GOOD DEATH HOSPICE
CREATING THE FIRST RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE 


SYNOPSIS:

    The Good Death Hospice will empower dying individuals
to choose any legal, doctor-approved options at the end of life
---explicitly including legal choices that will lead to death.

OUTLINE:

1. THE GOOD DEATH HOSPICE SHOULD BE LEGALLY SEPARATE
     FROM ALL OTHER RIGHT-TO-DIE ORGANIZATIONS.

    A. SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

    B. SEPARATE FINANCES.

         Medicare and private insurance coverage for hospice care

2. BEGIN WITH A RESIDENTIAL HOSPICE
            IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, OR CALIFORNIA.

    A. HIGH-SECURITY SITE
            NEEDED TO PROTECT AGAINST PROTESTS.

    B. PURCHASE OR BUILD?

3. USING ADVERSE PUBLICITY TO ADVANCE THE RIGHT-TO-DIE.

4. EXPAND TO INCLUDE AT-HOME HOSPICE CARE.

5. APPLY SAFEGUARDS
            TO PROTECT BOTH THE PATIENTS AND THE HOSPICE.

6. PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS.

7. HOW THIS RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE DIFFERS FROM DIGNITAS.

8. CORRECTIONS OF PROCEDURE WILL BE REQUIRED.

9. LIKELY SIDE-EFFECTS
            OF CREATING THE FIRST RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE.



GOOD DEATH HOSPICE
CREATING THE FIRST RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE


by James Leonard Park


    A right-to-die hospice need not be a contradiction in terms.
Traditionally the hospice movement has been committed to natural death
—neither delaying death nor shortening the process of dying.
And the right-to-die movement has favored patient autonomy
—allowing each of us to select the best time and place to die.
Can these two philosophies find common ground?

    Who will create the first right-to-die hospice
somewhere in the USA or Canada?
These individuals will probably come from right-to-die organizations,
but because of the necessity to keep the first hospice independent
of any established organizations,
they will not be acting in any official capacity
for any existing organization
when they put their names on the Articles of Incorporation
to create what might be called the "Good Death Hospice". 



1.  THE GOOD DEATH HOSPICE SHOULD BE LEGALLY SEPARATE
            FROM ALL OTHER RIGHT-TO-DIE ORGANIZATIONS.

    A name should be selected that avoids any first impression
that this hospice is associated with any existing right-to-die organization.

    Public opposition should be expected to be immediate and strong.
Will some journalists mis-characterize the first right-to-die hospice
by referring to Nazi gas chambers?

    Those brave individuals who will create the first right-to-die hospice
will have to be prepared to counteract initial opposition from the public.
Only after the worst fears are proven to be completely baseless
will some reasonable people see that the Good Death Hospice
is a completely legal operation within all local, state, & federal laws.

    Law-suits can be expected from the opponents of the right-to-die.
Thus, even before one patient is helped,
thousands of dollars will have to be spent defending
just the concept of a hospice that will allow patients to choose
any of the legal pathways towards death permitted in that location.

    Opposition to this first right-to-die hospice
might take the form of trying to undercut its funding.
So the opposition might attempt to prove
that some established organization is secretly creating this hospice.

    Licenses will be reviewed with a "fine-tooth comb" as lawyers say.
Every person who enters might be photographed to check identity. 
Opposition demonstrators can be expected to gather nearby.
Some opponents might even use violent means
in their attempts to prevent the hospice from opening or operating.



    A. SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

    Individuals already active in the right-to-die movement
might also becoming associated with this new effort,
as long as they make clear that they are acting as individuals,
not as representatives of other organizations, etc.

    This is parallel to business corporations having board members
who also serve on the boards of other corporations.
The corporations are utterly separate legal entities.
If one business goes bankrupt,
this does no harm to the other corporations
also (incidentally) served by some of the same board members.

    Each separate corporation is responsible for its own finances
and for controlling the behavior of any employees it hires.



