Originally Posted - March 29, 2006

return home

Rita Marker, a lawyer out of Steubenville, Ohio, has researched and written extensively about the foundations who fund the right to die groups pushing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in the United States. Rita states that private foundations are the critical players in promoting societal changes. They also supply the money for the studies used in advancing an ideology. This is fact. Just follow the money trail.

On the other hand, according to Peter Singer, the controversial bioethics professor at Princeton University, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments.

Singer also claims that only a small number of hard core religious fundamentalists will eventually defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct in the future. If so, that would constitute a society of secularists who are indifferent to killing; people without a heart and without a conscience.

Singer is an advocate of infanticide which includes killing disabled infants up to 28 days after birth. Neonatal disabilities could encompass anything from major congenital anomalies to simple surgical procedures such as repair of a cleft palate. Regardless, Singer feels parents have a right to kill their baby, and have 28 days in which to decide.

Is Singer correct in thinking all humanity will collapse due to advanced science, technology, and demography, or will this collapse occur by a movement funded by powerful donors and foundations with the ability to change our public and legal course via poorly crafted legislation, precedent setting case law, shrewish education, and moral servitude?

Will Singer’s predictions of these scientific advances and demographic changes really lead to further decay of our moral principles and beliefs? Or will policy changes and laws shade and transform our moral beliefs whereby we accept this incremental moral decline within our society, not truly aware, until it has already happened?

According to Rita Marker, major public policy shifts and public attitudes arise from advocates and activists with the ideas and the donors who fund them. One major foundation providing billions of dollars is the Soros Open Society Institute (OSI).

George Soros and his Project on Death in America (PDIA) is a typical example. His web site contains a document, including a chapter on Shaping Public and Legal Policy. His organization spent nine years changing public policy in the United States. Large foundations have the money and the ability to influence Congress and State Legislatures which effect policy changes at the federal and state levels. These foundations also fund research and advocacy groups who initiate and establish societal change and, in return, they supply millions of dollars for reelection campaigns. http://www.soros.org/

A publication on the Soros site states that during 2001 – 2003, "The Grants Program of the Project on Death in America supported a range of programs: to examine legal, governmental, and institutional policies that affect dying patients; improve care for seriously ill children and their families; and address disparities in care for underserved communities. Through the grants program, PDIA strengthened the infrastructure and leadership capacity of important organizations in the field."

PDIA’s Mission states, "The mission of the Project on Death in America is to understand and transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement in the United States through funding initiatives in professional and public education, research, clinical care, the arts and humanities, and public policy." OSI clearly believes transforming our culture, our beliefs of dying, comprising assisted suicide and euthanasia, a worthy goal.

OSI’s Gara Lamarche, VP and director of U.S. programs, claimed one issue learned from PDIA was dealing with a vast, complex and contested area of the economy like healthcare. He went on to say that if palliative care was to be more firmly established, Medicare reimbursement policies needed to be changed. Lamarche declared, “That kind of policy work takes advocacy; the mobilization of people and organizations to educate and influence decision makers.” They used the health care field, politicians, and even the elderly to attain their goal. One group they could not use was the disability community.

On the surface, Soros’s organization delves into health and governmental policies so as to improve and defend the poor, the dying, and the seriously ill. Regardless of how aesthetically pleasing the Soros site portrays itself, they still fund and support assisted suicide and euthanasia. They have also embedded themselves in every level of health care, government, and society.

The average American, you and I, has no such advantage to change policy. Our only tools are our telephones, computers, and the U.S. Postal Service in which to contact our elected representatives. We find out about legislation through the media or grassroots organizations like Soros’s PDIA. But what happens when we disagree with the Soros’s and their money? Does Congress listen to us, their constituents?

The Project on Death had originally begun as a three year-$15 million funding program, but was renewed for a total of nine years of grant making. They ultimately distributed 45 million dollars to organizations and individuals to improve care for the dying in the U.S over this nine year period.

Other Soros activities include providing grants to the ACLU for drug policy litigation and to fund anti drug war litigation, along with supporting initiatives in the field of palliative care in Europe, the Soviet Union and South Africa.

Although PDIA has officially discontinued grant making as of December of 2003, it still exists as an outreach and resource center. A special report for other donors includes the development of PDIA’s grant making strategy over the nine years and defines future challenges and opportunities. The report offers specific recommendations for future funding with the hope that other foundations and individuals will benefit from OSI’s grant making experience in this field.

