Focus 580; The Hemlock Society

This is focused 580 our telephone talk program. My name's David Inge. Glad to have you with us this morning as we begin another week's worth of programs this morning. In this hour of focus 580 will be talking with Fager Shah. She is president of the Hemlock Society it is the nation's oldest and largest right to die organization. She became president in 1906 before that she was a clinical and forensic psychologist practicing in San Diego. She also was the president and founder of the Hemlock Society of San Diego. She was here visiting our area just about a week ago. Perhaps there are some people who are listening who had an opportunity to hear her speak. In any case whether you did or did not as we talked this morning you can certainly feel free to join us and be a part of the conversation. You have questions comments they are welcome here in Champaign-Urbana. The number to call 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Also we have a toll free line. And that means it would be a long distance call for you. Use that number and we'll pay for the call that's 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 3 3 3 WRAL.

Until 3 800 to 2 2 W while just a little bit more about our guest figure she earned her doctorate from Harvard University. She's taught at Morehouse College and the University of Chicago. The California and U.S. Supreme Courts have cited her research. She's published extensively in legal and psychological journals including more than 30 articles on the right to die. She's joining us this morning by telephone. Dr. Gershon Hello. Good morning. Thanks for talking with us. My pleasure. How is it that you became involved in this issue the right to die issue. It was a personal matter I did it as a forensic psychologist I examined a young quadriplegic woman in 1983 who wanted to admit herself into a hospital and refuse food and goods to die. And at that time that was not possible. But I it just evaluated her because the court had to know whether she was competent. And I and many other people found her competent. But the issue as I talked about it

in the public I found out that people had horrible experiences with their loved ones who were very ill and wanted to die they could die and couldn't. And it seemed to me that this was a very important civil liberties issue that could potentially affect everybody's family. And so that's how I got involved and of course later in 1990 the Supreme Court in the Cruzan decision said essentially that Americans that people have that right that is they have the right to refuse treatment including food and water and. And I'm not quite sure how many people have actually done that. But at that point as the court said yes that individuals have their right. Yes you're exactly right and many people do take advantage of that and in many cases hospice will help make them comfortable and make sure they have good oral hygiene. And the courts use that as a way to hasten their death and now it's quite

acceptable. I'm interested in your thoughts about what the polls surveys on this issue tell us about what Americans think about the right to die. Apparently it is kid the case now a number of polls. There are different numbers but polls seem to indicate that a majority of Americans favor some kind of assisted death bread perhaps physician assisted. Although interestingly enough fewer say that they would make that choice for themselves but it appears that most a majority that is something like 70 percent maybe more say that people should have that option. You're right you're right about that and that's true about doctors too the majority of doctors when they're polled favor legal physician needin dying even though the majority personally might be reluctant to provide that kind of help themselves. And it's not just an American phenomenon. It's in every developed country where we're living longer and better lives. But dying of

chronic diseases. The support is over 70 percent. Australia Canada Europe Japan Great Britain. In all those countries people want this option. Will it specifically do you think if you then engage people in some conversation about what it is they really want what sort of choice they think should be available. Is there some consensus there. Do people have a consistent idea about what it is that they think should be what this option should be. People want it for terminally ill mentally competent adults and they want it under careful safeguards and they want I think more than what the Oregon law provides which is that a physician prescribes a medication then the patient takes it. The surveys indicate that people prefer that a doctor could give a

lethal injection as well that another one other words the decision on how to die would be made between the doctor or the patient. Something else that I think is very striking and perhaps not surprising is that it seems that when you break down the way people feel according to their age that is. The younger people tend to favor this more than older people which would suggest to me that as as death becomes more of a reality it is as one is in a position actually to appreciate understand your own mortality. People seemed to be less in favor of having this option I wonder why you think that is. I much. Sure that's the correct finding. There was a huge study done of over 30000 people over 65 and the vast majority favored legal physician aid in dying so I guess it depends what survey you read to the audiences that I talk to tend to be older and they seem to be very much in favor because the issue was very acute to them.

