Politics Deadline for Death with Dignity
posted by on July 1 at 16:09 PM
Sweating like pigs, signature gatherers for the Death With Dignity initiative were swarming at the Gay Pride Parade on Sunday. The measure would allow alert yet terminally ill patients to self administer life-ending medication. But one volunteer I spoke to said she was having a hard time getting signatures—everyone at Pride had already signed it.
Tomorrow afternoon, according to campaign spokeswoman Anne Martens, supporters of Initiative 1000 will submit the last of about 300,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office and rally on the Capitol steps in Olympia. To qualify for the November ballot, the campaign needs to turn in 225,000 valid signatures.
The question, as always, is whether petition signers at Gay Pride represent the kind of momentum the measure will need to win the rest of the state in November. The last time a right-to-die law was on Washington’s ballot, in 1991, it lost by an 8-point spread. But 2008 is a better year to run the measure. Presidential races draw a younger, more progressive electorate, and studies have shown that a similar measure passed in Oregon 10 years ago hasn’t been abused.
But the measure is also facing a counter-campaign. No On Assisted Suicide, as the name suggests, is trying to frame this as a sanctity-of-life issue, arguing that the measure lacks safeguards for doctor accountability, that HMOs could pressure people to die instead of recover, and that it doesn’t require psychological evaluations to determine that the terminally ill aren’t just depressed. (Um, it’s absurd to think that someone severely debilitated with a terminal illness would have be chipper to prove they are ready to die.) Campaign spokeswoman Carrie Herring says, “It’s not a moral issue, it’s a public policy issue.”
Sure it’s not a moral issue. Although Herring’s camp has raised only $87,000 compared to the “yes” camp’s $1.1 million, the “no” campaign has the unofficial backing of the Catholic Church. The Washington State Catholic Conference hasn’t replied to requests for comment, but they do make their case online. And it’s as “moral” as a debate can get: “This initiative is contrary to Catholic teaching that life is sacred and that God alone is the true sovereign over life.”
The conflict between her Catholic faith and politics was no big deal for Gov. Gregoire in 2004, when she was the attorney general. But now, she’s not taking a win for granted and is taking a stance against I-1000 as she makes a more cautious run against Dino Rossi, who is likely to oppose the measure.
“The opposition is bent on spreading misinformation,” says Martens. “They know that the only way for them to be convincing is to mislead voters.” Indeed, the anti-assisted-suicide campaign cites “research” (without providing a source) that the physicians in the Netherlands off 1000 patients per year without any request from the patients. Meanwhile, the “yes” crowd cites a report from the Oregon Department of Human recourses that shows the law was used by the terminally ill, not the vulnerable. Says Marten: “The parade of horribles that our opponents claim will happen simply hasn’t happened.”
Didn't we vote on this in 1992?
I wish the Hemlock Society was still around.
http://www.compassionandchoices.org/hemlock/
http://www.assistedsuicide.org/farewell-to-hemlock.html
This proposal is not like the law in Orgon or other places.
In this proposal, you have to be in the last 6 months of your life, with a terminal illness, that can't be cured, as certified by doctors.
It's not a moral issue it's not a public policy issue it's a who-controls-your-body issue i.e. choice.
Why shouldn't you have the choice in choosing how you die when you are going to die anyway?
When they jumped out of the WTC we didn't say they were committing suicide.
@4:
Are you saying Oregon's law is less restrictive?
"When they jumped out of the WTC we didn't say they were committing suicide."
Funny you should mention that. I ran across a mention that family members of those who 'fell' out of the WTC were stigmatized as suicides and told their parents were going to hell. A bit off topic, but doesn't it make you want to punch a Jeebus freak just a little harder?
Maybe they shoulda sent some signature gatherers out here to Eastern Washington. Folks out here are so poor we'd be happy to go all Willy Loman to save our families the medical bills that follow our deaths.
Jaysus, I wish I were joking.
Qu'ils sautent par la fenetre! Deslolé, Marie.
Seriously, can you please ban fucking Kermit the SLOG Frog? Goddamn motherfucking spambot is cocking up every post.
Okay then. Thanks.