David Clark, a medical sociologist, traces PDIA’s history and examines how PDIA and other private donors influenced the development of palliative and hospice care in the United States, although his depiction is obviously slanted and serves one purpose; legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. On the other hand, Ron Panzer has written of the detrimental changes within Hospice due to the activities of private donors who influence health care policies. http://www.hospicepatients.org/

George Soros's Open Society Institute (OSI) has given millions of dollars toward improved care of the dying, but none of the Project's money is used for assisted suicide purposes, so they declare. However, OSI provided grants for assisted suicide advocacy through OSI's President's Fund in its U.S. Programs office. George Soros, a man whose mother was a member of the Hemlock Society, provides millions of dollars that fosters and influences public policy in the United States and around the world, which endorses assisted suicide and euthanasia policies.

Grant money condoning, encouraging, and influencing assisted suicide laws are not just limited to the OSI. There are many more foundations supporting assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Compassion in Dying Federation (of America) received:

$100,000 from OSI in 1997
$150,000 from OSI in 1998
$125,000 from OSI in 1999
$300,000 from a three year grant in 1998 from the Columbia Foundation
$50,000 in 1998 from the Donald A. Pels Charitable Trust
More than $300,000 from the Gerbode Foundation from 1995 -1999

Death with Dignity Education Center (Soros organization) funding included: $544,900 from the Gerbode Foundation since 1996
$100,000 from OSI in 1997
$200,000 from the Columbia Foundation since 1998
$57,500 from the Walter and Elise Haas Foundation from 1996-97
$50,000 from Donald A. Pels Charitable Trust in 2000, plus the Atkinson Foundation, the Women's Foundation, and Varian Associates

More recently, 2000 grants from OSI included:

$100,000 to the Death with Dignity National Center
$75,000 to the Oregon Death with Dignity Legal Defense and Education Center
In 2001, Soros’s PDIA distributed grants totaling $5,105,000 to groups who advocate “end of life” assistance for ailing people, such as palliative care for the terminally ill elderly and assisted suicide.

Grants are specifically for the purpose of advancing “end of life, death with dignity, choices in dying, right to die,” and other programs that address autonomous decision making in assisted suicide and euthanasia, along with advance directives.

OSI convened a group of individual philanthropists and foundation officials to hear presentations by the directors of Compassion in Dying and the Death with Dignity Center to enable expansion of their base of support.

The donors, their money and their ideas all push us toward acceptance of euthanasia. Rita Marker is correct in stating major public policy changes and public attitudes arise from “advocates and activists with the ideas and the donors who fund them.” The expression “money talks” clearly has relevance. http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/biomarker.htm

The Death with Dignity National Center describes itself as “the premier educational organization dedicated to discussing physician aid in dying openly, seriously, and with intellectual rigor.” A more concise way to describe their mission is advancement and legalization of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. <http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3770435801.pdf>

In 2004, Death with Dignity National Center merged with the Oregon Death with Dignity that created a more powerful organization against attacks on the Oregon law, and to pool resources that will help other states pass Oregon style assisted suicide laws. Oregon Death with Dignity formed in the early 1990’s to write the Oregon law on assisted suicide and they now defend the legal Death with Dignity Act in that state. Their objectives all pertain to dignity; defend, mobilize and preserve dignity, and include MY life, MY choice, and MY death. Timothy Quill, MD, is on the Board of Directors, and was the lead physician plaintiff in the New York State legal case challenging the law prohibiting physician aid in dying, Quill v. Vacco. They no longer refer to the Oregon law as physician assisted suicide, rather they use the term “hasten death.”

The Death with Dignity Education Center (Soros’s baby) surfaced when a 1992 California attempt to legalize physician aid in dying failed, defined to include assisted suicide and euthanasia. California legislators are currently proposing another bill, the Compassionate Choices Act (AB 651), renewing the push for assisted suicide. The bill is modeled after the Oregon law. California has been attempting to legalize assisted suicide since 1988. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_651_bill_20050615_amended_sen.html

Another major foundation donating millions is The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) who has assets worth $8,012,367,000. In 2002, they doled out grants worth $556,020,000, according to their web site. They fund health, medical, and education projects but are devoted exclusively to health and health care. Since 1996, the foundation has invested more than $148 million to improve care at the end of life.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, some physicians’ attitudes began to change when treating the terminally ill, elderly, and disabled. Physicians, such as Ronald Cranford, supported and publicly discussed assisted suicide on terminally ill patients. Articles appeared in medical journals in support of assisting suicide. Dr. Kevorkian killed people by injecting all manner of chemicals into the suicidal patient causing their deaths. He even talked of organ harvesting on those he would kill. The Hemlock Society’s book, Final Exit, hit book stores and told readers how to commit suicide by helium and other bizarre methods. Euthanasia proponent groups had formed and were attempting policy changes. Enter private foundations to educate and fund the research components and groups, and advocate for change in legal and public policy. Did these assisted suicide advocates exploit medical groups, the large foundations, and the public? Or were the medial groups, foundations, and public willing participants? Or maybe the public was simply unaware?