So I'm not sure that. It's worth debating whether they were favored by young people or not because I'm not sure the data are that clear. Well I guess the the one that I'm thinking about here I think is Gallup who that found that 51 percent of those older than 65 favored it as compared with 62 percent of those people between 18 and 29. Yeah. I don't recall that particular poll but there's certainly a lot of different surveys that I think show different things but this one survey. That was done in 1997 was the largest survey of people over 65 30000 respondents. So I I don't know I mean we could easily speculate about why older people don't favor it but I just not sure that that's correct. One other thing and again it's maybe this is just something that makes it interesting for an interesting argument but I think that it was this same survey or perhaps other surveys have found

that there was a very significant difference in the way that African-Americans react to this as opposed to I guess white Americans in that they tend to be much much less in favor of this. Yes. And why. Why do you think that would be. I think it's a combination of poor access to health care which is of much more concern to them and the possibilities of what would happen at the end of life if they didn't have good access to health care. And also the stronger religious belief. And perhaps also a good guess as I've seen it suggested some feeling that the health care system has not provided good care for African-Americans in the past and perhaps there's some suspicion that that is that they would they would not be well cared for and perhaps wouldn't have the kind of options that that others would.

That's right. That's what I was trying to suggest. And that certainly is something to be concerned about. Well given the fact if if indeed these kinds of surveys are correct that a majority of Americans favor this choice being there why is it that so far only one state that is the state of Oregon has made this legal. Well there have been initiatives in six states. I want sixty six different initiatives two of them of course were in Oregon. And of those five I had. More than 45 percent of the voters said yes they wanted this in Washington. The first one in 1991 it was 46 percent in California the next year it was 46 percent. Then in Oregon in 1994 51 percent in 1997 50 to 60 percent. And last year in Maine 49 percent of the voters said yes. But what we're up against is we're hemlock as a grassroots organization

and these state initiatives have been floated by grassroots organizations who have just funding from regular individuals and the opposition comes primarily from the Catholic Church and now from right to life organizations which have pretty vast funding sources. So for example in Michigan where we lost severely in 1998 although we came in with 70 percent support went down to 29 percent almost six million dollars was spent to defeat that initiative with funds like a million and a half dollars coming from the Diocese of Detroit and the rest coming from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops the Catholic hospital associations. Sisters of Mercy and other Catholic religious organizations. And they in the money came from the Christian doctors and dentist. Group National Right to Life and those kind of things. So really we're talking about

corporate spending here which is very hard in a grassroots initiative to combat. And I think that's the reason although I think 40 over 45 percent of the vote is a pretty substantial showing in in five states. I guess I wonder whether it's possible that people would feel conflicted about the issue to the extent that they would say in principle in the abstract they think the idea of being able provide people with this choice is good. However they also maybe harbor some concern that. It might it might not be possible to devise a system so that we would make certain that this would indeed be a person's free choice there would be no coercion. That is they like the idea but when you come to putting it in practice then they start to have concerns. Well you know that argument was made about hospice 20 years ago that the HMO those would push people into hospice care it was much cheaper than another

chemo or a bone marrow transplant or whatever treatment could be offered to people. And in fact there was some evidence that that was happening and of course that got cleared up because once it's above board and open any possible of these can be monitored and regulated. The same arguments were made in 1976 when the first living real law was passed. About the potential abuses of having a person to fill out an advanced directive It's as if there's no hope for my recovery I don't want any heroic measures. And what about the wrong diagnosis and one of the greedy people pushing them into this. Then the same thing when I first state 1983 passed a law saying that people can designate someone to speak for them in healthcare situations including life and death situation and the possibility for abuse. There were vast but still people preferred that to the possibility they couldn't speak for themselves. I think the same thing is true here and certainly we've seen in Oregon since 1997 a law that works

quite well. It's very restrictive but it doesn't. There's no indication there's been any abuses and it's been used by very few people. Seventy people in three years. But the majority of Oregon's favor this law and they just want to know that there's an option a way out of their suffering becomes too great. So I think there's every evidence that it can be controlled and it can be regulated. And it's much better than the unregulated part that we have now where we know that physicians help people die. But we don't know under what circumstances or. We don't have any written documentation from these patients or anything. So don't we have a choice here we can go on keeping our head in the sand or we can regulate monitor and openly have such laws. Our guest in this first hour focus 580 is Faye Girsh. She is president of the Hemlock Society. It is the nation's oldest largest right to die organization she's

