Rudy, my husband for 53 years, was an ideal candidate for assisted suicide. The doctors told him he had only a few painful months to live. He had no religious convictions against suicide and every reason to embrace it. He was old -- in his 90s. He despised pain, dependency and the prospect of becoming a burden on me. He could expect my support because a decade before, I had robustly supported Initiative 119, the narrowly defeated precursor of this November's Initiative 1000, the "death with dignity" proposition.
My husband survived for 28 months and died last year. But at the end, to my astonishment, I realized I could no longer support physician-assisted suicide. How could that be?
I had not experienced a religious conversion. I prized the right to choose whether to produce new life or end one's own. For the 50 years I had been a nurse. I knew the emotional and financial drain a lingering passing can inflict on loved ones and a community's medical resources. Rudy's slow march to death convinced me that proposals such as I-1000 are reckless and unnecessary.
Much of my change stems from my discovery, common to surviving spouses, that life is precious to the end. We would have lost wonderful days recalling splendid and troubled times. But I also saw that we now have the means to end the misery without ending the life.
The assisted suicide debate has become polarized. On one side we have those defending compassion and freedom against the dark forces of fanatical fundamentalism. On the other, we have the opponents, defending God and family against murder and liberal elitism.
Lost in the fusillades are those who suffer prolonged problems and people with disabilities who fear -- reasonably I believe -- that a profit-preoccupied medical establishment combined with emotionally and financially stressed families would press them to accept death, regardless of the heralded safeguards laws would contain.
What neither side seems to realize is that the battlefield has changed. We can have death with dignity without enabling our physicians to sign death warrants. A dying person need no longer suffer the torments of pain, anxiety and depression or exchange the sanctuary of home and loved ones for the rigors of a hospital.
Thanks in large part to physician-assisted suicide advocates, the medical profession now uses technologies that allow patients to manage their own pain and symptoms, so they experience the maximum of clarity and comfort. Rudy enjoyed his nightly movies right to the end.
Support for hospice, the shining light of hope and compassion for the dying, is growing rapidly. Use of this home-based, family-guided, comfort-focused care should be the objective for all care of the terminally ill. We had immediate access to a hospice nurse 24/7 rather than having to endure the chaos and fragmented care of a hospital emergency room.
Do we want a potentially dangerous law that fewer than 50 people a year use in Oregon? Do we want to pay for agencies that will monitor the law and provide bureaucratic reports to the Legislature? Or do we want to spend our resources assuring the preservation and expansion of Medicare and private insurance hospice benefits to promote a peaceful end so that all our citizens might truly experience death with dignity?
Washington doesn't need I-1000.
Rheba de Tornyay is dean and professor emeritus of the University of Washington School of Nursing.
The indignity of I-1000: Backers' claims misleading
By Margaret Dore
Special to The Times
August 20,2008
I am a lifelong Democrat. I am also an attorney whose practice includes probate and guardianship disputes. As part of my job, I have seen firsthand how families act at the death of a loved one. Sometimes, especially when the loved one has assets, there can be bad behavior.
Up until two months ago, I had no strong opinion on the proposed Death with Dignity Act, which is on the ballot as Initiative 1000. That was, until I read its actual language. I urge you to read it now: The backers' claims are misleading; the proposed safeguards are illusory.
"Voluntary" decision making
The Initiative's campaign literature states: "All decisions made by the patient must be entirely voluntary," and that the application to obtain the lethal dose has "objective witnesses." The proposed act, however, allows one of two required witnesses to be an heir.
When signing a will, the same situation would create a presumption of undue influence, for example, that greedy son pressured dad to sign. The probate statute states that when one of two witnesses is a taker under the will, there is a rebuttable presumption that the taker-witness "procured the gift by duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence."
"Self-administration"
The initiative's campaign literature also states: "No one other than the eligible patient may administer the [lethal dose]." The proposed act, does not, however, say this. It states only that the patient "may" self-administer the lethal drug. The act also defines "self-administer" as merely the act of ingesting. The act states:
"Self-administer" means a qualified patient's act of ingesting medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.
In other words, greedy son putting the lethal dose in dad's mouth qualifies as "self-administration."
