By
Editorial Board
October 28, 2008
Initiative measure No. 1000, also known as the “death with dignity” initiative, has too many loopholes to justify passing this year.
The initiative aims to provide the right for a terminally ill patient to choose to end his or her own life through lethal medication prescribed by a physician.
I-1000 provides protective measures, such as the requirement that two physicians confirm that the patient is terminally ill, competent and has made an informed and voluntary decision. However, there is too much risk for this law to be abused, especially by patients who are mentally ill or suffering from depression.
Medical professionals are put in the uncomfortable position of battling outside players — family, friends, insurance providers or others responsible for the financial burden — who might try to coerce a patient into choosing assisted suicide instead of adequate end-of-life care.
After all, these doctors are trained to save lives, not end them.
Instead of focusing on ending life prematurely, the focus should be on providing care that increases the quality of life during those last months.
The initiative also does not require patients to tell family members about their choice to end their life, a decision that should be made with loved ones and family.
The ability to make decisions about one’s life is an important right, but I-1000 does not provide adequate protection for people who could be abused by the law.
The president of the Washington State Medical Association does not support the initiative, and neither do we.
25 Comments
#1 Charles A.
on October 28, 2008 at 2:19 a.m.(Seattle, WA)
spreading disinformation and ignoring the evidence? sounds just like the school newspaper i know.
this is about choice. if you're opposed to physician-assisted suicide, don't opt for it, but don't deny someone else the option simply because you think it's wrong. same with abortion. it's not a moral issue, it's a health issue. haven't we been rehashing this argument for almost 40 years now?
look at the evidence...
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/washi...
http://www.deathwithdignityfacts.com/
and at the other point of view...
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Co...
before you publish drivel like this. pathetic.
#2 Gordon W.
on October 28, 2008 at 9 a.m.(UW Campus)
"Instead of focusing on ending life prematurely, the focus should be on providing care that increases the quality of life during those last months."
Unfortunately, there are certain states of suffering for which there are no options for increasing "the quality of life during those last months." Sick, dying, in agony--please please please let me go. Life isn't so-o-o-o precious that we have to force people to suffer to the bitter end if they don't want to.
#3 Margaret D.
on October 28, 2008 at 12:07 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
I am an attorney (and a UW grad--3 times). I agree that I-1000 has “too many loopholes” to justify passing this year.
I would like to mention a “loophole” not discussed by your editorial. I-1000 does not require that the death be witnessed. See I-1000 (entire text). This creates the opportunity for a third party to administer the lethal dose to dad without his consent. Even if he struggled violently, who would know? I-1000 creates the perfect alibi.
Family members often have their own agendas and may also financial interests that dovetail with a patient’s early death. In Oregon, the majority of patients who have used Oregon’s Act were “well educated” with private insurance. http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs... In other words, people with money.
Was it really their “choice?”
Vote “no” on I-1000.
Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
http://www.margaretdore.com
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154
206 389 1754
#4 Anne M.
on October 28, 2008 at 12:29 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Voting YES on I-1000 would allow terminally ill patients to make their own decisions about their own end-of-life care.
It is identical to a law that has been safe and compassionate in Oregon for over 10 years. We can look to 10 years of experience in Oregon to see that there are no "loopholes."
I-1000 is based on choice and autonomy, and respecting a person's right and ability to make a decision as well as the substance of the decision itself.
If you believe in choice, you should vote YES on I-1000.
#5 Dani F.
on October 28, 2008 at 12:48 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
I am so disappointed to see so much misleading information and so little respect for bodily autonomy from the Daily.
First, family involvement is not required because of federal patient-physician privacy laws. However, while not mandated by the Initiative, 95% of patients in Oregon did involve their families.
Second, mentally ill patients are not eligible for the law. I-1000 states that "medication to end a patient's life...shall not be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the patient is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment."
Third, doctors are trained not just to save lives, but also to relieve suffering. Helping patients who are experiencing intolerable suffering and have no hope of recovery is exactly the sort of thing we should expect of physicians.