    B. SEPARATE FINANCES.

    The most basic reason for having separate corporations
is to protect each corporation from any adverse consequences
that might happen to some other corporation.

    Whatever troubles the first right-to-die hospice will have
should be absolutely isolated from the finances of other organizations.
If the Good Death Hospice is shut down by some legal problems,
this should not affect the activities of other right-to-die organizations. 

    If this new hospice will be operating within the United States,
it will draw its funds mainly from the taxpayers,
who are already supporting hundreds of other hospices
by means of the Medicare hospice benefit.
If the first right-to-die hospice emerges in Canada,
public funds will also be available to support its operation.
This will be one source of major controversy,
since many people have not explicitly considered that public funds
are already supporting patients in the last days of their lives.

    But in the United States, Medicare does already pay
a per-day fee for everyone over 65 who needs hospice care.
The exact amount of this daily fee depends on the level of care needed.
And most private health insurance also includes a hospice benefit.

    The Good Death Hospice should operate
entirely above board and in the plain light of day.
So it should comply with all rules and regulations
for creating and operating a hospice within the USA or within Canada
and within whatever state or province is chosen for this first effort.
There will also be local ordinances
concerning the placement and operation of such health-care facilities.
In some locations, every new health-care facility using public funds
must be approved by a committee that reviews health-care facilities.



2.  BEGIN WITH A RESIDENTIAL HOSPICE
            IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, OR CALIFORNIA.

    Because the northwest states of Oregon and Washington
have such long histories of supporting the right-to-die,
these might be likely states for establishing the first right-to-die hospice.
These states also have explicit Death with Dignity Acts,
which allow doctors to prescribe life-ending chemicals
for qualified patients when specified safeguards have been fulfilled.
And almost all who take advantage of these Death with Dignity Acts
are also receiving hospice care at the end of their lives.
In 2016, California joined the right-to-die states.
Will it become the first state to have a right-to-die hospice?

   Would it be possible to create greater cooperation
between hospice care and the right-to-die movement?

    A residential hospice is probably the best way to begin.
This would be an actual building (perhaps as home-like as possible)
with separate bedrooms for each patient
and with all the necessary support equipment and staff.
Since each patient might be expected to stay
in the Good Death Hospice for at least a week,
food service, laundry, nursing care, etc. should all be provided.

    Research might discover where and how conventional hospices
are already operating in the first location chosen for this experiment.
The publicity generated by proposing the first right-to-die hospice
will draw public attention to other hospices already in operation.
And the public might discover that having good places for people to die
is not harmful to the neighborhoods where hospices operate.

    Oregon had only one residential hospice,
altho there are many at-home hospice services. 
And this one hospice in Portland declined to admit patients
who wanted to take advantage of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.
(The Oregon law does permit health-care providers and institutions
to exempt themselves from the Death with Dignity Act.)

    Thus, perhaps Portland, Oregon would be a good location.
This would provide all dying patients with an open choice
between a conventional hospice that discourages choosing death
and a right-to-die hospice that allows all legal end-of-life choices.



    A. HIGH-SECURITY SITE
            NEEDED TO PROTECT AGAINST PROTESTS.

    However, because the Good Death Hospice
will not be a conventional health-care facility,
its location will have to be more secure
than any other hospice has ever been. 

    One possibility would be a large farm or ranch in the countryside.
This would make it possible to have a high-security fence
surrounding the whole facility, to protect the patients and the staff.
However, rural areas might have the most legal obstacles
preventing the creation of a right-to-die hospice.

    Another possibility might be putting the hospice
entirely on the upper floors of a high-rise structure.
Then, security would concentrate on the elevators and stairwells.
Only persons already screened and approved
would be permitted to enter the floors operated by the hospice.

    In whatever location selected, one of the first criteria should be
having complete security for everyone involved.
There might be public protests against this first right-to-die service.
And there might even be violence
from people who think they are protecting the innocent from death.

    Each possible location should be checked by security experts
to make certain that there is no easy way to attack the facility.
Some lessons might be learned from protecting U.S. embassies
in countries where at least some of the people are hostile.