No witness at death
Under the act, there is no requirement that the death itself be witnessed. With no witness, greedy son could force feed the lethal dose to dad. Who would know? It would be the perfect crime.
No liability
The act states that persons who act wrongly, for example, by exerting undue influence, are guilty of a Class A felony. But, how would this be proved? Dad would be dead. The only witness to his death would be greedy son. No "death with dignity."
Under present law, people with assets, that is, middle class and above, can find themselves in a pressure cooker of "put me in your will." With passage of the act, there will be a new refrain: "Die now so that there will be something left for me."
This is not a "dignified" way to end one's life, knowing that your loved ones want your stuff more than they want you and/or spending the last moments of your life trying to fight them off. I mean, what did your life stand for if this is how it ends?
I am against the act because it would put vulnerable persons at risk of abuse (and worse) at the hands of others. My objection is based on the act's actual language.
I also note that the backers' Web site has a link to a copy of the act with font so small, you can barely read it. Apparently, they hope you won't. I urge you to instead read the larger-font version on the secretary of state's Web site, http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1000.pdf
Read I-1000 and vote no.
Margaret Dore is a Seattle attorney in private practice.
Since this article was published on Wednesday, August 20, 2008. The "Yes" website removed its small-font version of the proposed Act, apparently in response to this article.
The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.
The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.
What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.
"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."
Critics of Oregon's decade-old Death With Dignity Law -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter. Even those who support Oregon's liberal law were upset.
The incident has spilled over the state border into Washington, where advocacy groups are pushing for enactment of Initiative 1000 in November, legalizing a similar assisted-death law.
Opponents say the law presents all involved with an "unacceptable conflict" and the impression that insurance companies see dying as a cost-saving measure. They say it steers those with limited finances toward assisted death.
"News of payment denial is tough enough for a terminally ill person to bear," said Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for Compassion and Choices, a group that supports coverage of physician-assisted death.
Letter's Impact 'Devastating'
"Imagine if the recipient had pinned his hope for survival on an unproven treatment, or if this were the first time he understood the disease had entered the terminal phase. The impact of such a letter would be devastating," he told ABCNews.com. Wagner, who had worked as a home health care worker, a waitress and a school bus driver, is divorced and lives in a low-income apartment. She said she could not afford to pay for the medication herself.
"I'm not too good today," said Wagner, a Springfield great-grandmother. "But I'm opposed to the [assisted suicide] law. I haven't considered it, even at my lowest point."
A lifelong smoker, she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005 and quit. The state-run Oregon Health Plan generously paid for thousands of dollars worth of chemotherapy, radiation, a special bed and a wheelchair, according to Wagner. The cancer went into remission, but in May, Wagner found it had returned. Her oncologist prescribed the drug Tarceva to slow its growth, giving her another four to six months to live.
But under the insurance plan, she can the only receive "palliative" or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the "five-year, 5 percent rule" -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.
A 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study found the drug erlotinib, marketed as Tarceva, does marginally improve survival for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who had completed standard chemotherapy.
The median survival among patients who took erlotinib was 6.7 months compared to 4.7 months for those on placebo. At one year, 31 percent of the patients taking erlotinib were still alive compared to 22 percent of those taking the placebo.
"It's been tough," said her daughter, Susie May, who burst into tears while talking to ABCNews.com. "I was the first person my mom called when she got the letter," said May, 42. "While I was telling her, 'Mom, it will be ok,' I was crying, but trying to stay brave for her."
"I've talked to so many people who have gone through the same problems with the Oregon Health Plan," she said.
Indeed, Randy Stroup, a 53-year-old Dexter resident with terminal prostate cancer, learned recently that his doctor's request for the drug mitoxantrone had been rejected. The treatment, while not a cure, could ease Stroup's pain and extend his life by six months.
Playing With 'My Life'
"What is six months of life worth?" he asked in a report in the Eugene Register-Guard. "To me it's worth a lot. This is my life they're playing with."
The Oregon Health Plan was established in 1994 and the physician-assisted death law was enacted in 1997. The state was recently hailed by a University of Wisconsin study as having one of the nation's top pain-management policies.
The health plan, for those whose incomes fall under the poverty level, prioritizes coverage -- from prevention first, to chronic disease management, treatment of mental health, heart and cancer treatment.
"It's challenging because health care is very expensive, but that's not the real essence of our priority list," said Dr. Jeanene Smith, administrator for the Office of for Oregon's Health Policy and Research staff.
"We need evidence to say it is a good use of taxpayer's dollars," she said. "It may be expensive, but if it does wonders, we cover it."
The state also regularly evaluates and updates approvals for cancer treatments. "We look as exhaustively as we can with good peer review evidence," she said. The health plan takes "no position" on the physician-assisted suicide law, according to spokesman Jim Sellers.
The terminally ill who qualify can receive pain medication, comfort and hospice care, "no matter what the cost," he said.
But Sellers acknowledged the letter to Wagner was a public relations blunder and something the state is "working on."
"Now we have to review to ensure sensitivity and clarity," Sellers told ABCNews.com "Not only is the patient receiving had news, but insensitivity on top of that. This is something that requires the human touch."
Sellers said that from now on insurance officials will likely "pick up the phone and have a conversation," he said.
But a 1998 study from Georgetown University's Center for Clinical Bioethics found a strong link between cost-cutting pressures on physicians and their willingness to prescribe lethal drugs to patients -- were it legal to do so.
The study warns that there must be "a sobering degree of caution in legalizing [assisted death] in a medical care environment that is characterized by increasing pressure on physicians to control the cost of care."
Cancer drugs can cost anywhere from $3,000 to $6,000 a month. The cost of lethal medication, on the other hand, is about $35 to $50.
Advocates for the proposed Washington law say that while offering death benefits but not health care can be perceived as a cost-cutting, "respectable studies" say otherwise.
"The reason is that hospice care, where most patients are at the end of life is relatively inexpensive," Anne Martens, spokesman for Washington's Death With Dignity Initiative, told ABCNews.com.
But even those who support liberal death laws say Wagner's predicament is reflective of insurance attitudes nationwide.
Case Is Not Unique
"Her case is hardly unique," said Michigan lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, who defended Dr. Jack Kevorkian's crusade to legalize physician-assisted deaths. "In the rest of the country insurance companies are making these decisions and are not paying for suicide," Fieger told ABCNews.com. "Involuntary choices are foisted on people all the time by virtue of denials."
"I am surprised there hasn't been a revolt in this country," he said. "It happens every day and people are helpless."
Indeed, one executive suffering from a rare and potentially fatal form of liver cancer is fighting his insurance company for coverage. Oncologists from a major teaching hospital in New York City have prescribed Sutent -- a medication that costs about $4,000 a month and could extend his life expectancy.
"Most of my objections are that some second rate guy on the staff of the insurance company is second-guessing one of the foremost authorities and trumping his judgment," said the 57-year-old executive, who didn't want his name used to protect his privacy.
"I am fortunate to have the financial resources and the ability to fight these people who would rather these you die," he told ABCNews.com.
Dr. Jonathan Groner, clinical professor of surgery at OSU College of Medicine and Public Health in Columbus, Ohio, said some patients may want to prolong their lives for a life-cycle event, like a birth or wedding.
"A course of chemo would not cure, but would subdue the cancer long enough to be meaningful," he told ABCNEWS.com. "There are many people with slow-growing but nonetheless metastatic cancer for whom death, while inevitable, is many years away."
"The problem with the Oregon plan is it sounds like administrators, not physicians, are making treatment decisions," he said. "And if a patient can get assisted death paid for but not cancer treatment, the choice is obvious."
Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society and author of "Final Exit," who helped write the Oregon Death With Dignity Law, said only about 30 people a year choose an assisted death, which must be approved by two doctors.
"It's purely optional and the patient and doctor can walk away from it," the 78-year-old told ABCNEWS.com. "It's not the mad rush our enemies predicted and for our residents it has worked out well."
His own wife, Jean, was diagnosed with fast-growing breast cancer in 1975 and asked him to help find drugs to help her die. At 42, she chose to take them and ended her life.
Humphry says the Oregon Health Plan's approach to coverage is sound. "People cling to life and look for every sort of crazy cure to keep alive and usually they are better off not to have done it," he said.
Meanwhile Wagner has faith in her medicine, not assisted death. Now, at the request of her doctor, the pharmaceutical company Genentech is giving her Tarceva free of charge for one year.
"The doctor did say it would put a lid on the cancer and I am hopeful," she said. Wagner's daughter Susie May says her mother is a fighter. "I think we all knew that this is her last hope," she said.
Even Wagner's ex-husband, Dennis Wagner of Springfield, has weighed in on the ethical dilemma.
"My reaction is pretty typical," he told ABCNews.com. "I am sick and tired of the dollar being the bottom line of everything. We need to put human life above the dollar."
Assisted suicide is a dying movement -- Federal Way Mirror
[Click to read]
August 2, 2008 By Angie Vogt
Nihilism: A philosophy that argues that life has no objective meaning or purpose, that no action is any more moral or immoral than another action.
Years ago, I participated in a think tank discussion about various philosophies of life. One scholar in my group made the case that the philosophy of life embraced by a society will determine its level of happiness and its ability to prosper, more than any other factor, such as a society's economic system, legal structure, etc.
He humorously suggested that the best way to defeat a war enemy is to parachute some nihilist philosophy students into enemy territory and begin infusing their world with a sense of hopelessness that nihilism is known for. Eventually the enemy would kill itself out of sheer despair.
The nihilists in our midst are groups who call themselves "Death with Dignity" advocates. They've parachuted into our state recently and have brought with them hundreds of thousands of dollars in special interest money to advance their philosophy of "life has no meaning." Their flag is Initiative 1000, the assisted suicide law that only one other state has passed in the last 10 years. They've targeted Washington state as their best hope for resuscitating their dying movement.
For nihilists, the ultimate evil is suffering, so the pains of childbirth are not made more meaningful by the gift of life and the mystery of motherhood. The effort and hard work toward getting a college degree is not a meaningful process that shapes and forms the human soul, but it's a means to an end that is only meaningful if it's fun.
For a nihilist, there is no honor in caring for vulnerable family members, as they are merely a hindrance to our lifestyle. Human relationships hold no more value than what a cost-benefit analysis will allow for.
For a nihilist, freedom is about being unencumbered by the messiness of human relationships. Since life has no objective meaning, then relationships are only meaningful when we decide they are. Grandma was nice when she made me cookies, but now she's pretty useless there in her wheelchair. She must be miserable, so let's just put her down, out of her misery, and get back to living life.
For nihilists, you hear a lot about "quality of life," which is their way of determining whether somebody's life is worth living. They think they are being compassionate when they advocate for assisted suicide because life, ultimately, is only meaningful when it makes sense to them. They think they are alleviating grandma's suffering by putting her down. What they are actually doing is quelling their own fears of inadequacy and hopelessness.
When somebody is suffering from a terminal illness, rather than treat the pain with medicines that require continual monitoring (called palliative care) and rather than allow the process to ennoble them to a higher calling of service, they insist that the compassionate thing is to just end the whole ordeal. This is actually despair, not compassion.
Compassion means "to suffer with" or to walk with somebody in his or her suffering. When we do this, we distinguish ourselves from animals that kill the vulnerable. Every man, woman and child for himself, they would have us believe.
We ennoble ourselves by living for the higher purpose of human companionship and relationship, at the expense of personal comfort. In our humanity, we actually sacrifice something of ourselves for the benefit of someone else. "Sacrifice" actually means "to set apart for a holy purpose." Holiness is only meaningful to people who believe life is worth living because it is a gift from a higher power. This concept is anathema to nihilists.
In their world, grandma's "right to die" becomes her obligation to stop being such a burden to others.
"Death with Dignity" advocates point to the Oregon law passed 10 years ago that allows patients to request a lethal prescription from physicians. The law, which has resulted in almost 400 persons choosing death since it passed, does not require that the request be made in person.
Following receipt of the requests, the doctor could fax the prescription to a pharmacy where the patient or someone designated as the patient's agent could pick it up.
I-1000 does not require notification of family members and has no penalties for inaccurate reporting, but in fact keeps reports of deaths secret, which forbids any independent investigations of reported abuse or fraud. The Washington State Medical Association and Hospice providers oppose I-1000.
I leave you with a curious irony. Several weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment, in the form of lethal injection, was cruel and unusual punishment. It ruled this in a case against a man convicted of a violent crime. One psychiatrist evaluated the convicted killer to be mentally retarded with an IQ of 59, while another had evaluated him to be of normal cognitive competence, but with a clear diagnosis of an anti-social personality disorder. If the convict requested death from a doctor, would that really change the value of his life?
By JOEL CONNELLY P-I COLUMNIST When Initiative 1000 was certified for the ballot last Thursday, few would have thought a measure legalizing physician-assisted suicide would transform Washington voters into a "Chosen People."
If you read the 2007 report of the Death With Dignity National Center, however, what emerges is that the Evergreen State was carefully chosen, as it were, to revive a movement lately on life support.
It is a tale of behind-thescenes manipulation, candidly laid out by the manipulators:
"We have spent the last year actively researching and collecting data to determine the state which is most likely to adopt a Death with Dignity law," said the annual report.
"Through these efforts we have identified Washington as the state most likely ... We, at the Death with Dignity National Center, are proud to provide our political experience and expertise to these talented and committed people of Washington."
A bit later, the report adds:
"Campaigns, such as the one in Washington, take a great deal of time, effort and money. In 2006-2007, we invested each of these resources in planning for a 2008 ballot initiative. We raised nearly $250,000 to provide seed money to the campaign, and we participated in extensive early research efforts."
The movement has provided cold hard cash, as well, more than $440,000 in out-of-state contributions to get I-1000 on the ballot; $300,000 has come from the Oregon Death with Dignity PAC.
The picture in the report differs rather substantially from how the press has been reporting I-1000 north of the Columbia River.
We have read glowing profiles of the "last campaign" of ex-Gov. Booth Gardner, who suffers from Parkinson's disease.
Advised by a legion of political consultants, the campaign has linked reporters to signature-gatherers who have lost a loved one, or see a relative racked with pain.
Sophisticated string-pullers have stayed backstage. Again, read revealing words from the 2007 report of the Death with Dignity National Center:
"(We) have never had such great odds of success as we have in Washington in 2008. That is why we will be directing $1.5 million over the next year and a half to the efforts in Washington."
I will vote against I-1000. My reasons stem from personal experience, as well as my understanding of an underpinning of our democratic society: Its purpose must be to safeguard and enhance life, especially among the youngest, the weakest and the suffering.
In turn, other folks I respect have different beliefs derived from their life journey, and come down on the other side. They see a "right" for the terminally ill, and supportive physicians, to induce death.
Profound ethical issues are at stake. The electorate's decision will have consequences felt far beyond our borders. Voters need to hear both positions and decide with care (and compassion). One side should not be able to define, manipulate and spend its way to victory.
"We believe that Washington's proximity to Oregon and the state's history of enacting policies through the initiative process make Washington the most likely place for a Death with Dignity law," said the report.
Washington doesn't necessarily follow its neighbor.
After Oregon enacted a returnable bottles law, consumer advocates put a similar proposal on the Washington ballot three times. It lost by wide margins.
Washington was picked as a target state in 1991 by term limits advocates, eager to humiliate House Speaker Tom Foley on his home turf. The initiative lost, provoking a hissy fit from ex-California Gov. Jerry Brown, here to celebrate an anticipated victory.
Later, a term limits measure did narrowly win, but was struck down by the courts. Foley did lose his seat, at the ballot box as our Founders intended.
In 1990, anti-abortion activists picked Idaho as a legal and political laboratory.
The Legislature passed a stringent law. A woman who had been raped could be refused an abortion if the alleged rapist challenged her claim. On the eighth day, if she failed to report a rape, a woman could face criminal penalties if she sought to terminate a pregnancy.
A pro-life Democratic governor, Cecil Andrus, found the measure too extreme and vetoed it.
And Andrus didn't like seeing his state used by agenda-driven outsiders.
The job of Washington voters is fourfold. Do they agree, in principal and belief, with assisted suicide? If so, do they feel safeguards - modeled after Oregon's law - are sufficient?
Two more questions: Should Washington be a launching pad for a movement that seeks to transform a crime into a "medical treatment?" Will the movement next seek to expand conditions for the legal ending of life, as has been done in the Netherlands?
You'll hear a lot from I-1000 supporters. They are a dedicated bunch, and it's been 10 years since Oregon provided their first and only victory.
Since my first critical missive, our newspaper has published or put online 14 letters, one outside column and one staff column - all boosting what supporters label "Death with Dignity."
With life and death decisions, however, it helps to ponder a range of opinions.
'No' to Assisted Suicide: An open letter to Gov. Booth Gardner
[Click to read]
‘No' to assisted suicide
An open letter to Gov. Booth Gardner
Dear Gov. Gardner:
As we greet the arrival of spring, nature's promise of the renewal of life leading to a bountiful harvest in the fall, it seems fitting to respond to a recent letter you sent across the nation soliciting funds for the initiative you hope to place on the November ballot allowing physician-assisted suicide.
First, please accept an apology.. In an earlier interview I said you were acting selfishly. That was wrong of me. Much as I think suicide is an irrational and selfish act, I should separate the act from the person. I should not and will not question your motives. Not only do you and I share the same affliction, which is Parkinson's disease, we also share a love for politics and baseball. With respect for each other, we should just agree to disagree, but avoid being disagreeable..
I do go you one better, though, in that I would qualify under the terms of your initiative to avail myself of a physician's prescription to obtain the lethal drugs the initiative would permit. In November, 2005, I was told I had Stage IV cancer and the probability was I would not last six more months. But 16 months later I'm still here which, in and of itself, identifies one huge problem with your initiative: doctors are usually just making an educated guess when they predict how long one might live.
Certainly you have a right to your opinion, and a right to express it. Where in my humble opinion you go badly astray is asserting that there is a human and constitutional right to what you call "death with dignity."
Really, Governor? Just where does it say that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? As Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Joel Connelly recently said in a column: Isn't the correct expression that all are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights including the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? That's a right to life, not death, or do you place this fictional right under the "pursuit of happiness" clause?
Let me ask a few other questions regarding claims made in the fund-raising letter.
Where in the Constitution does it say we have been endowed with a right to "unfettered personal liberty"? Really? I thought in society we accept constraints because we all understand the chaos that would result if we all had "unfettered personal liberty"? Most people understand we have responsibilities to our fellow human beings, not an absolute right to do as we please.
The letter conjures up a picture for its recipients of their dying loved ones having to endure unbearable pain, anguish and suffering. Is that really the way it is? Most proponents of assisted suicide now acknowledge that modern palliative medicine has become so effective that claiming assisted suicide is needed to prevent unbearable pain is just no longer credible. And isn't it true Governor, that in Oregon pain is rarely invoked as the reason for requesting the lethal concoction of drugs?
The letter claims the initiative protects privacy, requires informed consent and provides safeguards, Governor, but isn't it true there is no requirement to notify one's family of this request for a lethal prescription? Isn't it true, too Governor, that studies show almost all those given a terminal diagnosis exhibit signs of depression with some even expressing a desire to hasten their death, but that most change their minds when the underlying depression is treated? Isn't it thus deeply concerning that not a single person availing themselves of Oregon's assisted suicide law in 2007 was even referred to a mental health professional for evaluation and true assistance?
The letter claims the Oregon law works, but how do you know? Isn't it true there is no penalty for non-reporting by a doctor either in Oregon or under the Washington initiative? So how can one claim it works when there's no checking and no enforcement?
And how can you claim taking a lethal dose of drugs to kill yourself is not suicide? The definition of suicide is clear and unequivocal. Isn't claiming, as the initiative does, that the underlying cancer or incurable condition is the cause of death, and not the lethal dose, completely inaccurate and in fact disingenuous?
And by the way, aren't we all terminal? Life itself is a terminal condition, Governor. Following your logic, couldn't healthy people avail themselves of your proposal? Aren't current laws focused correctly on protecting life and wouldn't your assisted-suicide initiative really shift the entire focus of the laws built over a period of 2000 years?
