutory language, in A.B. v. Canada, a case decided this June, the Court judged that the anticipated natural death need not be “imminent”; it need not even be “connected to a particular terminal disease or condition.” Rather, Justice Paul Perell concluded, “what is a ‘reasonably foreseeable death’ is a person’s specific medical question to be made without necessarily making, but not precluding, a prognosis of the remaining lifespan.” Physician-assisted suicide may go forward as long as a medical professional considers “all of a particular person’s medical circumstances.” One wonders in what sort of case death would not be reasonably foreseeable, under this loose standard. 
The foundation for this decision was an earlier Canadian Supreme Court case, Carter v. Canada. It overturned the law that criminalized both the assisting of another’s suicide and the consenting to one’s own death, on the grounds that the law “unjustifiably infringed” upon the rights and freedoms of “competent adult persons.”
Goldberg and Cowan then write about the Contagion of euthanasia:
One vector for the contagion of euthanasia is the vagueness of the terms in which the conditions for termination of life are expressed. Alex Schadenberg, International Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, provides a couple examples.  A.B. v. Canada, the case cited above, arose because the petitioner’s doctor was unwilling to execute a woman with excruciating osteoarthritis, fearing that if he did so, he might be charged with murder. If the requirement that death be “reasonably foreseeable” is supposed to rule anything out, it probably should rule out killing someone with painful, non-terminal arthritis—yet the court found some way to justify the killing. Schadenberg also points to a case of a young man in a Vancouver nursing home who was diagnosed with a neurological disease and struggled to “find a cure with massive doses of vitamins.” Nowhere near dying, this man was nevertheless killed by a Vancouver physician. 
The spread of the contagion is facilitated by financial motives also. Insurance companies, trying to save money, often seek to replace sanctity of life with so-called quality of life. Dr. Brian Callister, an associate professor at the University of Nevada School of Medicine and former head of the State’s Medical Association, attempted to transfer two patients to hospitals in other states, so they could receive potentially life-saving treatments unavailable in Nevada. His patients were denied insurance for their transfer and treatment. The insurers asked: “Have you considered suicide?” Speaking from personal experience, Dr. Callister says, “Assisted suicide changes the way we care for patients. It creates a dangerous segue to perverse incentives for insurance companies and there’s no going back from that.” 
But Dr. Callister’s experience is not isolated. Stephanie Packer, a vibrant mother of four from California, suffers with scholoderma, a terminal condition. She was advised by her insurance company to seek a prescription from her doctor for a lethal medicine that would only cost her a $1.20 co-pay, instead of granting her the financial assistance she sought for life-affirming treatments at UCLA.
Goldberg and Cowan then examine the question of the Psychological Contagion of Suicide:
On his Fox News show, Tucker Carlson highlighted the negative effect of 13 Reasons Why, a Netflix show, on two teenage girls in California. According to their parents, the girls committed suicides after “bringing” on episodes of the show. They blamed their children’s deaths on the show’s glamorization of suicide, its presentation of suicide as a response to the stresses of teenage life. 
It is perhaps no accident that Oregon, the first state to legalize assisted suicide, has a general suicide rate some 40 percent higher than the American national average. Whether legal “assisted suicide” fueled the State’s culture of suicide, or was fueled by an otherwise existing culture of suicide, the Oregon experience at least suggests that suicide as a culturally accepted “value” and legislation permitting “assisted suicide” go together.
The authors then examine the issue of conscience rights. They wrote:
Permitting euthanasia does not just harm those who are killed. It also harms those who are forced to kill, or else suffer legal consequences or be forced from a profession. Legislation implemented in Ontario—and similar legislation proposed in Victoria, Australia—forces physicians who oppose personal involvement in euthanasia or “assisted suicide” to “effectively refer” their patients to another physician who will kill. “Effective referral” is defined as a referral to carry out the purposes of the Act. That means a specific referral either “to someone who will do it or someone who will arrange it. Either way,” EPC Chair Alex Schadenberg explains, “it’s a referral for the purpose of death.” It thus denies conscience rights to medical professionals who do not understand killing their patients to be part of their craft. 
In the view of Larry Worthen, executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Association of Canada, when doctors are told they must send their patient to an executioner, “we are being forced to violate our deeply held religious beliefs. Effective referral and participating in assisted death are morally and ethically the same thing. This forces people of conscience and faith to act against their moral convictions and threatens the very core of why they became physicians, which is to help to heal people.” 
Dr. Mark D’Souza, a palliative care physician and board director of Concerned Ontario Doctors, indicates that as a “conscientious objector,” he objects to killing a patient. As a result, he and several other doctors he knows will no longer accept patients needing palliative care. The palliative care system in the community in which he practices (Scarborough) is grossly under serviced. The effect of these retirements is to worsen available care for patients in severe pain. In addition to contradicting the very concept of palliative care, the availability of euthanasia also tends to undermine its practice; where euthanasia is available, funding for palliative care falls correspondingly.
The authors then examine the question of compassion:
Euthanasia therefore abandons people at their most vulnerable. Rather than providing compassion and support for people in their suffering, euthanasia presents a callous and insensitive “alternative.” As Viktor Frankl points out, the essential human dimension is neither body nor mind, but rather a soul or conscience with both mind and body as its vehicles and challenges. The task of soul or conscience is to respond purposefully and ethically to the predicaments of mind and body. 
We can see a shining example of true compassion in the case of an Oregon resident, Jeanette Hall. After receiving a terminal diagnosis of cancer, she requested lethal drugs, thinking it appropriate to “do what our law allowed”—a law for which she voted. Her doctor, however, encouraged her not to give up, even though medical diagnosis gave her six months to live. A decade later she is still surviving.
The authors finally deal with the the inalienable rights and obligations we have towards persons. They conclude their article by stating:
In a previous Public Discourse essay, we spoke about the conditions required to achieve restoration of the political-moral center. One essential ingredient is to overcome a culture of sanctioned killing, to re-anchor our contemporary culture towards the protection of life, rather than its disposal. To do this we must crystallize into our collective consciousness the principles of the Noahide Code, the moral root of our great religious traditions and our civilization.
Thank you Arthur Goldberg and Shimon Cowen for researching issues related to euthanasia and assisted suicide from a Jewish point of view.

