Final Exit Network’s blog has had over 105,000 views since its inception.
Read More
The more “Final Exit” was condemned, the more people bought it who were not afraid to think about death.
“Medical aid in dying should not be proscribed by society’s laws or condemned by its mores.”
Passing a MAiD law is hard enough. Then try to implement it.
People experience death in varied ways. Different colors, different cultures, demand different approaches to the dying process.
Smart, independent and strong-willed, Lillian blogged openly about her intention to “turn out the lights” in her own time. After it happened, the obituaries did not tell it the way she wanted.
Final Exit Network is again in the crosshairs of Minnesota authorities who don’t believe in freedom of speech.
Many advocates of the right to die want universal health care, noting that physician-aided death is legal in Canada. What might that mean for FEN?
On April 16, 2018, the Final Exit Network (FEN) filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the State of Minnesota. The suit asks the court to declare that Minnesota’s law prohibiting speaking to a person about how to hasten her own death is a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The suit seeks, also, to void FEN’s conviction under the statute, and to bar the State of Minnesota from again initiating a prosecution of FEN, and its personnel, under the statute based solely on the utterance of “speech” that “enables” a suicide.
In May 2015, the non-profit corporation Final Exit Network, Inc. was convicted of assisting in the 2007 suicide of Doreen Dunn. In that state, “assisting” does not require any physical act. The Minnesota Supreme Court decided that if speaking to another person about how to commit suicide “enables” that person to take her own life, the speech meets the definition of “assist” as found in the Minnesota statute that prohibits “assisting suicide.”
Visitor Count:
