In a "slippery slope" development long predicted by euthanasia opponents, the Hemlock Society USA, the leading group promoting the legalization of assisting suicide, issued a statement on December 3, 1997,endorsing killing individuals - - such as people with Alzheimer's disease and children with disabilities - - who are legally incapable of making the decision themselves.
In the statement, Hemlock Society USA Executive Director Faye Girsh said, "A judicial determination should be made when it is necessary to hasten the death of an individual whether it be a demented parent, a suffering, severely disabled spouse or a child. Consultants should evaluate what other ways might be used to alleviate the suffering and, if none are available or are unsuccessful, a non-violent, gentle means should be available to end the person's life."
The statement was issued in the context of a Louisiana case in which a jury convicted David Rodriguez December 4 of second-degree murder in the shooting death of his 90-year-old father, who had Alzheimer's disease. Noting that the Oregon law legalizing assisting suicide (which Hemlock and its allies just successfully defended in a November referendum) applies only when "the person is mentally competent," the statement said. "Even with such a law, there are many people suffering from chronic and terminal illnesses who ... are not competent to make this decision and are in those instances assisted to die by a loved one." The statement said that in such cases "mercy killing is not a cold-blooded, malicious crime but one in which the motivation is kindness and relief of suffering."
"In the case of a minor or an incompetent adult, the law now allows life or death decisions to be made by a designated health care agent and/or a family member in most jurisdictions," the Hemlock USA statement said. "If the Rodriguez death had been the result of a decision to forego life-sustaining medical treatment no criminal liability would have ensued. In such instances, the person 'dies naturally.' Some provision should be made for a situation in which life is not being sustained by artificial means but, in the belief of the patient or his agent, is too burdensome to continue."
Burke J. Balch, J.D., director of NRLC's Department of Medical Ethics, commented, "The first legal assisted suicide under Oregon's law has yet to be publicly reported, but the Hemlock Society is already casting off the 'safeguards' it so loudly touted during the debate in November's referendum campaign over its potential repeal. It should be noted that Girsch's statement endorses the killing not only of those who are 'terminally ill' but also just 'chronically' ill - - which in Hemlock's definition undoubtedly covers people with permanent disabilities. Then, Hemlock drops the requirement that euthanasia be voluntarily chosen by a competent adult."
"The agenda of the euthanasia movement," Balch added, "is now in the open for all to see: not respect for individual choice, the slogan with which they deceived the people of Oregon, but elimination of those whose 'quality of life' does not meet Hemlock's standards."