Elaine Kolb Performs “Not Dead Yet”

By Jules Good, 02/08/23

Last week, NDY ally Elaine Kolb performed an original song at the press conference hosted in part by Second Thoughts CT to highlight the dangers of the proposed CT assisted suicide legalization bill. Check out the video to see her speech and performance: https://youtu.be/AnaQhlmVt68

Video Transcript:

My name is Elaine Kolb. I'm 64 as in, "Will you still need me? Will you still feed me when I'm 64?" Well I am. When I first heard that song I thought it was gonna be a long time before I was 64, but here I am. 

On September 30th, 1977, I was 28 years old and a stranger came up to me and grabbed me, attempted robbery, stabbed me in the back. Up till then I, if anything, I was abnormally healthy. I'd never even had a broken bone. The only time I was in the hospital was when I was born and to get my tonsils out.

There I was, almost died, had a spinal cord injury. They didn't think I'd ever walk again. Well, medicine is wonderful but there's a reason why they say it's still practicing. They are still practicing. They don't know. They're just trying to figure it out best they can and do the best they can under the circumstances. But they don't know. You can't say whether somebody's gonna live or die for sure. Some people seem to be just fine. My sister had surgery yesterday and last night they said she was just fine and then she had a blood clot and they took her back in for another surgery. And as far as I know, she's fine and in intensive care, but you don't know these things.

That's why this is so important because real people are in real agony at times and we don't know what to do. And we look to medical experts and they do the best they can, but they don't know either. This is very emotional for me because it was 15 years ago last Monday, March 10th, when my partner Patty Deke, we had been together for 11 and a half years, when she died at hospice in Branford. And it's one of the many blessings of my life that I got to be there holding her hand when she died. But she lived her whole life under a death sentence. 

CONNECTICUT COURT DISMISSES “AID IN DYING” CASE

By Margaret Dore

On June 2, 2010, the Connecticut Superior Court dismissed Blick v. Connecticut, an "aid in dying" case.  "Aid in dying" is a euphemism for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.[1]  As used in the case, aid in dying refered to physician-assisted suicide.

Case History

In Connecticut, assisting a suicide is prohibited by two statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a, which prohibits intentionally causing a suicide "by force, duress or deception"; and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-56, which prohibits intentionally causing a suicide "other than by force, duress or deception." Neither statute contains an exception for physician-assisted suicide.

On October 7, 2009, the former Hemlock Society, now known as Compassion & Choices, announced the lawsuit.  The claim was that § 53a-56 does not reach a physician who provides "aid in dying" because aid in dying is not "suicide."  See Verified Complaint, ¶ 40.  The complaint also implied that the patients at issue would be "dying." This would not necessarily be the case. See Opinion letter here:  http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/ConnMemo02.pdf.

On June 2, 2010, the Court dismissed the case.  The Court specifically disagreed with the claim that "aid in dying" is not "suicide."  The Court stated: 

"[T]he legislature intended the statute to apply to physicians who assist a suicide and intended the term "suicide" to include self-killing by those who are suffering from unbearable terminal illness.

The language and legislative history of § 53a-56 compel the conclusion that the defendants [state’s attorneys] would not be acting in excess of their authority if they prosecuted the plaintiffs under § 53a-56 for providing 'aid in dying.'"[2] 

The Court also stated that the claim was not justiciable and that any change in the law would be a task for the legislature.[3]  The Court said that the legislature's participation was particularly important given "significant . . . concerns" about physician-assisted suicide.[4]  These concerns include whether assisted suicide "threatens . . . the poor, the elderly and the disabled."[5]

The Court also found that the lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.[6]  The Court concluded: "The case is hereby dismissed because it is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and, as stated above, it presents a nonjusticiable claim, one which must be decided by the Connecticut legislature, and not by the court."[7]

Not Dead Yet’s running commentary on the case can be viewed here.  The verified complaint, the parties’ briefing and the Court’s decision can be viewed below as indicated:

Verified Complaint, filed October 2009.

Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dated November 19, 2009.

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law if Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, dated January 4, 2010

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dated February 11, 2010.

Memorandum of Decision on Motion to Dismiss, dated June 1, 2010 and filed on June 2, 2010 (dismissing the case).

---

[1]  The term, "aid in dying" means both euthanasia and assisted suicide.  See the "Model Aid-in-Dying Act" published in the Iowa Law Review at: http://www.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/euthan.html.  Note the letters "euthan" in the link.  The Act's definition of "aid-in-dying" describes euthanasia.  Section 1-102(3) states: "‘Aid-in-dying’ means . . . the administration of a qualified drug for the purpose of inducing death." See also video transcript of Barbara Wagner,
http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html?video=YHI&t=a (last visited Sept. 24, 2010) ("‘physician aid in dying’ [is] better known as assisted suicide").
[2] Blick & Levine v. Office of the Division of Criminal Justice, et. al. (Blick v. Connecticut)(Conn. Super. Ct), CV-09-5033392, Memorandum of Decision on Motion to Dismiss, filed June 2, 2010, at 25. 
[3] Id., Memorandum of Decision on Motion to Dismiss, at 16, middle paragraph.  
[4] Id., at bottom.
[5] Id., at 17.
[6] Id., at 21-25. 
[7] Id., at 26.