    We know from the experience of abortion clinics and doctors
that a few fanatics might use violence
when trying to prevent medical services they deplore.



    B. PURCHASE OR BUILD?

    It might be possible to purchase some health-care facility
that has become obsolete for its original purpose.
Medical technology sometimes makes it better to build a new facility
rather than attempt to retro-fit an old building with new equipment.
But an aging hospital, clinic, or nursing-home in a secure location
might be an ideal place to create the first right-to-die hospice.
Caring for the dying does not require elaborate technology.

    Also, private hospices do come and go as their ownership changes.
There might already be an operating residential hospice
that is for sale in the state or province chosen for the Good Death Hospice.

    Such a choice might be easier for getting local licenses
for a right-to-die hospice.
If the closed-down hospice was already licensed,
perhaps its license could be purchased with the buildings.
At least, the neighbors will have no basis to complain
if they have already tolerated a conventional hospice for some years.

    Building a brand-new residential hospice would also be possible.
This would be more expensive, but it would have the advantage of
being able to include the needed security measures.

    Start-up money will be an issue,
but that is a factor in creating any new corporation.
Persons in the general public who support the right-to-die
will be the most likely investors and/or contributors.
Eventually the Good Death Hospice will pay for its building
and its operation with the revenue devoted to hospice care.
The daily payments for hospice care are not large fees,
but hundreds of conventional hospices
have been able to create and sustain themselves
using mainly these operating funds.

    It might even be possible to start this hospice
with the generous gift from a single donor.
And the legacies of grateful families will be another source of income.



3.  USING ADVERSE PUBLICITY TO ADVANCE THE RIGHT-TO-DIE.

    Because the first public reaction might be revulsion and horror,
this will make even the first proposal for a right-to-die hospice
front-page news across the country.
People will want to know what devils have hatched such a scheme.

    But the adverse publicity will also draw the attention
of people who support the right-to-die.
They will see that there is finally going to be a place
where people can go to die in peace.
And this controversy will generate millions of dollars worth
of free publicity for the right-to-die movement.
Instead of spending thousands of dollars to put up bill-boards,
we will just have to allow ourselves to be discovered on the Internet
by all those curious people (both in favor and against)
who want to know more about the right-to-die
and about the possibility of creating a hospice
that will allow people to choose death,
as long as they stay completely within the law.

    Donations will support both this specific first right-to-die hospice
and all known right-to-die organizations.

    Public debate about end-of-life options
will be opened as perhaps never before.
Some people will defend the right-to-die.
Others will oppose any choices at the end of life.
But the more such matters are discussed,
as long as both side can be heard,
the case for the right-to-die is certain to win more people.



4.  EXPAND TO INCLUDE AT-HOME HOSPICE CARE.

    Because of the free publicity generated by the public controversy,
the first right-to-die hospice might be oversubscribed
on the first day it opens for business.
Too many people will want to use these right-to-die facilities.

    This will allow the first patients to be selected very carefully.
The screening for them will be more strict
than will be necessary after a year or two of operation.
If the first few patients are ideal candidates for the right-to-die,
any scrutiny will be good for this new hospice service.
Balanced stories of the first patients to use this service
will easily convince the readers, listeners, or viewers
that this is a wonderful service they might use themselves
when they come to the end of their lives.

    More controversial patients will have to be turned down
—and perhaps referred to more conventional hospices.
The whole hospice movement in that state or province
will be forced to examine their practices and policies
with regard to choices at the end of life.
And patients will know their rights as they face death.
Some established hospices might openly affirm
that they provide the same services as the first right-to-die hospice.

    Such side-effects will be good for the right-to-die movement.

    After about a year as a residential hospice,
and after all of the litigation and controversy have died down,
then this first right-to-die hospice
can create a parallel at-home service for patients seeking terminal care,
including various options for shortening the process of dying.
Some patients will ask for such services from the beginning,
but because of possible controversy,
they might have to be referred to established hospice services,
which provide support for people who wish to die at home.
And these older hospices will have to declare themselves
more openly than ever before
as either allowing all legal, medical end-of-life choices
or restricting their patients to some limited set of options.