Fourth, allowing terminally ill patients to choose death with dignity does increase end of life care. Studies in Oregon show that palliative care has increase dramatically since the passage of Oregon's Death with Dignity law.
The Daily editorial makes many misstatements and seems to be motivated by an extremely conservative ideology rather than the legitimate concerns. Terminally ill, competent adults should have this choice at the end of their lives. Vote Yes on 1000!
#6 Liz N.
on October 28, 2008 at 12:58 p.m.(UW Campus)
The information provided is not misleading, as it is completely backed up by facts.
How can we determine when a terminally ill patient can end their life? How is that our place as voters to determine that a lethal drug should be offered to dying hospital patients? If someone is dying, they will die eventually of a natural cause and there is no reason to speed up their death. How disrespectful of us as citizens to say that a human life is not worth living.
The agony of a terminally ill patient is understandable and that is why it seems so appealing to vote YES, to be humane, to let people make the choice out of mercy. However it is a deceptive look into the issue. Life is so-o-o-o precious that we should keep every last moment of it. Patients can be offered a lethal drug alongside a plan for recovery, not only as a last resort. How would you feel if you were dying and someone offered you suicide instead of hope for recovery? No person should feel that their life is not worth living.
Vote NO.
#7 Benjamin L.
on October 28, 2008 at 1:06 p.m.(Redmond, WA)
Liz, you completely miss the point. We don't want to determine when a terminally ill patient can end their life. We don't determine that a lethal drug should be offered to patients. We want to give the patients themselves that choice.
As for "they will die eventually of a natural cause," have you ever had a family member with a terminal disease? Have you ever known someone who knew they were going to die within a few months but didn't want to linger on in excruciating pain for that long? Who are you to tell them they have to suffer?
Frankly, I can't say I'm surprised at the Daily's position on this issue. But I don't think it was well thought out. Try some of the pieces in Crosscut (http://crosscut.com/2008/10/24/mossba...) for some better-reasoned arguments, both pro and con.
#8 Benjamin L.
on October 28, 2008 at 1:08 p.m.(Redmond, WA)
Wait, Liz, "patients can be offered a lethal drug alongside a plan for recovery, not only as a last resort"? That doesn't even make sense. If there is a chance of recovery, people don't want lethal drugs--in fact if there is a chance of recovery they are not terminal and would not even qualify under this initiative.
Liz, it seems to me you haven't examined this issue very deeply at all.
#9 Dani F.
on October 28, 2008 at 1:10 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Liz, I couldn't disagree more. No one is saying that a terminally ill patient should end their life or that their life is not worth living. Those choices are too profoundly personal to make for others. We are saying that terminally ill patients should be able to make their own end of life choices.
Who are you to impose your religious beliefs and views on the preciousness of human life on someone else, and at such a critical moment in their life? How are you to know without walking in their shoes that there is "no reason to speed up their death"? If I were suffering intolerably, I certainly would not want someone else's religious beliefs or moral compass to determine my rights in my final days.
Initiative 1000 deals with an intensely personal decision. Only the patient should be able to make this decision. Not Liz, not the government, not religious leaders.
Vote Yes on 1000!
#10 Michael F.
on October 28, 2008 at 2:11 p.m.(Renton, WA)
To The Daily Editorial Board:
Being a sophomore at UW, I have had plenty of time to discover The Daily’s general lack of journalistic merit or literary skill. When I saw your article on I-1000, however, I was more appalled by your flawed logic than ever.
The very first contention you raise with the bill is that “there is too much risk… especially by patients who are mentally ill or suffering from depression”. While this may seem to be a noble and moral standpoint to make, you failed to mention that the bill requires patients to be “mentally competent, terminally ill adults with six months or less to live to receive - under strict safeguards” in order to receive a prescription for life-ending medication. Already, your article has misstated the facts. The patient, if mentally ill or depressed, is not covered under this initiative and so your argument here is moot.