been president of hemlock since 1996 and before that was president and founder of the Hemlock Society of San Diego. Before becoming involved with her present post she was a clinical and forensic psychologist practicing in San Diego. We have a couple of callers Anybody's welcome of the conversation we ask Ali people try to be brief so we can accommodate everyone but anyone is welcome to call 3 3 3 or 9 4 5 5. The toll free 800 to 2 2 W while first call here Bloomington Indiana. Line number four. Hello hi. I think you may be giving a false impression of the attitude of people towards assisted suicide. On the one hand you say that it's gaining ground. It doesn't appear to be the people favoring favoring assisted suicide. You seem to be gaining ground. I don't believe they are because apparently American attitudes. Favoring assisted suicide peaked at the time of the Oregon

referendum in Newton you referred to that in which Oregon did indeed approve the right to die but Oregon was the only state. You yourself just said a few minutes ago that the six other states. At that at the time at the time of the Oregon referendum was approved. The sentiment was that this Right to Die was going to sweep the country and it did not it has been offered as you say in six other states and it has failed in every one. And by your own by your own statement now you say that it's failing by majority is 54 percent. In most states and I guess you said that only only 49 percent of the people for the in the last referendum voted in favor of assisted suicide I think that was that was your. That the statistic you gave. Also when the Dean used the word only when the Supreme Court was considering a right to die law the. It was considered an constitutionality of the right to die law. There was a large demonstration at the Supreme Court but by impaired people.

People with all kinds of impairments. People on in wheelchairs filled the area around the Supreme Court down the street around the corner. They didn't they were. They were room on straining against any any idea that they were that they were that they were unfit to live because they were impaired. The idea that that quality of life that the sacredness of life should be disparaged. Here here were these impaired people and they said look our our lives are just as worthy. We are just as worthy of life as others and we should not be put under pressure to die. I know one specific example of a woman her name is Johnny Eareckson Tada. She's a paraplegic. She's in just as you as you graduated from high school she had a tragic accident in which she dove off a diving board into two shallow water. She broke her neck and she's now a paraplegic. Shortly after her injury when she knew that she would never walk again she wanted to die. But now it's 40 years

later and she has lived a productive life. She sheets to paint. She does beautiful paintings mouth paintings by holding by holding a paintbrush in her mouth. She has lived a productive life and been a blessing to many people. And she thinks back. I've heard I've heard her say from her own lips. If I would have been allowed to die I would have been dead now and all of that productivity and all of that blessing would have been yeah actually Let's get the you best you best two good questions and then let's give the guest a chance to respond. First the caller zigzag jesting that in fact the support for the right to die has not been growing but that it peaked in 1997. Suggesting that it's been declining right I understand and I don't agree with that. I didn't say only 49 percent of the people in Maine I said 49 percent. So we lost by 100000 votes in one and a half percent we would have won the election so I don't think that's evidence that the support is waning at all most by 59 to that fact that

we're now we're now fighting both the Catholic Church and the right to the right to life organizations. Secondly I was there at the Supreme Court there were 70 people in wheelchairs or not all in wheelchairs. And that was not dead yet an organization that does oppose it. And then there were groups there from the Hemlock Society that favored it. So and we have a paraplegic man on our board who is in favor of the right to die for all people including people with disabilities. And this group doesn't particularly speak for all people with disabilities as repeated surveys of people who are classified under the Americans for Disabilities Act show. And as far as Mr. Potter goes. If she were in a situation in which she probably was like Christopher Reeve Christopher Reeve can end his life any time by unplugging him self from the respirator that sustains his life. There was no argument about that there's no legal quarrel if he chose to do it he could do it.

Would he do that just take himself off the respirator. Or would he do that he can't move his hands. No he could have a doctor do it. That's perfectly legal. Well that's what I say he can do it himself. When Johnnie Eareckson Tada wanted to die she she said she would. The only thing she could do was to jerk her head. She she would try to jerk as I understand what you're saying but I'm just saying that in 1990 the Supreme Court said that every American has the right to refuse any unwanted medical treatment for any reason even if it should lead to their death. So Christopher Reeve at any time can say to a doctor disconnect me from this respirator and allow me to die. Yes and it is said that when he died Richard Nixon said it when he died. The point that I'm trying to make is the Joni Eareckson Tada would have requested this. I understand that I have knowledge. Forty years later she is so old that you know let me ask you. Let me ask another question I I'm just curious because the caller raises this

example in the context of the kinds of laws that we've been talking about this would an individual like the person he describes someone who say was in an accident and became paraplegic who would be expected even even though that injury had been sustained to live for some some years afterwards would they be allowed to ask to die. Could could they asked to die under the Oregon law. No not under the Oregon law because they were not determined no. So so this so the kind of the kind of law we're talking about in Oregon this kind of right. The law does not apply to the case that the caller gives no but I'm saying that the laws on the books already do apply. She's quadriplegic she's not paraplegic. I am I'm assuming that she's also on a ventilator I don't know. And that she could disconnect at any time and choose to can to die or choose to continue living as she has done and nobody has a problem with that nor do they have with Christopher Reeve.