    At-home hospice services will require the same safeguards
as applied to the patients who choose to use
the residential facility for their last few days of life.



5.  APPLY SAFEGUARDS
            TO PROTECT BOTH THE PATIENTS AND THE HOSPICE.

    In order to remain completely within the law in all respects,
there must be a good set of safeguards widely discussed,
beginning with the first public announcement of this project.
These safeguards will probably be applied to life-ending decisions
even more carefully than in nearby hospitals and nursing homes.
Journalists will want to know what safeguards are used.

    Here are ten likely safeguards to screen all patients who apply:

A. ADVANCE DIRECTIVE FOR MEDICAL CARE

G. UNBEARABLE SUFFERING

H. UNBEARABLE PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING

B. REQUESTS FOR DEATH FROM THE PATIENT

D. PHYSICIAN'S STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS

E. INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN REVIEWS THE CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS

C. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTANT
            EVALUATES THE PATIENT'S ABILITY TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS

F. CERTIFICATION OF TERMINAL ILLNESS OR INCURABLE CONDITION

U. WAITING PERIODS FOR REFLECTION

Y. THE PATIENT MUST BE CONSCIOUS AND ABLE TO ACHIEVE DEATH

    Each safeguard is linked to a complete explanation on the Internet.
The unusual lettering system result from the fact
that these safeguards were selected from a larger and more complete set.
And a brief explanation of each is found here:
Safeguards Embraced by the Right-to-Die Movement:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/SG-COMM.html

    There will be discussion—pro and con—about each safeguard.
And the actual Board of Directors of the first right-to-die hospice
will have to revise, expand, or replace these suggested safeguards.
But these proposed safeguards will start the discussion about
how patients will be screened to decide who will qualify
for whatever end-of-life choices they wish to make.

    This first right-to-die hospice
will also provide the same services provided by other hospices.
These services are well known.
They include everything that a nursing home provides.
And these end-of-life services are financed
by various forms of hospice benefit for the patients.

    The additional service that any right-to-die hospice provides
is the option of choosing any combination
of several legal methods of shortening the process of dying.
The Board of Directors will decide exactly which end-of-life options
should be available within this facility (and in the at-home service).
They should seek legal advice to assure themselves
that they are operating entirely within whatever laws apply to them.

    And any staff members or volunteers found to be violating any laws
should be immediately dismissed
and referred to the appropriate law-enforcement officials.
In order to operate entirely within the spirit and letter of the law,
the Board of Directors should create and revise guidelines
to make certain that all operations are entirely legal and proper.

    Some patients who were initially admitted to the right-to-die hospice
might later be found not eligible for help in dying
because they cannot fulfill some of the safeguards established.
For example, medical investigation might determine
that some patients do not have the fatal diseases
they believed they were suffering.
Or getting good end-of-life palliative care
might reverse the immediate wish to die.
They might decide they want to live for several weeks or even months
within the sheltering arms of this right-to-die hospice,
knowing that they can choose death when the best time comes.
And wherever strong proxy-laws are in effect,
the officially-appointed proxies can carry forward the plans for death
if the patient slips beyond the capacity to make the final decision.

    The most careful right-to-die hospice will apply more safeguards:
Safeguards for Making Life-Ending Decisions
in a Right-to-Die Hospice:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/HOS-SG.html
This is a discussion of how each of 26 recommended safeguards
should be applied in a right-to-die hospice program.



6.  PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS.

    The most important professional staff member is the medical director,
who will be a licensed physician in good standing with the local authorities.
This doctor will take responsibility
for all of the technicalities of the medical care of the patient.
And this doctor will confirm (or disconfirm)
the medical diagnosis and prognosis
that brought the patient into the hospice in the first place. 

    As mentioned in the safeguard-procedures above,
there must be a second medical evaluation of the patient.
And if this shows some differences from the various earlier diagnoses,
then all questions must be resolved before plans for death go forward.