Following the June 1997 SCOTUS decision denying a constitutional right to physician assisted suicide, the RWJF provided funding to the Center to Improve Care of the Dying at George Washington University, a research and advocacy organization, and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). A guidebook was produced and distributed that provided educational materials at no cost to state legislators and their staffs. The name given to the five chapter guidebook on end of life initiatives; State Initiatives in End-of-Life Care: Policy Guide for State Legislatures. Their strategy was removal of policy and practice barriers that impede good end of life care. In other words, there were barriers preventing assisted suicide or euthanasia and they had to change policy via laws at the state level via legislation and educate at the public level.

Input for the policy guide was provided by 10 national organizations that reviewed the manuscript prior to publication. These groups included the Pain and Policy Studies Group of the University of Wisconsin, the National Hospice Organization, the American Bar Association, and Myra Christopher’s Midwest Bioethics Center, and who has also recently joined the CDC. Policy questions addressed state commissions and task forces on end of life issues, pain and symptom management, the financing and delivery of end of life services, advance directives, and physician assisted suicide.

From 1997 - 1998, the National Conference of State Legislatures was granted $149,486 by the RWJF for research and information services for state policymakers on end of life care issues.

In 2000, grants dispersed for health projects totaled $399,486,662.

In 2001, grants dispersed for health projects totaled $561,228,564.

In 2002, grants dispersed for health projects totaled 5 billion.

In 2003, grants dispersed for health projects totaled $316.5 million.

In 2004, grants dispersed for health projects totaled $249.3 million.

In 2000, three years after Oregon’s assisted suicide law went into effect, PBS aired a documentary series, “On Our Own Terms: Dying in America,” that depicted physician assisted suicide as improved care at the end of life. The Executive Editor, Bill Moyers, commented, “Fortunately, there’s a movement afoot driven by this hope for a better death.” Myra J. Christopher, President of the Midwest Bioethics Center, served as an advisor and writer to the show. Ira Byock, M.D., served as a writer to the show at the time of the airing. Both have dedicated themselves to legalization of euthanasia. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/onourownterms/resources.html

The show was a public relations bonanza for groups funded through OSI’s PDIA. One group named Aging with Dignity reported a 300% increase in downloads from its website when it was mentioned on the program. Five Wishes had been introduced and originally distributed with support from a grant by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nation's largest philanthropy devoted to health and health care.

From 1998 - 2000, Five Wishes, an advanced directive project that was supported by a grant from The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), funded a series of five community forums in Florida on a variety of aging and end of life issues. Topics discussed included aging, Medicaid, long term care insurance and finances, and barriers to death and dying. To generate discussion and debate on end of life issues, the proposed project, named Project 2010, shared strategies of the Foundation’s grants in its Last Acts program. The project was to be conducted by the Florida Commission on Aging with Dignity, a privately funded, nonprofit organization. The project also secured funds from the Claude Pepper Foundation ($85,000) and the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation ($75,000). Last Acts, a group openly pushing for euthanasia and assisted suicide not only influenced, but had direct input into the policies taking shape and subsequent laws passed for elder care, long term care insurance, Medicaid, and end of life issues under the Florida Commission on Aging with Dignity.

By October of 2004, the Commission on Aging with Dignity, a nonprofit organization in Tallahassee, revised and disseminated an updated and redesigned version of the Five Wishes advance directive, along with an employer tool kit to assist with workplace distribution to 5,000 organizations reaching more than one million people during the second grant. RWJF provided two grants under its end of life projects initiative totaling $1,212,896, for the revision and dissemination of the document. This project was adapted and disseminated to at least 33 other states.

Two other RWJF programs, Last Acts and Community State Partnerships to Improve End of Life Care, assisted the Commission on Aging with Dignity in developing the revised Five Wishes directive and distributing it through their members. Project staff then organized a national advisory committee to help develop advance directive tools for the workplace (see Appendix 1 for a list of members). Members of the advisory committee included Ira Byock and Timothy Quill. For those familiar with the players pushing assisted suicide and euthanasia, no further explanation is warranted.