I guess the reason I raise the question is simply because of the law that we're talking about applies to people who are terminally ill. The lawn organ donor organ. Yeah but here's the problem here's a problem. You got kind of low implies that people that have an impairment. Have are less worthy or less worthy of life than those people who are perfectly whole and you know by the way we all have an impairment of some kind. Height doesn't imply that at all. I mean less less than one tenth of one percent of people who die in Oregon take advantage of that law and more than 70 percent of those people have hospice care. You know what most of the people who are terminally ill in Oregon don't choose to do that nobody requires them to do it. It's just an option that people can take advantage of. If that if that implication does not exist then why were all those impaired people demonstrating at the Supreme Court. Why wasn't it whole people why

wasn't unimpaired people who were demonstrating against against any supreme There are many people who are unimpaired who were in front of the Supreme Court that day with the massively that it was what it was and there was a great line of wheelchairs. Now there were 70 people there that's all there were I mean this does not represent every person who has an impairment the United States. I'm going to have 20 group of disabled people who don't like this law. I'm going to have to jump in here we're already at our midpoint I have two other people holding we've spending quite a lot of time with this particular caller so I'm going to move on. Let me again introduce our guest. We're talking this morning with Fager shhh. She is the president of the Hemlock Society and has. And since 1996 we're talking about the issue of the right to die. Questions are welcome questions comments welcome 3 3 3 W I L L toll free 800 to 2 to W.. We have somebody here on a car phone and I hope that our first caller in Urbana won't mind if I go to that Carphone person next here on line 2 in Champaign.

Oh yes thank you for going to me I'll be I'll be brief as possible. I have a disability and let me get up. I have a disability and I understand the caller's defense of those with disabilities. However I I don't think he has a disability himself by the way he talked. You may be defender of those with disabilities and I really do appreciate that because there are. Too many people who do not see the worth of individuals who have disabilities and too many times those with disabilities or who are identified in the womb with disabilities are aborted. We have a method of identifying those in the room who have Down syndrome and we can abort them and many people feel that that is inappropriate behavior. And I understand where the fear of those with disabilities for that comes from. We don't want to be eliminated our lives are worthwhile and one caller referred to whole people. Well I'm a whole person too

just because I have a disability doesn't mean that I'm not a whole person and I know I didn't mean any derogatory thing by that but that is the thing that we fear. However at the same time I am in very much in favor of having the ability to end suffering in my life. I don't consider my disability suffering. That's not how I think about it. I am not a terminal patient. I have a handicap that I have to cope with and I do. But I don't consider myself suffering on the other hand. We're in a terminally ill situation where I was suffering immensely. There was no hope for the future. I don't believe that a religious based ethic that says I have been given this life to live and I must continue to live it is appropriate for me. And I do have and I will reserve my personal right without the infliction of any religious or any other group on me to determine that

I have to suffer and continue to suffer. I'll make that decision for myself not anyone else. So I just wanted to respond to that. Thank you for letting me speak. All right thank you for the comment. Did you want to but that's essentially the argument was made and that was the movie of Keith the key Sampras involved in 1983 that people with disability and people with disabilities all have the same right to make these kinds of decisions at the end of their own mind. All right well I think the caller very much let's go on to someone else here been patient with us in Urbana line. One fellow to come for one of the statistics that you mentioned before about that as people get older they tend not to vote for this kind of thing. It's pretty simple really. As old as I am I watched it happen with hundreds or thousands of people and I know people just tend to narrow their scope as they get older and they don't like to think as much outside the box.