    Likewise, there will be a routine psychological evaluation,
including the patient's reasons for choosing death
—just to rule out any irrational suicidal urges or family pressures
pushing toward a premature death.

    The nurses who will give daily care to the patient
will also be part of the evaluation process.
They will also be communicating with the patient and the family.
And if they find any reasons to doubt the process,
they will also be able to call a time-out
—pausing the process of planning for death
until all uncertainties can be resolved.

    Likewise, there will be family and other volunteers involved,
who will also be asked for their opinions about the whole process.

    No death-planning process will ever be as thoro as
the process used for deciding these first right-to-die choices
within the first hospice explicitly established to guarantee
the right-to-die under the most careful safeguards. 



7.  HOW THIS RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE DIFFERS FROM DIGNITAS.

    Dignitas is a death clinic in Zurich, Switzerland.
It is not supported by public funds or any money intended for health-care.
Individual clients must pay their own costs of getting to the Blue House
as well as the large fee for the brief visit that ends in death.

    The Good Death Hospice is definitely a health-care facility,
like a hospital, nursing home, or conventional hospice.
A right-to-die hospice will provide terminal medical care,
which will not be fundamentally different from terminal care
available from other health-care organizations.
The last days of the patient's life
will be made as comfortable and meaningful as possible.

    Patients will be admitted on the basis of medical information.
They will be evaluated by the professional medical staff
to assure that no facts have been misunderstood or misrepresented.

    Reasonable waiting periods will be observed for each patient.
These waiting periods can begin counting from the day
that patient was first approved to receive the services of this hospice.
Once a proposed date of death has been projected,
the patient can complete all appropriate interpersonal, legal,
& financial arrangements in order to make the last week of life
as comfortable and meaningful as possible for everyone involved.

    Scheduling the patient's admission to the Good Death Hospice
will be accomplished some weeks in advance,
depending on when beds will become available.
The Good Death Hospice is likely to be oversubscribed
when it first begins operating.
Thus, some patients will have to wait before they can be admitted.
And some of these will choose a conventional hospice program,
which will probably not require as much waiting.

    The patient might be cared for within this Good Death Hospice
for whatever period of time seems best for all concerned.
The dying patient will control the duration of the process.
This might be a week in most cases,
which will allow many of the post-death arrangements to begin.

    Because the planning for this death will be open and legal,
any investigations should be done before the death.
Fulfilling the safeguards required by the Good Death Hospice
will take a few days of additional time,
if they have not already been completed by the date of admission.

    In order to achieve a well-planned and carefully-organized death,
everyone involved will be allowed sufficient time
to improve the process of dying to the best of their abilities.
The specific medical methods of managing dying will be selected
from among the options offered by the right-to-die hospice.

    And some patients (and their families) might decide
to postpone the original planned date of death.
The palliative care provided by this hospice
might make it wise to set a later date of death.
And some patients might even return to their homes
if death at this time is not the best end-of-life plan.
Fulfilling the safeguards will be part of the process of deciding
the best day for this patient to die.

    Hospice care will discourage premature death,
even if an immediate death was the original plan. 



8.  CORRECTIONS OF PROCEDURE WILL BE REQUIRED.

    No matter how perfect the planning beforehand,
some problems in specific cases will nevertheless arise.
And the Board of Directors will be responsible
for making changes of policy and procedures
to correct any problems as they become known.

    Some problems will arise because of the demand of the public
to know more about each death.
But each patient's death is a private matter.
There will be no disclosure of the medical record
or the death-planning record of any specific patient.
When the news media asks for more information,
they will be allowed to know the general policies and procedures,
not any of the specifics of any particular patient's end-of-life choices.  

    Opponents of the right-to-die and of this specific hospice
will probably claim that the non-disclosure
is really intended to conceal some crimes.
And law-enforcement might investigate some deaths.
But the public will have to be satisfied
that the proper authorities did investigate particular deaths
and they found nothing that violated any laws.