Florida, South Carolina, Maryland, and Tennessee are some of the states who have followed the Commission on Aging with Dignity protocol on end of life care or revised their own versions. But, the underlying theme remains a constant theme; legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Each state has a distinctive name for their booklet, and the names can create confusion. Florida’s version is called Making Choices, was updated in 2005, and contains information about advance directives. End of life choices are discussed. The 2005 edition contains excerpts from the 2002 edition of Making Choices, and the 2003 – 2004 Consumer Resource Guide published by the Department of Elder Affairs in Florida. Page 30 of the document provides the Aging with Dignity web site which contains the 5 wishes information. http://elderaffairs.state.fl.us/english/LMD/EOL/EOL.pdf

Were Florida elected officials aware of the contents they were working on in developing and distributing this booklet? Were they aware of the backgrounds of the euthanasia advocates offering advice and guidance? If Florida officials did not know at the time are they currently aware they adopted assisted suicide and euthanasia objectives into public policy?

RWJF funded several research papers over a decade on how we die in America and alternate approaches to improving care at the end of life. Their study found that people died in uncontrollable pain, attached to machines until shortly before they died; that few patients had advance directives such as a living will; and that when they did, the directives were not followed. The results of this study led to The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s major involvement in endorsing assisted suicide care at the end of life.

RWJF noted they could make a difference by improving education of practitioners; building model palliative care programs at hospitals; and raising awareness among the public. They believe people who watch loved ones die after prolonged illness become advocates for improving care at the end of life and place more emphasis on pain management, but they never mentioned a word about assisted suicide. If their theory is correct, then they are basing their study conclusions and opinions, and are forming their beliefs on emotional reactions and perceptions of people during the most stressful time in life, a death in the family.

SUPPORT, the Study to Understand Prognosis and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment, was designed to improve end of life decision making and reduce the frequency of a mechanically supported, painful, and prolonged process of dying. This was the largest study of dying patients in hospitals ever undertaken.

Activities included:

Last Acts, a coalition of more than 100 prominent organizations working to improve the quality of care for dying people. Former First Lady Rosalynn Carter was the coalition's honorary chair. Project 2010 A.D.: Five public forums being held in Florida in 1996 and 1997 to examine how health and long-term services could be structured to safeguard the dignity of people as they age. Research to improve care for dying patients in managed care settings. National survey of hospice volunteers and staff. Developing a toolkit to help hospitals measure quality of care at the end of life.

In 1995, the RWJF published the SUPPORT study which they claim showed Americans die in pain, with little advance planning, without attention to their wishes, and at a great cost. Enter Last Acts to cultivate partnerships with respected national organizations such as AARP, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Three of the most vulnerable groups in this country were cultivated by Last Acts and other right to die organizations in order to achieve their goal; a “good death” via assisted suicide and euthanasia.

To gain national exposure to SUPPORT, CNN, National Public Radio, the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and the Associated Press obligingly provided air time and began reporting the project, as well as supporting advance directives. Additionally, articles and newscasts appeared in state and local newspapers and broadcast outlets about the project. Opinion pieces were featured in the Miami Herald, the Sun-Sentinel, the Orlando Sentinel, the Tampa Tribune, and St. Petersburg Times by the principal investigators of SUPPORT.

A smaller donor, The Claude Pepper Foundation, named after Senator Pepper, was established in 1986. The Foundation developed The Pepper Center at Florida State University into an education, research and public outreach service centers. One foundation grant was awarded to Aging with Dignity, “To help develop a system of health and long term care to maintain the human dignity of the elderly and prepare for the challenges younger Floridians will face as they age.”

Compassion in Dying Federation also supports “aid in dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults” and claims “assurance of a humane death enhances the celebration of life.” This aid in dying also includes hastening death and terminal sedation, two issues under the radar over the past several years. However, the outcome is still euthanasia.

Hastening death is helping (hurrying) death along, by deliberately discontinuing medical treatment of any nature or administering high doses of narcotic sedatives to suppress the respiratory center and other major organs which ultimately cause death.

Terminal sedation is the deliberate "termination of awareness" for "relief of intractable pain when specific pain relieving protocols or interventions is ineffective" and/or "relief of intractable emotional or spiritual anguish (existential suffering, psychological distress, and emotional exhaustion)". (Emphasis added) An essential component of TS is also the withdrawal of all treatment, including even food and water, so that death occurs as soon as possible.

Rita Marker states that Compassion in Dying was founded after the 1991 defeat of a Washington state initiative to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. The group's main purpose was to offer suicide assistance for "deserving cases." In a 1994 interview, the group's executive director, Ralph Mero, described Compassion in Dying as an outgrowth of the Washington State Hemlock Society. Compassion in Dying was formed "to help terminal patients retain control over how their lives come to an end, including the option of hastening inevitable death." Compassion's actions include “asking the patient's own primary care physician to prescribe lethal quantities of barbiturates for those patients who have decided on intentional death."