They go with what's comfortable and they don't rock the boat nearly as much. And it's very statistically relevant and there are a lot more studies to pick up on that kind of stuff than the than the one that you quoted. All right. Well you want to comment on that at all. You know I still think we don't have a day and we're not talking about the same data. I'd think that the evidence doesn't show that a lot of people are opposed to this but I think maybe his hypothesis is correct. All right any color or anything else I want to thank you for giving everybody so much time before I didn't mind waiting at all. OK. I've heard of people off before and I'm really glad you didn't. All right. Well I thank you for the call and another people who are listening are certainly welcome to be involved in the conversation. All you need to do is pick up the phone call here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We also have a toll free line but anywhere that you can hear us that is a hundred to two two. Nine four five I wonder if I could ask you to respond to a point. I'm certain that you have to deal with all the

time and that is people will make the argument that by sanctioning. What is in effect suicide for as an end to distress in this case the pain and suffering that comes with terminal illness by sanctioning it suicide in that case what we're doing is giving a more general sanction to people who are experiencing other kinds of distress now I know that you've said in the Hemlock Society formal literature. You say that you oppose suicide for emotional reasons but how how can we say to that person who is in that kind of pain that they are not. To end their life. And yet we can say to the person who is in physical pain that you are entitled to end your life. Well the reason we don't support suicide for emotional reasons is that most of that is

trance and and over time and with treatment that evaporates. As a psychologist for 30 years I could never support suicide for those kinds of reasons and for that reason that it goes away. But we're talking about people whose suffering is physical and it's not going to go away it's going to get worse. I'm reminded of one of our chapter leaders in Alaska who had a LACMA man and after he died his letter was published in the ANG. Rich Daily News and it started out by saying I abhor suicide but I know that my life in my life my suffering today is not as bad as my suffering is going to be tomorrow and every subsequent day it's going to get worse. And so I've made plans to end my life. And I think it's quite a different story and I don't think we had all sanctioned suicide. And I think an interesting point is that suicide is not an illegal act in this country.

And one of the reasons is that we we have medicalized that we want to help people who are feeling suicidal. But in this case where people are suffering at the end of the life we have made it a crime. Not for people to end their own lives but for doctors to help them. And that has essentially driven it to an underground practice. And as I said which is not monitored not regulated and which is not accessible to too many people. And so consequently what we find is people. Are reminded of the publisher in Michigan who had also done research which is not a terminal illness of course but he went out in his front lawn and shot himself and wrote a note explaining why he did that. And many people are helping their loved ones die and it's very difficult. Some of those people wind up in jail or prosecuted or charged with a crime. And other people want doctors for example are breaking the law not overtly but covertly. And we know from surveys that somewhere between depending on which

survey you read 6 percent and 53 percent of doctors already provide this kind of help to patients. So if we're really concerned about abuses I think we need to to know that this is going on both by family members and by doctors and also by patients who are trying to figure out what their solutions are. And I don't think it's the kind of thing we want to see in this country. People breaking the law and people traumatizing their family by shooting themselves hanging themselves in a symphony conductor. In in Canada for example I had terminal cancer threw himself out of the story apartment that he lived in and wanted to end his life and suffer. And this is not the way Loveland should have to die in this country. On May 16th we would probably watch Timothy McVeigh die a gentle peaceful quick and certain death. And this is reserved for the worst people in our country but not for the people we love.

We have several callers the lines in fact are full. Well take people in the order they came in. A couple of champagne people first line number one. The U.S. star has a great show. I just like to make a comment that I having been someone who has worked with perhaps people living with a chronic mental illness for a long time. That I think we do have to be careful in assessing people. When you're when you're talking about you know just giving people easy access which I know you're not but I think you do have to be careful because different doctors do use different standards and I think you would find a wide variety of application but I do think we have the right to die I want to. Agree with you on that. And I'm wondering if you would be interested in answering a philosophical question do you think this just goes along with Americans denial of

death when you know we don't talk about people dying when I know an older individual who's in his 80s he's been living with a mass of 1943. He has Kimi as well and for him death is not scary. But it's very scary for everyone around him. You know and I think he's very comfortable at the end of his life the fact that his life was going nans Sunday. And I think a lot of the controversy I really do comes down to Americans denial of death. I agree with you and I think that's why only about 15 percent of us have advanced directives and durable power of attorney for health care. And I still had enough to commend organizations like rotary switch times invite people from hemlock to speak but more often don't want to touch the subject at all and I think you're right and many people say to me Well I this is a joke but I'm planning to live forever and so far so good. And they just think that somehow it's going to be taken