Saturday, September 9, 2017

Canadian Mental Health Association opposes "MAiD" euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) in its submission to the Canadian Institute for Health Research has stated that MAiD (euthanasia) for psychiatric patients should remain illegal.

The position of the CMHA is:

As a recovery-oriented organization, CMHA does not believe that mental illnesses are irremediable, though they may be grievous or unbearable. 
We recognize that people with mental illnesses can experience unbearable psychological suffering as a result of their illness, but there is always the hope of recovery. 
CMHA’s position on medical assistance in dying in Canada, is that people with a mental health problem or illness should be assisted to live and thrive.
The CMHA recommended that the government:
1. Support recovery, 
2. Continue to invest in community mental health and addiction services and supports, 
3. Develop a national suicide prevention strategy, 
4. Invest in research to accurately predict and understand the course of illness in mental health and substance abuse.
In December 2016 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) decided that in concert with the American Medical Association’s position on medical euthanasia, that a psychiatrist should not prescribe or administer any intervention to a non-terminally ill person for the purpose of causing death.

California Hospital Sued for Refusing to Assist a Suicide.

The article was published by the National Review online on August 13, 2017.

Wesley Smith
By Wesley Smith

This lawsuit is a little before its time. 

Should assisted suicide become widely accepted in this country, activists will try to force all doctors to participate–either by doing the deed or referring to a doctor known to be willing to lethally prescribe. 

But it isn’t yet, and so the pretense of the movement that they only want an itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy change in mores and law continues as SOP. 

But sometimes they show their true intentions. Thus, when UCSF oncologists refused to assist a cancer patient’s suicide, the woman died of her disease. Now, her family is suing–using the same attorney (Kathryn Tucker) who tried (unsuccessfully) to obtain an assisted suicide Roe v Wade in 1997 and has brought other pro-assisted suicide cases around the country. From the San Francisco Chronicle story
Judy Dale died of cancer in her San Francisco home in September, in agony, after being denied the pain-relieving medication she might have received under the state’s aid-in-dying law that had taken effect three months earlier. 
Bias alert! Pain relieving medication is palliative, to ease pain or other very uncomfortable. Dale was not issued a lethal prescription intended to kill her. That’s not the same thing. 

Back to the story: 
A lawsuit by her children will determine whether UCSF Medical Center, where Dale first went for treatment, was responsible for her suffering by allegedly concealing its oncologists’ decision not to provide life-ending drugs to patients who ask for them. 
More broadly, their suit illuminates the inner workings of a law that confers new rights on terminally ill patients, but few obligations on their health care providers. 
Specifically, doctors and hospitals are provided clear and explicit conscience protections in the law. No hospital or physician can be forced to participate or refer in an assisted suicide.

Demonstrating the disingenuousness of the lawyers bringing suit, that provision was–as the story reports–required to induce the California Medical Association to go neutral on the law, without which it almost surely would never have passed. 

The primary claim is elder abuse. If that theory prevails, not helping kill a patient would become a form of abuse! Unthinkable. 

The plaintiffs also contend that the hospital had assured Dale she would be able to receive assisted suicide, and then failed to follow through. I don’t know if that kind of statement would be actionable or not since there is no legal duty to do the deed, as it were. 

But this I do know: The lawsuit illustrates where the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement wants to go. As in Ontario, Canada, they want doctors and hospitals to be forced to participate in assisted suicide or get out of medicine.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

New York Court of Appeals found that "aid-in-dying" is assisted suicide and there is no right to assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition commends the New York Court of Appeals for the unanimous ruling the state's highest court made Thursday in Meyers v. Schneiderman. The court found that aid-in-dying is assisted suicide and that there is no right to assisted suicide in New York.

This is not the first time that a State court has decided that aid-in-dying is assisted suicide while upholding the State assisted suicide law. 