Secondly, your prestigious board has claimed that those “responsible for the financial burden… might try to coerce a patient into choosing assisted suicide”. While this may be true, it only took 6 lines of text for you to bring up that “the initiative does not require patients to tell family members about their choice”. You simply cannot have it both ways. Either you are perturbed by familial influence or their lack of consent, but not both.
You then make the statements that “doctors are trained to save lives, not end them”. This is completely irrelevant; the initiative allows doctors to prescribe a life-ending medication that the patient must take themselves. The doctors do not end these lives nor do they require specific training to administer this kind of prescription.
Then finally, when you state that family does not have to be informed about this choice, your reasoning for opposing this was that the “decision should be made with loved ones and family”. This statement is pure opinion and in no way justifies your contention with the lack of required familial consent.
While I disagree with you on I-1000, I believe every American should be allowed to vote how they please. What truly disappoints me is The Daily’s general lack of journalistic talent, which is only furthered by the fact that this article was written by The Editorial Board.
#11 Sean D.
on October 28, 2008 at 2:52 p.m.(Edmonds, WA)
Ben L.: I think that liz is trying to say is that patients will be offered this choice of commimiting suicide alongside other treatments like chemo or medication. Here is an article about someone who was denied medication to live a little longer but was instead offered the choice of suicide because of the cost http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id... Yes, this is only 1 example, and a rare one at that, so should we pay attention to it? I don't think it's all that hard to imagine more situations like this out there. Will our law stop these abuses? "Death with Dignity" is modeled closely after Oregeon's law and yet this happened in Oregon. Not only will Insurance companies try to push (however slowly and subtlely) for Assisted Suicide because of the cost and the hassle-free work that goes into it, but Patients will see the cost difference between $50 dollars (once) and $500 (monthly) and think to themselves "I'm a financial burden to my family". Thats not really all that fair to the patient, is it? Is 6 months worth those $8000 dollars? Yeah this will be a choice we will all have to make individually but don't you think we'll automatically be leaning towards sparing our families money? Patients will see themselves as having a price tag and see themselves as only a hinderance to their families. Should I spend this much to live this long? Does anybody really see their family like that?
I was a Nursing Assistant for a year at a retirement community and many of the patients apologized to me because I had to tie their shoes. They apologized to me and were so sorry because I had to help them put on their clothes, because I had to clean their room, because I had to change their diapers and give them showers. They couldn't help and saw themselves as a burden, and they had years to live and were not in serious pain! People with a terminaly ill diagnosis will be more likely to choose assisted suicide because of this feeling of being a burden, with or without the excuse of pain. Should we let them think that and then say that "It was their decision, they were fully competent and knew the choices?" I don't think so, but I think it will happen and increase in frequency as the years go on, if this is passed.
#12 Liz N.
on October 28, 2008 at 4:38 p.m.(UW Campus)
Dani,
I did not say anything about religion in my argument. People can value life because they live it, not because of a religious value. Is that to say that someone who isn’t religious doesn’t value life? I don’t think so, so please don’t misconstrue my meaning.
Ben,
I understand that you want to give patients the choice, and that in itself is not a bad thing. Choice is not what I am against. I am against the backwards thinking that somehow living with a terminal illness is somehow less than living. I all ready said I understand the angle that Death with Dignity is humane for suffering people. Yes I have had terminally ill family members and friends; in fact one of my close friends is dying of cancer. I think most of us know someone who has died of a terminal illness. I did not mean to be disrespectful. Also I have looked deeply into this issue; I just didn’t think my blurb would get as much response as it did.
There is a reason that this law is not in place right now. Twenty-five states have defeated bills and/or initiatives aimed at legalizing assisted suicide. This is not a fundamental value in the medical community as The Washington State Medical Association (WSMA) opposes Initiative-1000. As was stated above, doctors and nurses do their job to save lives, not offer suicide. Pharmacists, who prescribe drugs specifically to help ease their patient’s ailments, would now be prescribing drugs specifically to kill them. Is that what they wanted to go to Pharmacy school for? Also, did you know that Washington State was targeted by the Death with Dignity National Center to pass this law that has only been passed in Oregon? The campaign is not wide-spread, and it is just trying to get support from the States they determine would help them get votes.