care of and some people say well I've got three children and they'll handle it. Are you got a sympathetic doctor or. I've got a living will so I don't have to worry about it. Now there's a tremendous denial of death and more people willing to talk about what kind of burial arrangements they want and what kind of death they want. All right let's go on let's go to another. Paying persons is lying to you. Hello hi. I just wonder if you can comment on the concern that if this sort of movement that tends to feed into a general cultural sense not so much of choice but of obligation. So doesn't it feed into a notion that as people get older you reach a point where they feel they become a burden when their relative is theirs. I think there's a difference between choosing and for reasons that have to do with your own well-being or your own

pain and choosing because you feel you're now an obligation and you're a burden on people so it's an obligation. I'm wondering if you've had any thoughts about just a general cultural seems to me that there's a way in which this feeds into a general cultural movement that would suggest as people get older as people get weaker as people get less able to take care of themselves. Right. Totally appropriate in fact a responsibility to end your life so as not to be a burden on the people you love. Right. And a crisis is personified when governor Dick Lamm was misquoted. But he talked about an obligation to die and I guess the general context was as governor of a state you have X number of resources which are probably fairly finite. And then you have to figure out how to allocate these in the in the best way including health road building education and end of life care. And so that's the context in which he was quoted about people having an obligation to die.

And the Dutch who have legal physician aid in dying look at us and say Americans have third party euthanasia that is our insurance companies our government our hospitals decide who's going to live and who's going to die. But in most cases except in Oregon where they have rationing not age rationing but rationing in it's implicit in the system and not explicit. So. We certainly get pressure sometimes from our HMO those who are discharging most of their Medicare patients now to not have expensive treatments and to not go to extensive measures for people who are old and many people choose to stop treatment because they do feel that they're an obligation to their family that their money. The money would be better spent educating their grandchildren. So this doesn't trouble you as a court of your own. You know I'm a person for example who

unlike the way you are characterizing people who might be opposed to this are worried about it. I am pro-choice with respect to reproductive issues and I'm also not Catholic. I don't know somehow conflating all those issues into one thing as a way to part of an argument makes me a little uncomfortable. Well I'm just wondering we're not conflating them here. We're talking about two choice issues which are totally independent we're not really talking about a woman's right to and terminate a pregnancy we're talking about a person's right to end his or her life with medical assistance we already have the right to end our lives and we're not making an issue about how difficult or easy it is actually to get a gun and shoot ourselves and most people who end their lives choose that means we don't think that's the way people should have to die. Well get off and let other people talk I just. My point would simply be. It's important to remember in favoring just what you're favoring that it's also contribution to

a general cultural presumption that maybe we actually have an obligation to get out of the way. Now that I understand what you're going to Florida think about that. Yeah I don't see that in Oregon where as I said Listen one tenth of one percent of people choose to accelerate their death by a day or a week. Using the Death with Dignity law because the vast majority over 99 percent of the people in Oregon choose to die a natural death. And more people in Oregon have a choice now of using hospice care than in the other states. And that's what they do choose to do and that we're perfectly fine with that and if if nobody chooses to accelerate their death that's fine with us too. All we're saying is that people should have the choice. Just real quick. I'm looking. Here at the at the Oregon law the way that it has been written in the section that that says who may initiate a written request for medication and it says that it has to be an adult who is capable who is a resident of Oregon who's been

determined by an attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease. I guess my question is Is there any thing in this law that says something about how close to the end of the life the person is supposed to be six months or six months or less. All right. And it it says that somewhere in the law. Yes it does OK. It defines terminal defines all the terms at the end of the law and terminal is defined as with reasonable medical certainty that is the examination by two independent physicians that a person is determined to have six months or less. What I see. And you said you feel certain that if a law like. This is enacted that it's possible to maintain these narrow restrictions so that we continue only to be talking about people who have terminal disease and who are expected to live only six months or less. Well this may sound like I'm changing the subject but if I were alive 150 years ago I would

have said with a majority that only white males who own property can vote in this country. We are not able to predict how things expand. I mean 50 years ago we did had no idea how computers with affect our lives and what laws we need to regulate that. I mean we had no idea 100 years ago how the automobile would affect our lives. So no I certainly couldn't make any guarantee that any law any law in this country would stay exactly like it was when it was passed. I mean we thought in 1076 we passed the first living room law in California that that was really very adequate and would help a lot of people and it took a long time even for every state to adopt that. And the one in California was way too restrictive nobody could die under it. And it's been modified in every state since them. So laws change and people's needs change and I certainly would never predict that any law would stay the same as it was when it was a little