    After the first few years of successful operation,
the public controversy will die down.
And this first-on-the-continent right-to-die hospice
will take its proper place alongside all of the other organizations
that take care of patients as they come to the end of their lives.



9.  LIKELY SIDE-EFFECTS
            OF CREATING THE FIRST RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE.

    The first right-to-die hospice will affect all end-of-life care.
Media coverage will inform the public of their legal end-of-life options.
Patients and their families will begin to ask for the same rights
within the health-care institutions already providing terminal care.
The public debate stimulated by the first right-to-die hospice
will cause people to think about their own plans for death.

    Public prosecutors will develop ways to review life-ending decisions,
even as they occur in established hospitals and nursing homes.
New laws will be proposed and some will be enacted.
These will define more clearly than ever before
precisely what forms of aid-in-dying will be permitted.
Vague laws against 'assisting suicide' will be clarified.

    Many new safeguards and guidelines will be suggested.
Terminal care will be improved because end-of-life decisions
will become an explicit theme of all planning for death.
Instead of merely following (unstated) protocols for dying,
patients will be offered various medical pathways leading to death.



AUTHOR: 

    James Leonard Park is an independent thinker,
living and writing in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
He is a strong advocate of the right-to-die
when very careful safeguards are fulfilled.

    This proposal for creating the first right-to-die hospice
has become Chapter 49 of his longest book:
How to Die: Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
"Good Death Hospice: Creating the First Right-to-Die Hospice".


WOULD YOU LIKE TO MEET OTHER SUPPORTERS
OF RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE?
If you would like the idea of establishing a Good Death Hospice,
consider joining a Facebook Group and Seminar called Right-to-Die Hospice.

The essay above introducing the Good Death Hospice
has become Chapter 3 of Right-to-Die Hospice.

Here is a complete description of this on-line gathering of advocates of the right-to-die:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/ED-RTDH.html

And here is the direct link to our Facebook Group:
Right-to-Die Hospice:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/145796889119091/



Further Reading


THE HOSPICE COOPERATION PROJECT
SEEKING BETTER COOPERATION BETWEEN
THE HOSPICE MOVEMENT
AND THE RIGHT-TO-DIE MOVEMENT
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/HOSPICE.html


FULL-SPECTRUM HOSPICE
POLICY STATEMENT ON
END-OF-LIFE OPTIONS
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/HOS-PHIL.html


METHODS OF MANAGING DYING
IN A RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE
WE CAN CHOOSE OUR PATHWAYS TOWARDS DEATH
USING ANY COMBINATION OF THESE METHODS OF DYING
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/METHODS.html


HOW TO DIE:
SAFEGUARDS FOR LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS
THIS ON-LINE BOOK EXPLORES ALL 26 RECOMMENDED SAFEGUARDS
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/HTD.html


SAFEGUARDS FOR MAKING LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS
IN A RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE PROGRAM
HOW THE 26 RECOMMENDED SAFEGUARDS FOR LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS
MIGHT BE APPLIED IN A RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/HOS-SG.html


RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE
THIS SMALL BOOK OF 16 CHAPTERS
EXPLORES ALL DIMENSIONS OF A RIGHT-TO-DIE HOSPICE
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/RTDH.html


PORTAL FOR THE RIGHT-TO-DIE
LEADING IN OTHER NEW DIRECTIONS
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/P-RTD.html


Created October 19, 2012; Revised 10-20-2012; 10-25-2012; 10-26-2012; 10-30-2012;
11-2-2012; 11-7-2012; 11-11-2012; 11-14-2012; 11-28-2012; 12-7-2012;
1-3-2013; 1-12-2013; 1-13-2013; 3-30-2013; 6-7-2013;
4-28-2014; 5-15-2014; 4-18-2015; 7-11-2015; 10-3-2015; 12-22-2015; 12-26-2015;
1-22-2016; 2-2-2016; 2-2-2018; 9-14-2018; 5-29-2020; 


Go to the beginning of this website
James Leonard Park—Free Library