I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that the anti-assisted suicide folks are lying in their stats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
"In 2003, in the Netherlands, 1626 cases were officially reported of euthanasia in the sense of a physician assisting the death (1.2% of all deaths)."
Now I suppose this doesn't prove beyond a doubt that they're lying but I'd be pretty surprised if 2/3 of all physician assisted suicides were done "without any request from the patients" especially since "the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)"
"It's not a moral issue it's not a public policy issue it's a who-controls-your-body issue i.e. choice." -terminal
Nice tie-in to abortion.
Since you bring it up, let's address that first. In abortion there are *two* bodies involved with the decision. "Choice" is merely a euphemism for a mother's 'right' to kill her unborn child. Let's dispense with the nonsense that it isn't a child, or a human being. Medical biology says otherwise. http://abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html
Some choices are wrong, and killing babies would be one of them.
Killing yourself would also be a bad choice, and for much the same reasons. Namely, man sets himself up as God to decide who shall live and who shall die. But man deserves no such power for the simple reason that man does not create himself.
Tom,
That's a lovely set of beliefs you have, but they are still rooted in a belief in God. If you intend to have government endorse those beliefs through laws, then you are violating the first amendment.
@6 - bingo! Old folks are gonna "choose" an early exit so they won't burden their kids or deplete their last of their savings. Or their greedy kids will tell them to stop being so selfish about a long, slow dignified good-bye.
@3 - that comment about the WTC defenestration made me queasy. I was horrified to see that on the footage. Your comment reminded me that desperate people in dire situations do, in fact, make choices, but society doesn't want the decision to choose death to be made by desperate people in dire situations.
Lee, for the government to recognize that God exists is not a violation of the first ammendment. Otherwise, vital government documents like the Declaration of Independence, and the practice of opening oral arguments at the Supreme Court with the words "God Save the United States and this Honorable Court!" would have to be rendered unconstitutional.
Now, you're free to deny the existence of God of course, but our government has not -- and should not. As Sarte realized: without God all things are permissible. And G.K. Chesterton was right, "Once abolish God, and the government becomes God."
Fortunately, ours was a nation founded on a creed. A creed which recognizes that our rights (the first of which is the right to life) are not provided us by the government but are proper to our nature as human beings and have their origin in our Creator. They are, in the words of the founding fathers, "inalienable."
You cannot strip them from us whether we are unborn or dying of cancer.
@14
Lee, for the government to recognize that God exists is not a violation of the first ammendment.
That's correct. But for the government to use a belief in God as a justification for making laws, it is violating it.
Now, you're free to deny the existence of God of course, but our government has not -- and should not.
Our government should be neutral on that question, which is why what you're saying is a problem. You're expecting them not to be neutral, but in fact to take a side.
Fortunately, ours was a nation founded on a creed. A creed which recognizes that our rights (the first of which is the right to life) are not provided us by the government but are proper to our nature as human beings and have their origin in our Creator. They are, in the words of the founding fathers, "inalienable."
That's true, however, if we do not have the ability to make value judgements over our own life, then we do not have a right to life. That's precisely what you're proposing, whether it's a man making a judgement on one's own life or on a life that is symbiotically attached to them, we lose a part of that right to life by having the government impose one particular value judgement on us.
@15
That's correct
Actually, I take that back somewhat. Government can not "recognize" that God exists in certain ways that are clearly seen as endorsements of a particular religious belief.
Dominic has been smoking way too much crack when he says Dino Rossi will support Initiative 1000. So both gubernatorial candidates oppose legalizing assisted suicide proving it is not a partisan issue.
I doubt Dominic is literate but in case he has someone available to read to him they may want to check out these sites:
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - Euthanasia In The Netherlands
More Euthanasia in the Netherlands
Choice - if it's truly about "choice" then why isn't that choice available to anyone and not just the terminally ill?
The answer is obvious that it is not about "choice" because if it were stupid fucks like Dominic could chew the poisonous pills and relieve our misery.
Yellowdog @ 17. You're right, about Dino Rossi's position. That's my mistake. I meant oppose the measure. Will correct it.
PS: Might I suggest you make your point without being personally insulting?
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.