    Rita has discovered that during their first 13 months of operation, Compassion in Dying was involved in 24 deaths, all involving overdoses of prescription drugs. The organization then refused to provide further information on involvement in assisting deaths.

  In 1996, Barbara Coombs Lee (the chief petitioner for Measure 16, the 1994 ballot initiative that legalized assisted suicide in Oregon) left her position as vice president of an Oregon Managed Care Company to take over Compassion in Dying. She claims dedication to expanding and protecting the rights of the terminally ill. She has testified before the US Congress on end of life issues. The University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center for Public Radio produced her debate “Doctor Assisted Suicide: Compassionate Alternative or Murder.” She has been recognized with a national health Policy Fellowship, Boeringer Ingeheim Foundation, an American Jurisprudence Award for outstanding performance in the study of medical law and a National Health Lawyers Association scholarship for outstanding student achievement. Lee served as President of Compassion in Dying Federation and served on their Board of Directors.

In 1997, Compassion in Dying Federation created its Center for End of Life Law and Policy. Their mission, to act as a resource for legal efforts nationwide for improved care of the dying and make aid in dying legally available for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.

Compassion in Dying argued before the United States Supreme Court that assisted suicide is a constitutional right and lost. There is no constitutional right to assisted suicide.

In January of 2005, Compassion and Choices was formed by consolidating Compassion in Dying and End of Life Choices. With this consolidation, euthanasia supporters have dramatically increased their numbers, gained influence and power and attracted more donors. Compassion and Choices currently claim they are the largest and most comprehensive end of life organization in the country. They are no doubt the most organized.

Since incorporated in New York State in 1938, Choice in Dying has changed names at least three times. The Euthanasia Society of America changed to Society for the Right to Die (1975), to National Council on Death and Dying (1991), and to Choice in Dying (1991). Their purpose is to distribute public information legally, of the nature, purpose, and need for euthanasia and encourage its general adoption. They even clarify the term euthanasia as “the lawful termination of human life by painless means for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary suffering and under adequate safeguards.”

By the 1980s, Choice in Dying was firmly established as a right to die organization advocating assisting suicide. Most people are unaware these groups are actively advocating euthanasia or that euthanasia and assisted suicide are so similar, as to warrant further definitions and explanations as to the types of assisted and euthanasia.

In 1989, Choice in Dying physicians wrote a report that PBS's MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour called the "strongest public endorsement of doctor assisted suicide ever published." The report appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and concluded that it is morally acceptable for doctors to give patients information about suicide and the necessary drugs to accomplish death. The article made front page news across the country, thus creating an atmosphere of civil debate on assisted suicide, according to Rita Marker’s research.

  Dr. Ronald Cranford, then one of the report's 12 physician authors stated, "We broke new ground and we were very aware we were doing it. We felt it was an opportunity to make a statement that's very controversial and stand by it." He acknowledged that assisting suicide is "the same as killing the patient." Ronald Cranford, Dr. Humane Death, as he likes to be called, has been advocating publicly for assisted suicide and euthanasia since 1989.

Ron Cranford has also been involved in several right to die cases, the most recent, Terri Schindler Schiavo. Although Terri was not terminally ill, she was euthanized. She was brain injured. Cranford testified and advocated for her death via passive, non-voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. As the president of Compassion & Choices of Minnesota recently corrected and clarified, “Euthanasia, on the other hand, involves death by direct action of a physician or another person rather than by the patient.”

In Terri Schiavo’s case, there were many direct actions undertaken to euthanize her.

During a 1994 CNN interview, following passage of Oregon's assisted suicide law, Karen Kaplan described the law as simply a pain control measure. The law, she said, "really does limit physicians' intervention" and is only about "giving medication that will control pain at the end of life even though it may hasten death."

Kaplan’s statements are preposterous. While a physician’s interventions may be limited in scope during an assisted suicide, the physician still has the ability to alter interventions. The physician has the ability to alter documentation, change medication, and even administer the medication himself. These interventions are all possible; easy to accomplish, and are serious infractions which violate oaths and laws. Documentation to the health department does not always reflect true events.

The Oregon law is not about controlling pain with possible side effects or adverse events of overdose leading to death, as Kaplan believes. The law gives the physician the ability to prescribe medication strong enough to kill a person, and do so quickly, whether physician assisted, self induced or with the assist of family or friends. What a perfect environment to exploit the elderly and disabled, and have them euthanized. Were Oregonians duped into believing assisted suicide was a confined, limited action? If the law was all about pain, why not call it a pain relief or control act? Why not deal with the cause of and control the pain? Prescribing high doses of narcotics for pain relief and control is totally different than prescribing overdoses of narcotic sedatives to kill. Kaplan is misleading the public.

