Nonetheless, the ACPC spawned claims about "death panels" and government-imposed euthanasia, its true motive impugned as a money saver rather than to ensure appropriate care at the end of life. One politician even raised the specter of the government encouraging the putting of seniors to death.
The politics of the day quickly caused the U.S. Senate to drop ACPC from further debate, and it never became part of the Obamacare law.11
References
1. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. Or. Rev. Stat. Section 127.800.
2. Washington’s Death with Dignity Act. Wash. Rev. Code Section 70.245.
3. Vermont Act 39 (Bill S.77 "End of Life Choices"; law passed May 20, 2013).
4. Baxter v. State of Montana, 224 P. 3d 1211 (2010).
5. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990).
6. Vacco v. Quill, 117 S. Ct. 2293 (1997).
7. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
8. See www.amednews.com/article/20120417/profession/304179996.
9. Statistics available at public.health.oregon.gov under Oregon Death with Dignity Act.
10. AMA Code of Medical Ethics, Section 2.211 (2012-3 ed., p. 117).
11. Piemonte and Hermer, Avoiding a "Death Panel" Redux. Hastings Center Report 2013;43:20-8.
Dr. Tan is emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Hawaii and director of the St. Francis International Center for Healthcare Ethics. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. It is adapted from the author’s book, "Medical Malpractice: Understanding the Law, Managing the Risk" (2006). For additional information, readers may contact the author at siang@hawaii.edu.