I am not claiming to be an expert on the issue; I’m just a concerned citizen. I don’t think that religion has anything to do with it, I do value choice, I understand end of life issues because I’ve been close to people who have died and I don’t see how dying a natural death would somehow be without dignity that comes from making that choice for oneself.
#13 Dani F.
on October 28, 2008 at 6:11 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Liz,
Of course people who are not religious can value life and vice versa. The point remains though, that religious or otherwise, where reasonable people can and do disagree, a single person's moral guidelines should not be imposed on society as a whole. This is an issue on which terminally ill patients will arrive at different conclusions: some will choose to use Death with Dignity, some will choose to die naturally. The bottom line is that patients should be allowed to make their own decisions, in consultation with their physicians, families, religious authorities, etc.
Further, people who contemplate using Death With Dignity do not have the option of choosing life - they are stuck with choosing between one kind of death or another. These patients will unfortunately face their demise within 6 months. To talk about plans of recovery v. suicide, and making judgments about their valuation of life, is in my opinion, quite offensive to terminally ill patients.
Please respect the right of terminally ill patients to make their own end of life choices and vote yes on 1000!
#14 Sunnie G.
on October 28, 2008 at 7:42 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Oct 13, UW Daily posted "A Dignified Passing"
"My husband, a distinguished UW professor, was diagnosed with a degenerative neurological disease for which no known treatment existed. Over a period of years, he lost control of all his functions. His brilliant mind remained intact, and had I-1000 been legal, he would have chosen aid-in-dying."
His death led me to support I-1000, the option should be a personal choice when my time comes.
Rev. Dr. Bruce Parker explains why there is opposition from the Catholic Church or from any religious community. "I believe the strongest roots of opposition are to be found in a controversial interpretation of the 6th of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17). The commandment reads "Do not kill" or "Do not murder" depending upon the Biblical translation used.
"This Hebrew Biblical commandment was interpreted by the powerful medieval theologian Augustine of Hippo (354-430) in the 5th century A.D. to mean not just premeditated murder, but to include "suicide" which he called self-murder. His view was eventually woven into Roman Catholic Doctrine, and was combined with the theological affirmation that our "human life belongs to God" and is not our own to end. Thus suicide, or self murder, in Catholic Doctrine contains a double condemnation. It is said to break not only the 6th Commandment but to usurp God's authority, and is a mortal sin. "Both some Catholic and some Protestant opponents to I-1000 define Death with Dignity as 'suicide' in hopes of qualifying it as a mortal sin, for which one would be sent to hell.
"Instead of condoning "suicide", I-1000 is in keeping with the highest ethics of every great religious tradition that teaches compassion and caring. I-1000 allows suffering, terminally ill loved ones the legal choice to hasten the conclusion of their own dying process."
The slippery-slope argument is a misleading attempt to generate fear and to obscure the true purposes of the initiative. The true purpose is simply allowing terminally-ill patients to make a personal choice.
My career involved counseling clients, most often to take charge of their own lives, in ways that did not interfere with others. The I-1000 Death with Dignity Act will empower people who are suffering and dying — with less than six months to live — to take charge of their death. While this would make a world of difference to the suffering patient, it would not affect those who choose not to utilize the proposed law.
I have been associated with UW since 1959 and in recent years, I have been an access student and continue to be active in campus activities. Consequently, I know many people at all levels associated with our university. I do not know anyone who reflects the attitudes suggested by the editorial Board of the Daily.
I suggest suggest reading "Beyond the Good Death, The Anthropology of Modern Dying" written by a UW lecturer, James W. Green, who won several distinquished teaching awards.
#15 Tierney C.
on October 28, 2008 at 11:01 p.m.(UW Campus)
Reading all of the comments that are supporting the Daily's decision continue to talk about "life" and the "value of life" but what kind of life are you trying to save? Being bed ridden for months while you deteriorate in front of your family and friends? That doesn't sound like a life worth living to me.
#16 Cody J.
on October 29, 2008 at 12:23 a.m.(Seattle, WA)
Tierney: Life is full of ups and downs, its highs and its lows. It's often in the lows where you find where life is really meaningful. When families pull together, share with one another the bond and love that exists in family, especially at the time of one member's passing. Well Cody, don't some people die horribly painful deaths, without their dignity? Absolutely, and that is a sincere tragedy, for which no words can console the family of such a troubled passing.
But we must ask ourselves a critical question, that impacts us as a society. The current state of hospice care and end of life technology for pain management is much better than the proponents of I-1000 advertise, please research this if you disagree, I've spoken to many experts on this topic.
I'm not even truly willing to submit to the idea that our health care system fails to provide adequate end of life care, at least on the scale that proponents of I-1000 say that it isn't providing care. Even so, you do not end a person's life because our system fails to provide them adequate end of life care.
Even if this were so, we should be pushing for laws and initiatives that increase hospice and end of life care, NOT KILLING PEOPLE. Please also don't kid yourselves, eventually the law will be fully parsed and the public (or private citizens involved) won't know when the insurance companies approve medical overdoses rather than acceptable treatments.
The Daily did the right thing when it comes to analyzing the legalities of this law. Regardless of the bioethical considerations of "death with dignity" this initiative is poorly written, with massive loopholes, with the ability to destroy the protection built into our medical system for the marginalized and the mentally ill.
Doctors, who's job it is to help the sick, are against this bill.
I for one am proud of our school paper for informing the clearly uninformed.
As for Sunnie G, the article you referenced that was posted in The Daily was rebutted by my own opinion piece, printed in full, in The Daily only a few days later.
As for religious considerations and quoted liberal ministers of the Christian faith....the Catholic Church does not regard itself as a denomination. Whenever you want to research literal doctors, philosophers, and two thousand years of constant theological, moral, and ethical study, please make sure to research the center of Christian teachings: Catholicism.
#17 Dave I.
on October 29, 2008 at 12:50 a.m.(Auburn, WA)
I think most everything I think has already been expressed by the individuals advocating YES.
I HIGHLY encourage people to closely read the FULL initiative in your voters guide. I have answered many questions form people who didn't realize that the concerns they have are actually part of the initiative.
Again, to qualify for using DWD you must a) have a terminal illness, b) have less than 6 months left to live, c) be deemed competent by two separate professionals, d) after asking for the lethal medicine wait a minimum of 15 days, e) after requesting the medicine again the prescription cannot be written for 48 hours, f) after the death your death certificate lists the underlying illness and not suicide.
Additionally, there are insurances safeguards that prohibit abuse of the use of DWD.
Also, if a patient is deemed incompetent no one can substitute his.her judgment for the patient's!!!! The ONLY person who can request the medicine is the dying patient. As an example, if I were in a coma my wife couldn't request the medicine for me......my incapacity essentially creates a world where DWD does not exist
Attacks against DWD based on "not having to tell loved ones" are frustrating ---- because medical privacy rights prohibit ANY doctor revelation of medical decisions to anyone! However, the initiative mandates that a doctor advise the person to share their decision with loved ones.
1000 is about individual choices - vote yes
#18 Sunnie G.
on October 29, 2008 at 6:45 a.m.(Kent, WA)
Readers need to know.
Euthanasia would remain illegal under I-1000. This law does not allow for doctors to make a decision to end a patient's life. Only the patient themselves can make that decision, and only the patient may self-administer the medication.
The safeguards ARE working. We can look to 10 years of experience in Oregon to see that there has been no pressure on vulnerable groups. The Oregonian newspaper recently wrote that "the safeguards appear to be working."
I-1000 follows standard medical practice. Just as when doctors discontinue an artificial respiratory support or kidney dialysis, or help someone die by continuous sedation, the underlying disease is legally and accurately the cause of death.