You say this is all about the individual having power over how their life ends (though none of us had any "power" over how, where, or when we were born) yet aren't you really inviting government into a heretofore very private and personal situation and actually ceding power to doctors - who clearly don't want it - or to HMOs, which may very well want it?
How about a friendly wager, Governor, that your campaign will end up spending more than the $1 million your letter says is budgeted to try and convince the voters of Washington to sanction government getting into the business of killing people? An exaggeration? Haven't you said several times this is just a first step? A first step to what, Governor?
Chris Carlson, Spokane
(Carlson is a member of the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide.)
July 16, 2008 05:33 PM
Not Dead Yet
[Click to read]
Duane French speaks out against assisted suicide at a forum at the University of Washington.
July 04, 2008 09:08 AM
Assisted-suicide initiative likely to make ballot -- Associated Press
[Click to read]
July 3, 2008 By Curt Woodward OLYMPIA - Supporters of an assisted suicide initiative said Wednesday they've submitted about 320,000 voter signatures to state election officials, which should be enough to easily win a spot on Washington's fall ballot.
Aid-in-dying initiative appears headed for ballot The Yakima Herald
[Click to read]
July 3, 2008 By Leah Beth Ward, The Yakima Herald
The fiery campaign over the aid-in-dying initiative began in earnest Wednesday as supporters said they turned in about 310,000 signatures -- likely enough to get the measure on the November ballot.
Washington State is one step closer to adopting an Oregon–style Death with Dignity law. Supporters of I–1000 today (Wednesday) submitted well over the number of signatures they need to get the measure on this November's ballot. As Olympia correspondent Austin Jenkins reports, opponents prayed while supporters cheered.
OLYMPIA — Supporters of a so-called "Death With Dignity" initiative turned in an estimated 20,000 signatures Tuesday to the Secretary of State's Office, virtually guaranteeing that Initiative 1000 will be on the November ballot.
Two charismatic and persuasive spokesmen — on opposite sides of the issue — led contingents of supporters to the state Capitol for dueling, emotionally charged news conferences where personal stories were shared, tears shed and fears voiced.
As I-1000 Signatures are Counted, Washington State Medical Association Opposition to Physician-Assisted Suicide Reiterated
[Click to read]
July 2, 2008 By Washington State Medical Association
SEATTLE -- The Washington State Medical Association (WSMA) opposes Initiative-1000, the measure to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Washington state. The opposition was emphatically voted on at the WSMA's annual meeting last year.
Assisted Suicide Initiative Paid Signature Campaign Delivers Bad Law to Capitol, Opponents Say
[Click to read]
Saying that paid signature gatherers are endangering Washington’s elderly, low-income and disabled, The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide today called on voters to reject I-1000, the assisted suicide initiative.
The Death with Dignity initiative, also known as Initiative 1000, will be on the ballot in November. At least, it will be if the 224,880 signatures necessary to to put it on the ballot are collected by November. If this law is approved by voters and passed, it will allow adult patients that are terminally-ill to request physician-assisted suicide. That means a patient can request a lethal amount of medication to be administered to them by a physician that will result in death. For this to be legal though, the patient must be deemed mentally competent enough to request this procedure. Concerned citizens have attempted to put a similar initiative on the ballot once before in 1991, but Washington voters rejected the proposal.
With next week's petition deadline just around the corner, backers of an initiative that would allow a lethal drug overdose as a medical treatment option are increasing their signature-gathering efforts around the state, including Central Washington.
Who We Are The Coalition includes leaders in the disability community, doctors, nurses, minorities, and religious groups. A full list is here. If you'd like to join, click on the button above.
Facts About the Assisted Suicide Law The initiative would allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses of barbiturates to certain patients. With so many problems with our health care system, there is a danger that the poor, those with disabilities and minorities would get this "treatment."
Problems with Oregon's Law The sponsors say Washington's law would be modeled after Oregon's law. But Oregon's law has many problems.
The Netherlands Experiment In the Netherlands, assisted suicide has been tolerated for decades with results that are shocking to most Americans. Here's a closer look at the Netherlands.
MORE RESOURCES:
Spotlight on Oregon, from the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