A 1999 newsletter made claim that for the past 62 years Choice in Dying and its predecessor organizations had "worked to achieve a 'good death' for all." But that work has not been without controversial aspects. How do you make an inevitable, morose act “good”? Not by saying you have a choice to kill yourself. There is no good in that action. You accept death. It is a fact of life. And it is something that cannot be changed, unless you suicide yourself. Drawing physicians into the act exploits the medical fields. Drawing anybody into the act is exploitative.

In 2000, Choice in Dying began "evolving into a new organization," called Partnership for Caring.  Partnership for Caring then partnered with Last Acts. They eventually ceased to exist. Choice was the first and most heavily funded of all such groups receiving grants from Nathan Cummings, Robert Wood Johnson, and the Fan Fox and Leslie R. Samuels foundations.

Since Partnership for Caring no longer exists, they no longer have a web service. However, if you click on their web page, you are redirected to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. Support for the web site is provided by a grant from the RWJF. If accessing Compassion in Dying or End of Life Choices, you are redirected to the Compassion and Choices web site.

By the time Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was pulled in March 2005, several euthanasia organizations had undergone mergers, name changes, or ceased to exist. To recap and clarify, the major U.S. organizations that actively support assisted suicide and euthanasia which have merged, changed names, or closed are condensed below.

  In 1938, The Euthanasia Society of America is founded.

In 1975, The Euthanasia Society of America changed their name to the Society for the Right to Die.

  In 1979, the Euthanasia Educational Council changed their name to Concern for Dying, and then split that same year.

  In 1980, the Hemlock Society formed. Later developed branches known as Americans Against Human Suffering, Californians Against Human Suffering, and Death with Dignity Education Center.

  In 1980, World Federation of Right To Die Societies was formed in Oxford, England.

   In 1990, the Society for the Right to Die and Concern for Dying announced their merger.

  In 1991, the Society for the Right to Die and Concern for Dying officially became the National Council for Death and Dying.

In 1991, just 6 months later, they changed their name to Choice in Dying known for promoting Living Wills. In 5 years, they claim membership includes 150,000 people across the U.S.

  In 1992 - 1993, the Euthanasia Research & Guidance Organization ERGO was formed from the Hemlock Society.

In 1992, Americans Against Human Suffering (AAHS), targeting California, changed their name to Californians Against Human Suffering (both originated from Hemlock).

In 1993, Compassion in Dying formed from the Hemlock Society with support and advocacy programs for the terminally ill, including established guidelines.

  In 1997, Hemlock established Caring Friends, a support branch that advises and informs people on end of life issues, including hastening death.

In 1997, Compassion in Dying Federation developed by Compassion in Dying of Washington.

  In 1997, Last Acts became operational.

    In 1999 - 2000, Choice in Dying became Partnership for Caring: America’s Voices for the Dying.

  In 2000, Partnership for Caring managed the RWJF's Last Acts program.

  In 2001, Choice in Dying officially merged with Partnership for Caring.

  In 2003, Hemlock established End of Life Choices headquartered in Denver and functioned as a PAC dealing with legislative and political areas. The Hemlock Foundation itself provides educational and outreach programs.

In 2003, Oregon Death with Dignity Legal Defense and Education Center merged with Death with Dignity National Center (Hemlock spin off).

  In 2004, Disgruntled Hemlock and End of Life Choices members form Final Exit Network.

  In 2004, Partnership for Caring combined with Last Acts to form Last Acts Partnership.

In 2004, Partnership for Caring and Last Acts ceased to exist, along with Last Acts Partnership.

  In 2004 - 2005, End-of-Life Choices and Compassion in Dying merged to form Compassion and Choices with headquarters in both Portland and Denver.

Currently under the umbrella of the Hemlock Foundation:

1) Caring Friends --- offers support
2) End of Life Choices ---- a PAC
Hemlock as a name was retired in June 2003 after 23 years.

In 2004 - 2005, Last Acts merged then ceased to exist. If you access Last Acts web page, you are redirected to a RWJF web page where most of the material from Last Acts is archived.