less than 10 minutes in this part of focus 580 we speak. I'm with Dr. Faye Girsh. She is president of the Hemlock Society of the USA has been president since 1996 before that she was a clinical and forensic psychologist practicing in San Diego she was also the president and founder of the Hemlock Society of San Diego. Your questions welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. And let's talk next with someone in rural Charleston I believe on line number four. Hello. Good morning. Yes there is one form of terminal illness that never seems to be brought up by those opposed to the right to die. And that's a cerebral stroke that leaves you completely and totally paralyzed unable to communicate in any way. I'd like to relate what happened to my great Uncle John who suffered a stroke at 78 from which he partially recovered. And eight months later a total stroke. And he

unfortunately lived for bloody year unable to move unable to communicate. The only thing he could do was cry. And I like you all to visualize what a horrible prison this would be unable to communicate in any way and maybe suffering excruciating pain since the sensory system may not have been impaired in the stroke. In my own case I may give up many good years of life because the first guy have the fun fortunate enough to recover. I'm going to end my own life at the worst possible moment. I would not take the risk of going through this incredibly suffering that would occur when the next stroke occurred on the next one might not occur but I'm going to begin sacrificing maybe good years slowly for the fear that someone will not mercifully end my life with a nice lethal injection. I don't care for him to do it by starving to death I'd probably be bootable enough without having to go through that as well. I just disconnecting the feeding tube. I'd like a nice

lethal injection to get it over with. Well MS There's your answer Mr engine. You said Patty you contain a lot to terminal illness. As I said most of people I speak you are older and they have stories very much like Uncle John's story and what they fear more than terminal illness is. Irreversible disability like all timers like stroke. So yes I think it's foreseeable that law will expand to include these kinds of very very difficult chronic illnesses which people dread and do what this caller said he would do and there is a book actually on the subject called preemptive suicide. And that's what he's talking about that in order to avoid year a year as Uncle John had a disability he would end his life while he still could although it while he still had a quality of life even though he would

prefer to know that he could get a lethal injection when the time came and so many people make this choice to give up some quality of life Janet Achan Kevorkian's first patient had Alzheimers and went to him while she still was mentally and physically capable of asking for help and assisting in her death and would have preferred to live longer and to be able to get a lethal injection when at some point she said this is enough. But instead she had to do it while she still could. And so I'm certainly in sympathy with this and yes people are going to want more turned on. Well I want to thank the caller very much appreciate his call I do have two other people and I'd like to try to. Try to get least one more champagne is up next line 3. Hello hello. Yes my wife died from cancer and after the operation and the therapies etc. She tried suicide.

Botched didn't succeed and eventually died. I am also a survivor of colon cancer and I'm nearing 75. I would love to be able to go into a doctor or clinic and ask for an injection and just in my life. I think that many people do not attempt the suicide route because they're afraid of botching and they don't know how to do it. They're not sure that their will succeed so because they can't be convinced and sure that they will succeed. They don't make an attempt an effort. I suspect that a lot of people who do try to take their life really do botch those attempts. I think we really need to have control of our lives and when we reach a point where life is simply not worth continuing. Be able to go and have it terminated. The data show that about 50 percent of people who attempt to end their lives do fail he's absolutely right and I do want to mention that the Hemlock Society has a program for

people who are members who are suffering from the hopelessly hopeless physical conditions and are considering a death in one of the goals of the program is to make sure that it's not botched. And so I would recommend to your callers if they have concerns like this man does to give us a call at 800 to 4 7 7 4 2 1 and find out what the Hemlock Society has to offer because this is a concern that we've had for 21 years. Our twin goals are to legalize physician assisted dying and to help people plan for a peaceful death. And I absolutely agree that people are worried about making a complete mess of it even if they have a gun. Many people shoot their eye out instead of ending their lives. So he's absolutely right. Well we're going to have to stop my apologies we have one more call we can't take uncertain though it's an issue that we'll continue to discuss the moment I want to say to our guest Dr. Gershon.

Thanks very much for talking to us. And we do have a website hemlock dot org. And this is what whereabouts of people still have questions please give us a call. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our guest Dr. Faker She is president of the Hemlock Society.