We’ve all seen the soothing Joan Lunden ads for the elder services referral business, A Place for Mom. Amidst the warm colors and gauzy colors, it turns out the group supports assisted suicide.
And now, the National Right to Life Committee has weighed in. From, “‘Senior Living Referral Service’ Promotes Assisted Suicide,” by Burke Balch in the NRTL News:
Have you seen the ads in which it is claimed, “You can trust A Place for Mom to help you”? Evidently at least part of what is meant is, “You can trust A Place for Mom to help you find a group to help Mom kill herself.”
As I wrote a few days ago, that isn’t hyperbole. The group’s blog pushed assisted suicide generally and boosted the assisted suicide advocacy organization
Hemlock Society Compassion and Choices, specifically.
The disclaimer at the end of the post acknowledged that the issue of assisted suicide is controversial and laughably claims neutrality on the issue. So, where are the voices opposing the death agenda? The blog does not give one reason against assisting suicide, nor did it give voice to any opponent. Some neutrality.
A Place for Mom evidently considers referring people to a group providing “Client Support Volunteers” who will “ensure that the medical protocol for taking the life-ending medication is followed” to be an appropriate form of “educating the public.”
Yet the blog post by this “neutral” referral company, which talks of “Giving Choice to the Dying,” provides no information about suicide prevention services, or how to access available medical resources for the counseling and medication that can treat suicidal depression.
Remember, this post was aimed primarily at the family members of the elderly. In an age of terrible elder abuse, it is appalling that a business that seeks to earn the trust of seniors and their families would boost the ultimate abandonment of assisted suicide.
If I ever need help caring for my 96-year-old mother, A Place for Mom is the last organization to which I would turn.
Correction: An earlier version of this post claimed that APFM supported the Washington initiative that led to legalization. The post actually was describing C & C’s support for the initiative. I regret any confusion.