  Additionally, The World Federation of Right to Die Societies consists of 38 organizations from 23 countries around the world. They were founded in 1980. They meet every 2 years. Board Members include Dr. Richard MacDonald (USA), Derek Humphry (USA), Dr. Juan Mendoza-Vega (Colombia), Libby Drake (Australia), Annelies Plaisant (USA), Dr. Michio Arakawa (Japan). Cynthia St. John (Canada), Jacqueline Herremans (Belgium), Faye Girsh (USA), Jacob Kohnstamm (Netherlands), Dr. Michael Irwin (UK). A few are included below. http://www.worldrtd.net/about/page/?id=683

   North America;

Choices in Dying Society and Dying with Dignity (in Canada)

  The United States;

Compassion and Choices, Death With Dignity National Center,
Euthanasia Research & Guidance Org (ERGO!), Final Exit Network   Australia;

Northern Territory Voluntary Euthanasia Society, South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society, Voluntary Euthanasia Society - Tasmania, Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New South Wales, Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Queensland, Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Victoria, West Australia Voluntary Euthanasia Society Twentieth World Euthanasia Conference planned for September 7 - 10 in Toronto, Canada. http://www.worldrtd.net/news/

Legislative and Legal Highlights

  1906
First bill to legalize voluntary euthanasia in the United States was introduced in the Ohio Legislature. It provided that when a mentally competent adult was terminally ill or injured, his doctor could ask him in the presence of three witnesses whether he wished to die. If the answer was yes, three other physicians had to agree that the patient's condition was hopeless before he could be put to death. The bill failed.

1939
The Euthanasia Society proposed legislation intended to legalize euthanasia and targeted "born defectives who are doomed to remain defective, rather than for normal persons who have become miserable through incurable illness."

1976
California Natural Death Act is passed. Aid in dying statute provides legal standing to living wills and protects physicians from being sued for failing to treat incurable illnesses. Ten more U.S. states pass natural death laws.

1986
Hemlock unveiled their proposal to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia called the Humane and Dignified Death Act (HDDA).

Americans Against Human Suffering is founded in California which launches a campaign for what will become the 1992 California Death with Dignity Act.

1988
Hemlock moved their national headquarters to Eugene, Oregon, with plans to openly advocate a “physician aid in dying” initiative for Oregon, Washington and California.

1990
U.S. Supreme Court decides Cruzan vs. Director, Missouri Department of Health, ruling the state was correct in not allowing Nancy Cruzan to die, due to lack of clear and convincing evidence. The right of Americans to refuse unwanted medical treatment, and their right to appoint a health care proxy was affirmed.

Congress passes the Patient Self-Determination Act, requiring hospitals that receive federal funds to tell patients that they have a right to demand or refuse treatment. It takes effect the next year.

Hemlock of Oregon introduces the Death with Dignity Act into the Oregon legislature. It fails to get out of committee.

Washington Initiative 119 is filed, a voter referendum on the issue of voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

The American Medical Association adopts a formal position that a physician can withhold or withdraw treatment from a patient with informed consent who is close to death, and may also discontinue life support of a patient in a permanent coma.

1991
Washington State voters reject Ballot Initiative 119 which would have legalized physician assisted suicide by a 54% to 46% vote.

1992
Americans for Death with Dignity, formerly Americans Against Human Suffering, places the California Death with Dignity Act on the state ballot as Proposition 161.

California voters defeat the measure which would have allowed physicians to hasten death by prescribing medications for self administration to suffering, terminally ill patients by a 54% to 46% vote.

1993
The Hemlock Society established the Patients’ Rights Organization, a political action group.

1994
Oregon voters approve Measure 16, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, by ballot initiative that permits terminally ill patients to engage in physician assisted suicide. The law passes narrowly, by a 51% to 49% vote.

All states and the District of Columbia now recognize some type of advance directive.

1997
Compassion in Dying euthanizes their first victim (Helen) by a lethal medication dose.

In Washington vs. Glucksberg and Vacco vs. Quill, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the ban on physician assisted suicide is constitutional.i[i] The Supreme Court left it up to individual states to pass laws relating to assisted suicide.

ACLU attorney Robert Rivas files an amended complaint challenging the 128 year old Florida law banning assisted suicide.

1998
A measure to legalize physician assisted suicide similar to the Oregon law was placed on the ballot in the state of Michigan by a group called Merian's Friends. It failed by an overwhelming margin of 70% to 29%.

1999
The U.S. House passes the Pain Relief Promotion Act (PRPA). An amendment to the Controlled Substances Act to promote pain management and palliative care without permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia, and for other purposes. The bill would have criminalized “aid in dying” and voided the Oregon law.

2000
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden threatens a filibuster and prevents PRPA from reaching the Senate floor.

The Hemlock Society hosts their biannual conference of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies of Boston.

  The citizens of Maine rejected a ballot measure for Death with Dignity, similar to the Oregon law, to legalize physician assisted suicide, by a 51% - 49% vote.

The New Hampshire State Senate overwhelmingly defeated legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

  2001
Compassion in Dying helps pass legislation in California (AB 487) to improve pain management at the end of life.

  The Alaska Supreme Court unanimously rejected a claim that the Alaska law prohibiting assisted suicide is a violation of a constitutional right.

