\n<\/p>\n
In every matter, when autonomy is the foundational argument, informed choice must be protected and made fully aware of underlying dangers.<\/p>\n
Following the courageous lead of his predecessor who vetoed a similar bill last year, and on behalf of Delaware\u2019s Not Dead Yet members, we urge Delaware Governor Matt Meyer to veto HB 140.<\/p>\n
This bill, like all assisted suicide bills, is not truly about full autonomy and clear choice. It has been presented with an incomplete representation of the broader applications that proponents intend once it is signed into law. Once allowed in Delaware, efforts will begin to identify safeguards as barriers in order to begin dismantling them in order to ensure so-called \u201cmeaningful access.\u201d<\/p>\n
The sky isn\u2019t falling\u2026yet. But as of this moment, the fragile national infrastructure of the American disability community hangs in the balance. Many people with disabilities will pay a terrible price in loss of autonomy as federal agencies are being dismantled and seismic regressive policy changes and proposed budget cuts that will greatly reduce or eliminate critical programs, are poised to take effect.\u00a0 Against this backdrop, it is a moral failing and a cruel hoax to endorse HB 140 as a way of effectuating autonomy, as this protest by ADAPT on cuts to Medicaid yesterday clearly demonstrates.<\/a><\/p>\n If Governor Meyer signs HB 140 into law<\/strong>, the only guarantee for Delaware\u2019s most vulnerable \u2013 in the face of oncoming hardships under this federal administration\u2019s vision for greater societal efficiency \u2013 will be a Delaware under\u00a0 the specter of an already breaking healthcare system that will divide and in which those with serious illness and disabilities will be given assistance with their suicide as a so-called \u201cright\u201d, and those without will be provided prevention.<\/p>\n But if Governor Meyer vetoes HB 140<\/strong>, he will guarantee for another year that the only fight Delaware\u2019s most vulnerable will have is with the federal government, as outlined HERE<\/a> by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law\u2019s Statement on Proposed Cuts in Budget Reconciliation Bill.<\/p>\n Delaware\u2019s disability rights champions have been sounding the alarm in Delaware for over a decade while pointing to the same game plan used in every American jurisdiction where assisted suicide has been decriminalized.<\/p>\n When proponents campaign for an assisted suicide bill before it is passed into law, \u201cassured safeguards\u201d is the repeated stamp of authenticity that promises to assuage opponent concerns that the bill will remain as it is introduced and expand no further.\u00a0 They say in effect: Don\u2019t listen to those people trying to scare you. Everything is fine. It\u2019s just an option if you need it and it\u2019s your choice.<\/p>\n As Dr. Diane Meier, a palliative care specialist<\/a>, has said<\/strong>, \u201cthe entire heartfelt adherence to restrictions that are announced when you first get the public to vote in favor of this go up in smoke once the practice is validated.\u201d<\/a> A proponent of assisted suicide working with Massachusetts Death with Dignity has said much the same thing, although with different emphasis, i.e., \u201cOnce you get something passed, you can always work on amendments later.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n The umbrella term \u201caid in dying\u201d provides a sophisticated disguise meant to engineer public acceptance into law. In every jurisdiction where plain terminology is substituted for proponents preferred euphemisms, expansion follows at different but accounted for rates, depending on the cultural comfort of the jurisdiction.<\/p>\n But the delivery system \u2013 The Oregon Model \u2013 is universal:<\/p>\n On June 25, 2024, an<\/strong> email sent by a state\u2019s representative of the nation\u2019s leading donor-class professional assisted suicide advocacy organization, seemed to presume victory in Delaware\u2019s razor thin one vote margin, and proceeded with outreach in an online dollar matching fundraising campaign and appealed with the following (available upon request):<\/p>\n \u201cWe have learned from our work in states\u00a0like\u00a0California, Colorado, Hawai\u2019i and Oregon\u00a0that authorizing a law is not enough; we must also ensure meaningful access. With your support, we will inform communities, medical providers and healthcare systems\u00a0to ensure that all end-of-life options are available to Delaware.<\/em>\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n When proponents inform privately or \u00a0testify publicly before a people they target to turn that safeguards will remain as barriers but then petition their support base for money that these safeguards need to be removed in kind with other states where they have worked to remove them, it raises obvious questions about the actual nature of \u00a0the bill and the campaign behind the bill.<\/p>\n Note that the petition to \u201censure meaningful access\u201d after victory was presumed, cites the most aggressive examples of expansion<\/em> in the country.<\/p>\n Like California expansion bill SB 1196 that was withdrawn last year. It included language used in Canada\u2019s Track 2 (i.e. \u201cgrievous and irremediable condition\u201d) which allows non-terminal people access to its assisted suicide\/euthanasia regime. It included eligibility for people with dementia. And it included increased eligibility beyond six months, again, like Canada.<\/p>\n It was withdrawn by its sponsor, according to California\u2019s assisted suicide bill author, Senator Susan Eggman because: \u201c\u2026pushing for too much too soon puts CA & the country at risk of losing the gains we have made for personal autonomy.\u201d.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n From the source itself, the rationale for the withdrawal had nothing to do with pushing past previously promised permanent safeguards and everything to do with correctly timing its always intended and fully unveiled identity in line with national aspirations.<\/p>\n Apples to oranges<\/strong><\/p>\n Over the years, in state legislatures across the country, proponents have argued that comparisons to an external jurisdiction is an \u201capples to oranges\u201d comparison. They characterize any mention of the word \u201csuicide\u201d as a \u201cscare tactic.\u201d This, despite the foundational argument being autonomy and control over one\u2019s destiny, which necessarily requires self-administration of prescribed drugs that the person knows will be fatal.<\/p>\n These are state chapters of national facing organizations that fought for national access to assisted suicide and were unanimously rejected (Washington vs. Glucksberg) and were told to test the appetite of the states instead. They conduct up to (and past) 20 simultaneous bill campaigns every year, and their advisors and advocates wear both national and international hats, campaigning on the success of \u201cThe Oregon Model\u201d both nationally and internationally.<\/p>\n Case in point:<\/strong> In 2016, Compassion and Choices applauded the Canadian government\u2019s decision by posting the following on their website: \u201cCanadian Government Follows Oregon Model.\u201d<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n There are American ethicists who think that the scope of present assisted suicide laws should be expanded from people with terminal illness to anyone with a condition that could lead to suffering, just like in Canada.\u00a0 As Thadeus Pope has asserted in his medical futility blog: \u201cCanada is a model and not an anti-model.\u201d<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Make no mistake, the horror of Canada\u2019s eugenical model is not an if<\/em> it is a when, <\/em>if assisted suicide isn\u2019t called out for what it is and pushed back at every opportunity. Despite proponent\u2019s insistence that comparing Canada to the U.S. is an \u201capples to oranges\u201d comparison to skeptical audiences, within proponent war rooms, \u201cCanada IS a model and not and anti-model\u201d.<\/p>\n The rebranding is endless. The Hemlock Society changed its name to Compassion and Choices. And on the face of it, one might be tempted to think to market the promotion of suicide with assistance as a \u201ccompassionate choice\u201d. \u00a0Fine. But mindful that these are national and even international organizations who fought for but lost in pursuit of imposing assisted suicide access to American national healthcare, the rebranding takes on a clearly ominous national characteristic.<\/p>\n On the heels of Washington v Glucksberg,<\/a> selling assisted suicide as the natural outgrowth of individual states\u2019 desires for this deadly public policy is tactical protocol, that an organization called \u201cThe Hemlock Society\u201d might compromise from a marketing strategy.<\/p>\n While at first blush the following example might seem a touch too far in the weeds, but it is nonetheless interesting that the word hemlock is instantly identified with the poison Socrates drank to commit suicide rather than the fact that Socrates\u2019 so-called choice was a death sentence compelled by the judgement of the city-state of Athens.<\/p>\n Not a very autonomous ending, but certainly an intended one.<\/p>\n The reality is that assisted suicide is all about disability rights and the bias against protections from discriminatory public policies that originate in their modern philosophical underpinning of assisted suicide, as created by Francis J. Galton who coined the term \u201cEugenics\u201d.\u00a0 Which says in effect: Assisted suicide is rational if the person being killed has a disability, is poor or has other immutable characteristics considered unhygienic in a pure and healthy society.<\/p>\n Moreover, Jack Kevorkian, modern American father of assisted suicide who practiced euthanasia until his arrest said in a 1990 interview (Link below connects to Cameron Mitchell\u2019s 2025 breakthrough documentary about the Nazi Euthanasia Program \u2013 Disposable Humanity blogged about HERE<\/a> at Not Dead Yet<\/em>):<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cIntense emotionalism engendered by the concentration camp atrocities of World War II has unfairly stigmatized this honorable concept and cloaked it in silence.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>Tim Stainton, Director of the University of British Columbia\u2019s Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship echoed a similar observation differently when he called Canada\u2019s eugenical descent into assisted suicide and euthanasia, \u201cthe biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazi\u2019s program in Germany in the 1930s\u201d.