The assisted suicide lobby is attempting to redefine the term "aid-in-dying" by claiming it is not a form of suicide or assisted suicide. 

I believe that the first attempt by the assisted suicide to redefine assisted suicide was in the Connecticut court in 2010. The Connecticut court stated that aid-in-dying is assisted suicide.

Even though the New York court was clear, something tells me that the assisted suicide lobby, formerly known as the Hemlock society, will continue to bring false cases to court with the hope of finding a sympathetic judge who is willing to redefine suicide. 

"We will continue to fight to establish the right to aid in dying in the New York State legislature," said Laurie Leonard, executive director of the group End of Life Choices New York.

In New York, the high court responded to the claims of the assisted suicide lobby in Meyers v. Schneiderman:
"Suicide" is not defined in the Penal Law, and therefore "we must give the term its ordinary and commonly understood meaning" ... Suicide has long been understood as “the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally.”…Black’s Law Dictionary defines “suicide” as “[t]he act of taking one’s own life,” and “assisted suicide” as “[t]he intentional act of providing a person with the medical means or the medical knowledge to commit suicide” (10th ed 2014). Aid-in-dying falls squarely within the ordinary meaning of the statutory prohibition on assisting a suicide.  
As written, the assisted suicide statutes apply to a physician who intentionally prescribes a lethal dosage of a drug because such act constitutes "promoting a suicide attempt" (Penal Law § 120.30) or "aid[ing] another person to commit suicide" (Penal Law § 125.15 [3]). We therefore reject plaintiffs' statutory construction claim. 
The next claim by the assisted suicide lobby was that New York does not provide equal protection or equality under the law. The New York State high court disagreed.
Our State's equal protection guarantees are coextensive with the rights protected under the federal Equal Protection Clause. ... In Vacco v Quill, the United States Supreme Court held that New York State's laws banning assisted suicide do not unconstitutionally distinguish between individuals (521 US 793, 797 [1997]). As the Court explained, "[e]veryone, regardless of physical condition, is entitled, if competent, to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment; no one is permitted to assist a suicide. Generally, laws that apply evenhandedly to all unquestionably comply with equal protection" (id. at 800 [emphasis in original]). The Supreme Court has not retreated from that conclusion, and we see no reason to hold otherwise.
No assisted suicide.
No assisted elder abuse.
The High Court also disagreed with the claim by the assisted suicide lobby that there is a fundamental right to self-determination and to control the course of their medical treatment encompasses the right to choose aid-in-dying. The court responded:

Contrary to plaintiffs' claim, we have never defined one's right to choose among medical treatments, or to refuse life-saving medical treatments, to include any broader "right to die" or still broader right to obtain assistance from another to end one's life. 
We have consistently adopted the well-established distinction between refusing life-sustaining treatment and assisted suicide

The right to refuse medical intervention is at least partially rooted in notions of bodily integrity, as the right to refuse treatment is a consequence of a person's right to resist unwanted bodily invasions (see Cruzan v Director, Mo. Dept. of Health, 497 US 261, 269-270 [1990]; Schloendorff, 211 NY at 130). In the case of the terminally ill, refusing treatment involves declining life-sustaining techniques that intervene to delay death. Aid-in-dying, by contrast, involves a physician actively prescribing lethal drugs for the purpose of directly causing the patient's death. 
... the Supreme Court has noted that "the distinction between assisting suicide and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, a distinction widely recognized and endorsed in the medical profession and in our legal traditions, is both important and logical; it is certainly rational," and it turns on - 10 - - 11 - No. 77 "fundamental legal principles of causation and intent" (Vacco, 521 US at 801).
The New York court upheld the clear and fundamental distinction between killing and letting die. The withdrawal of treatment does not cause death, but rather it does not delay natural death from occurring whereas assisted suicide directly and intentionally causes death.

The court then stated that there is no right to assisted suicide and they recognized that the State has a legitimate interest in prohibiting assisted suicide. The court stated:
As to the right asserted here, the State pursues a legitimate purpose in guarding against the risks of mistake and abuse. The State may rationally seek to prevent the distribution of prescriptions for lethal dosages of drugs that could, upon fulfillment, be deliberately or accidentally misused. The State also has a significant interest in preserving life and preventing suicide, a serious public health problem... . As summarized by the Supreme Court, the State's interests in prohibiting assisted suicide include: "prohibiting intentional killing and preserving life; preventing suicide; maintaining physicians' role as their patients' healers; protecting vulnerable people from indifference, prejudice, and psychological and financial pressure to end their lives; and avoiding a possible slide towards euthanasia" (Vacco, 521 US at 808-809). These legitimate and important State interests further "satisfy the constitutional requirement that a legislative classification bear a rational relation to some legitimate end" (id. at 809).
The New York High Court concluded that:
Our Legislature has a rational basis for criminalizing assisted suicide, and plaintiffs have no constitutional right to the relief they seek herein. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
The High Court decision was clear, aid-in-dying is assisted suicide and there is no right to assisted suicide in New York.