  2002
The Hawaii House of Representatives approved a bill to legalize physician assisted suicide. The Hawaii Senate voted 14 to 11 to kill the measure.

  2003
A “physician aid in dying” measure is brought before the Vermont Legislature with the Hemlock Society providing assistance.

The Hemlock Society enhances its mission to include a more proactive role in introducing and changing laws that allow people the right to choose a “hastened” death if they are terminally ill and mentally competent. As a result, the board of directors decides to change their name from the Hemlock Society to End of Life Choices.

Legislation was introduced to legalize physician assisted suicide in Hawaii, Wisconsin, Vermont, and Arizona. Vermont and Hawaii Governors stated that they would likely veto the law in those states. Legislation was introduced in North Carolina to prohibit assisted suicide.

2004
A.G. John Ashcroft files an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s affirmation of the lower court injunction of the Ashcroft directive.

The Vermont Medical Association decided to oppose efforts to legalize physician assisted suicide in Vermont. Disability rights groups added their opposition to the measure.

The Chairmen of both the Vermont House and Senate Health and Welfare Committees dealt a blow to legislative efforts of physician assisted suicide by announcing they would not take action on proposed legislation.

Legislation was introduced to legalize physician assisted suicide in Wyoming and failed.

2006
The Supreme Court Case, Gonzales vs. Oregon, did not challenge the Oregon law that allows assisted suicide, but rather was to determine whether controlled substances could be used to euthanize people in Oregon State under the federal governments Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The Oregon law stands.

What most people do not understand is that assisted suicide is a form of euthanasia. States cannot pass laws allowing euthanasia, as the word itself, euthanasia, is detestable and evil. In order to elicit positive responses and therefore, acceptance from the public, the practice of euthanasia is cloaked under the guise of “assisted suicide for the terminally ill” using phrases such as death with dignity, compassionate care, and choices, as in autonomy, and thereby creating a deceptive power or right of self governance or control for those allegedly on their death bed. Taking advantage of people’s ignorance with word play is deceitful.

These groups all preach dignity, choice, rights, compassion, mercy, but the common denominator is their origins in the Hemlock Society and Euthanasia Society, including legalization of euthanasia.

Marker, along with many others, believes the assisted suicide and euthanasia movement often refers to the "right-to-die" or "death with dignity" and that this movement seeks legalization of mercy killing via a two-step process: the acceptance of assisted suicide, and then, a shift to active euthanasia.

All of the major right to die organizations believes in assisted suicide and euthanasia and in attempts to legalize both in states across this country. Since suicide is not morally acceptable, making it somehow pleasant is instrumental in getting the public to embrace the idea of physician assisted suicide and not shun it, and is a perfect starting point for these foundations with their wealthy donors figuring out ways to legitimize assisted suicide and euthanasia as an acceptable act. Using a physician or any health care giver to assist in suicide lends credibility to the process, and gives the process a more aesthetic overtone. Once physician assisted suicide is accepted by the public, euthanasia will then become a secondary and acceptable common public attitude or mainstream view and practice, along with the laws to back it up. We saw this occur throughout Europe over the past two decades.

This is where Peter Singer’s comments enter back into the equation. In reality, a morally repulsive act becomes an accepted standard by which we live, and in this case, die.

  Peter Singer’s prediction is that within 35 years, countries currently practicing euthanasia will be experienced enough to negate all fears of the practice in this country. In the meantime, a large segment of the population will be upwards of 70 years of age and thinking about their deaths and how their lives will end. And so, the political pressure for legalizing euthanasia will be irresistible, Singer states.

With euthanasia proponents deeply entrenched in medical education and shaping medical policies in health care; with governors and state legislatures laying the groundwork for assisted suicide by incorporating euthanasia advocate groups’ goals and the OSI and RWJF initiatives into law and legal and public policy; with the ACLU litigating your inevitable death under the pretense of autonomy and civil rights; you can be assured euthanasia is not only underway, but thriving in this country.

Instead of philanthropists and their foundations spending billions of dollars; groups and organizations advocating for euthanasia and exploiting AARP, medical organizations and other groups; their money and time would be best invested advocating for the disabled, the mentally incapacitated and indigent populations. They are not part of the solution when they are the problem. These well known, philanthropic organizations are positioned to profoundly affect every person worldwide, when they successfully transform death or the process of dying into medical treatment via assisted suicide and euthanasia. This ideology, philosophy, or belief is not reflective of a desire for “a good death." Further that philosophy is not reflective of the general public.

Hopefully, you do not feel safe with euthanasia programs operating in this country. Take action. 3-29-06