<\/a><\/p>\n A few weeks ago on April 29, 2025, <\/strong>on WHYY Studio 2\u2019s YouTube channel for the show titled Physician Assisted Suicide<\/a>,<\/strong> an interview took place with retired Delaware representative and annual assisted suicide bill sponsor Paul Baumbach and celebrated healthcare champion and assisted suicide opponent, Dr. Daniel Sulmasy.<\/p>\n Dr. Daniel Sulmasy was invited on to the show to provide the opposing perspective and at one point, offered an overarching, albeit gravely concerned, summation of the \u201cslippery slope,\u201d citing Canada as America\u2019s inevitable statutory destination if assisted suicide legislation isn\u2019t stopped. In response, the now-retired politician singled out anorexia as a point of contention, saying:<\/p>\n \u201cThe anorexia thing just drives me absolutely batty\u2026so uh, that is used by the opponents, it\u2019s a flagrant \u2013 misrepresentation is the kindest thing I can think of to say. Complete crap would be much more accurate\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n In true charity, perhaps unknown to the show\u2019s hosts who didn\u2019t push back:<\/p>\n Earlier in the interview, one of the radio hosts asked Mr. Baumbach a question about the nature of autonomy as it relates to the assisted suicide bill:<\/p>\n The host asked: \u201cPaul you mentioned earlier that this is for people who are dying, facing imminent death. But if the bedrock issue is control over one\u2019s destiny, why limit it to that window?<\/strong> Like if you have the right at 6 months or less to end your life why not make it seven, eight, nine, ten a year- um if that really is the core issue \u2013 autonomy?\u201d<\/p>\n Mr. Baumbach replied: \u201cSo I think that, so\u2026my main prior life, I was a legislator, and you write laws that match society. Society in the United States is not ready for that<\/strong>\u2026So uh\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n The host continued: <\/strong>\u201cSo you\u2019re not necessarily opposed to it<\/strong> you\u2019re just saying\u2026?<\/p>\n Mr. Baumbach replied: \u201cPhilosophically, I\u2019m not, <\/strong>but I recognize that in the United States and since last century \u2013 I mean it\u2019s in the 90\u2019s that Oregon passed the first such law century \u2013 there\u2019s been no slipping\u2026<\/strong>\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n To the contrary, \u201cslipping\u201d is imbedded into the design of assisted suicide legislation, so say its authors, returning to California Senator Eggman and American assisted suicide thought leader Thaddeus Pope quoted above.<\/p>\n Again, we are at a terminological impasse in which plain language is substituted for definitions and representations which don\u2019t accord with plain inference to the best explanation. The measure of that impasse is simple enough to parse: For the slippery slope to happen with any bill, it must only happen ONCE because the campaign standard and definition for a safeguard before a bill is passed is absolute and non-negotiable, or \u201cassured\u201d.\u00a0 And because we deal in constant clarification, assure in the secondary meaning is to make something CERTAIN to happen<\/em> and in its primary meaning, to assure is to tell something positive to someone to dispel any doubts they may have<\/em>.<\/p>\n It seems then that what proponents actually mean when they publicly testify before legislators and citizenry alike by \u201cassured safeguards\u201d is an impermanent safeguard certain to expand. This obvious paradox may be in part why the persuasiveness of our argument succeeds far more than the proponent argument, and by a monumental margin.<\/p>\n Since 1997 nearly 400 assisted suicide bills have been defeated or withdrawn. That\u2019s an approximate 40:1 win\/loss ratio and real momentum. Moreover, when we consider no new states have adopted assisted suicide legislation despite approximately 80 attempts in the last fast approaching four years.<\/p>\n Mr. Baumbach notes in the interview linked above, his desire to have an American law that doesn\u2019t require jumping across the Atlantic to do so. And yet across the Atlantic, the Oregon model has been<\/a> and is right now, being touted by American ethicists and British advocates as a model for success in the United Kingdom just like it was in 2016 when Compassion and Choices celebrated Canada for following the Oregon Model.<\/p>\n In the same interview, Mr. Baumbach refers to the passage of Oregon\u2019s bill in 1997 as \u201clast century\u201d, which sounds like 100 years have passed during the last 28. And it sounds like there\u2019s been a \u201ccentury\u2019s\u201d worth of acceptance of this deadly and discriminatory public policy. However, a complete understanding of the actual passage of what the past 100 years in this fight to protect the rights of people with disabilities looks like, sees the sequential defeat of assisted suicide\u2019s eugenical partners in public policy, like American Sterilization Laws<\/a>, the Nazi Euthanasia Program, Jack Kevorkian and the aforementioned nigh-400 wins in legislatures.<\/p>\n\n