I-1000 is about personal choices, not economics. There isn't a single case of coercion in the ten year history of Death with Dignity in Oregon.
For more information see http://www.deathwithdignityfacts.com
#19 Cody J.
on October 29, 2008 at 3:03 p.m.(UW Campus)
From Sunnie G:
"The safeguards ARE working...."
How do we know if the "safeguards" are working, when we don't even know if people who are prescribed the medication use it, or don't use it? A system where family members cannot, along with the state, track those individuals who use the overdose. Medical examiner's and Doctor's cannot place the mode of death on the death certificate, nor declare that they died from a massive drug overdose.
Competency is not quantifiable, take bioethics, memorize "blue, monday and the third floor", and you have a high chance of passing a mental test. Continuing that thought, do you, or anyone in massive amounts of pain think rationally with clarity?
When you're sent to the hospital, incapable of making decisions for yourself, they look for next of kin. This so called "Death with Dignity" takes advantage of patients who are out of their minds with uncontrolled (unjustly so) pain, and seriously takes their "rational state" into consideration, allowing them to end their lives. Is there clarity in extreme pain? Hardly.
No one apparently can corner down the issue that I've made here, and on my opinion piece printed in The Daily. You don't offer Suicide as an option because of inadequate health care. Fix the health care system, look at the good the hospice system done, look at how well our technology is able to eliminate 99% of all pain.
Proponents of this initiative are trying to 'convince' you, using emotion, and massively traumatic pain to move you to an imaginary fate. This is the age of personal genome mapping, but apparently proponents of the initiative don't think we have morphine?
I've personally worked in oncology, seeing people who boldly look at the end of their lives with hope, hope of living on. They meet the end of their lives with honor, not because they 'pulled the plug' before it got too bad, but because they had a physician who understood palliative care.
You don't let people kill themselves, ever, its an upheld societal norm for the last 200 years. We hospitalize the suicidal, not let them commit suicide. We don't advocate suicide, we advocate for better end of life care.
But won't people die painfully until good end of life care is established? Absolutely, and that's tragic, but that's the way our legal system works, it's reactionary. It takes an unjust example to push and move for reform.
To end....
"I-1000 is about personal choices, not economics. There isn't a single case of coercion in the ten year history of Death with Dignity in Oregon."
Duh. Why? Because there exists no statistic on who has actually used the drug overdose. Why? Because it cannot be placed on a death certificate.
Ask yourself, this is the real world, do you think in all the cases in 10 years there hasn't been a case of abuse? Nothing is perfect, the system is lying to the good people of Oregon.
#20 Zura
on October 29, 2008 at 3:04 p.m.(Issaquah, WA | Unverified Name)
I work for an organization that provides counseling for terminally ill people. Those of you voting no, have no idea how many horrible, painful, dehumanizing ways there are to die. For some dying people there is no "up and down" but absolute torture that is often so intolerable that the only solution is a morphine coma (are they suffering in the coma? There is no way to tell). It makes me so angry to think that someone else holds the power when these patients are crying for mercy. The most recent example of someone who wanted to use this law but died "naturally" was a woman whose cancer broke through her intestine and she actually was caused to vomit feces, choking and dying. I want to leave you high minded folks with that picture. Vote Yes, have mercy-- do what you want with your own life but let others make their own choices.
#21 Lauren H.
on October 29, 2008 at 3:13 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
"After all, these doctors are trained to save lives, not end them."
Finally! That's exactly what I've been waiting to hear. Thank you, Daily Editorial Board, for acknowledging the fact that doctors should not be obligated to take the lives of their patients...
#22 Karen H.
on October 29, 2008 at 10:16 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I support I-1000.
I absolutely believe in the sanctity of life. I think that it's essential that our legal system protects the vulnerable.
I also value individuality, the freedom to make choices about my personal life, and I feel compassion for people who are suffering.
I think that I-1000 protects all of those values. The use of life-ending drugs is not the right choice for every terminal patient, but should be an option for those who fall within the safeguards of I-1000.
#23 Sunnie G
on October 31, 2008 at 7:39 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Historically, people have resisted many social and medical advancements which over time have been shown to be of benefit to society. Some people initially protested desegregation, a woman's right to vote, polio vaccinations, fluoridation of the water supply, anesthesia during childbirth, organ donations, admission of Jews to higher education, the horseless carriage, the earth not being seen as the center of the universe, etc.
Opponents argued there would be potentially catastrophic outcomes when these new ideas were first introduced.
In each of these cases, not only have these feared outcomes not occurred but history later judged these changes as progress.
Over time these changes have become accepted as a matter of course, responding to the differing needs of citizens of our community and a benefit to a multitude.
I-1000, the Death with Dignity Law, when passed, will likewise over time be judged as a contribution to humanity in Washington State.
The concept of a physician prescribing medication that the suffering patient, who has no chance of recovery might take during the last six months of life with the intent of ending his/her life, is a new concept for the medical profession, much as the social and medical changes listed above were new at one time.
The concept of a collaborative effort between the physician and terminally ill, suffering patient to plan the moment of death, and the means to carry this out within a legal framework, is new.
However, this concept has been practiced throughout history, without the benefit of legal sanction.
Supporters of I-1000 want to provide legal protection for doctors and patients in situations which follow the safeguards provided by the proposed law.
The Proposed Washington Law
Washington's Initiative 1000 mirrors the Oregon Death with Dignity Act which over the last decade has been proven to be safe. If passed, the law will allow mentally competent, terminally ill adults, to receive a life-ending prescription that he or she self-administers to hasten death. Like Oregon's law, I-1000 has been written with multiple safeguards, and independent studies have shown this law to be safe. It will not permit others than the patient to self-administer aid in dying. http://peoplepress.org/reports/tables...
Independent studies of Oregon’s Death with Dignity law prove that the safeguards protect patients, prevent misuse and coercion and allow terminally ill patients the options of a peaceful, dignified death.
#24 Colin
on November 1, 2008 at 5:25 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I try to avoid getting mired in such obviously emotionally charged discussions online, but I feel this is a very important issue and one that has been surrounded with misleading statements and obfuscation.
I'm a medical student at UW which colors my perspective of this issue. I strongly support I-1000 and support the right of terminal patients to choose if they want to avoid a potentially horrific death. I also read a couple of statements above that I wanted to respond to specifically.
- As a few people have noted, the death with dignity law in Oregon has been very successful. Many of the same arguments being raised in Washington were brought up in Oregon when the law was being proposed (I lived in Portland at the time). In analyses at the ten year mark, it was found to have been safe and that it had not been used disproportionately by minorities, the poor, the uninsured, etc. Additionally, there were no cases of coercion found. See:
Werth, JL, Jr., and H. Wineberg. 2005. "A CRITICAL analysis of criticisms of the Oregon death with dignity ACT." Death Studies 29, no. 1: 1-27.
Battin, MP, van der Heide, A, et al. "Legal physician-assisted dying in Oregon and the Netherlands: evidence concerning the impact on patients in "vulnerable" groups." Journal of Medical Ethics 2007;33:591-597
I also want to note that nothing in the law requires a physician to offer or provide a terminal prescription. If an individual physician is opposed to the process, they are in no way obligated to be involved. Additionally, the Washington State Medical Association, a branch of the AMA, is an ideologically conservative organization - it is not representative of doctors as a whole. I am not a member of the AMA's student branch and I will not be a member of the AMA as a practicing physician. Currently, only about 15% of practicing physicians are members of the AMA.
#25 Nate
on November 4, 2008 at 9:52 a.m.(Needham, MA | Unverified Name)
I-1000 is nothing more than a vehicle for exploitation and manipulation. It is only a matter of time until insurance companies will routinely deny coverage for treatment to prolong a patient's life, choosing to offer coverage for "self-administered" death instead. While one may have a knee-jerk reaction to support this initiative, it is important to consider the unintended consequences that may arise from such a law.
Post a comment