Politics Catholics Want to Make Your Medical Decisions While You’re a Vegetable
posted by on October 6 at 16:04 PM
Opponents of Initiative 1000, which would allow terminally-ill-yet-alert patients to end their lives, are ramping up an effort to kill the measure in the general election. The problem, they insist, is that it’s just a poorly written law.
“It’s not a moral issue,” says No Assisted Suicide spokeswoman Carrie Herring. She says I-1000 lacks safeguards for doctor accountability, pressures poor people to avoid hospice fees by committing suicide, and encourages depressed people to commit suicide rather than be treated. “It’s a public policy issue.” (Proponents of I-1000 disagree.)
But you can follow the money to the morals. Public Disclosure Commission reports show the leading contributors to No Assisted Suicide’s $750,000 bank account are the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, and an archipelago of local archdioceses across the country, including the Seattle chapter.
The anti-initiative campaign, however, is going out of its way to obscure its cadre of wealthy religious backers, instead presenting a video on its web site hosted by Martin Sheen, a Democrat, and boasts a section of endorsements from state Democrats, including Senator Margarita Prentice.
The web site’s top-listed supporters, meanwhile, appear to be neutral members of the medical profession. These are doctors who have spoken repeatedly for the campaign. But if Dr. Patricia O’Halloran’s past history is an indication of her take on morality, look no further than when she testified against stem-cell research before the Washington State Legislature. Or take, for example, Dr. Shane Macaulay, who has given $10,000 to the campaign, according to PDC reports, and donated to Washington Republicans Rob McKenna and Dino Rossi. If those Republicans seem moderate, consider also Macaulay’s contributions to Rick Santorum.
If the problem were really a lack of safeguards, then the No Assisted Suicide camp would, in theory, support a version of the law that contains those protections. But a couple spokeswomen who came to the Stranger Election Control Board meeting last week didn’t support an alternative law.
It’s not that they are anti-choice conservatives. They are pro-choice, it turns out. They want doctors to make all end-of-life choices for you.
Last Friday marked the three-year anniversary of my friend Kim’s death. She was the most opinionated person I’ve ever known and she was a one-woman patient advocate. She had cystic fibrosis and suffocated for a year before dying at a hospice. So I asked the anti-1000 camp how they would treat her suffering, or her “depression” if she had wanted to die. They argued Kim didn’t have to suffer; she just had to be sedated to the point of unconsciousness for the last six months of her life. But who would make medical choices about medicine, nutrition and everything else for Kim while she was out? Doctors would. These religious doctors—moral arbiters with stun guns—want to make every choice for patients and would-be sinners as they spend their last days knocked out on a respirator. That idea, and the blatant lie that this isn’t about morality, should die.
Exactly right. And is that Rick Santorum of man-on-dog infamy?
Patients should be allowed to make their own decisions.
Vote yes on I-1000
At first I thought this was just snark but then I googled their spokesperson....and found her blog!
This is the creepiest shit I've ever seen!
http://ourlivesforchrist.blogspot.com/
As if I needed another reason to vote against Prentice (besides the fact that she went to the same high school as my Mother-In-Law).
But Martin Sheen is against it, he used to be world-leader-pretend. How can it be right.
The next thing you're going to tell me is that Dino Rossi, with all of those green-toned earth-friendly commercials is backed by developper money.
Chronically ill, dying people suffer from depression? No fucking shit.
Damn papists.
i will say that i have alot of worries about assisted suicide and our current for profit healthcare system. how is this issue addressed by both sides?
First Sheen blasts sensible drug rehab, and now he's bloviating on this? Any credibility this guy might have had with progressives is circling the drain.
Fuck her and fuck anyone against assisted suicide. There's a good chance they've never had to watch their mother or father die a horrible, drawn out death without dignity. You change your mind very quickly.
What a stupid headline! Under the initiative, VEGETABLES do NOT qualify for voluntary death with dignity.
Don't be a hater
Hey Leslie N - I watched my grandpa's painful deterioration. He killed himself rather than live his final months in agony. The catholic church can't do a thing about the choices we already have.
And is this not America with Freedom of Religion rights granted by the First Amendment?
And who are the big contributors on the other side? Over $565,000 from out of state contributors. What right or interest should they have to be involved in matters affecting WA voters?
@10. Read the last paragraph. The alternative to suicide is to be sedated until you're a vegetable and then have others make decisions about your health for you.
If you want to kill yourself or your own, go ahead. Who needs a law? But to corrupt our culture even further with your immoral values is not appropriate. I know, God is a scary concept as it requires faith.
@14, fuck you. I don't need laws or a babysitting God to legislate my morality, I can do it on my own. I try to be a good person because it's what I should do as a person.
@11, I know my dad considered it and rejected it. He admitted it to me. He wanted to spend all the time he could with his family, but the last few days...that's when he could have used assisted suicide. Hospice is excellent and all, but not the same. Morphine versus cancer coma is a no brainer to me.
When there is single payer universal health care I will support this.
Under the present under insured population, there will always be pressure on the sick and dying and old to exit early so as "not to burden."
Fuck that shit.
Vote No.
This is NOT about CHOICE or CHURCH. People can kill themselves now and this won't change that. This is about making suicide a legitimate medical treatment. Your treatment costs too much? You don't want to leave your family in debt? No problem! We have the perfect solution!
1. If somebody with cystic fibrosis would be sedated enough to relieve suffering, they would be sedated enough to quit breathing. Stupid fuckers, opiates suppress the ability to breathe, thus lowering oxygen levels, thus killing the person. So is the doctor killing them, or are they killing themselves by choosing this option? I've seen too many people die miserable deaths as a nurse not to be in favor of assisted suicide.
2. Humans, until recently, have always had "opt out" options for the sick and elderly. Often the sick and elderly made the choices themselves for the good of the tribe. As someone who is getting up there, and chronically ill, if it came to a place where I felt I was just taking up food that could be used for a child, I would opt out. It would be the right thing to do. Not everybody's choice, but it would be mine.
Each of us, terminally ill or not, already has the right to end our lives when we are ready. Suicide is not illegal in the state of WA so why do we need Assisted Suicide? The answer is that we don't.
Say what you want, but by opposing I-1000, the Catholic Church is trying to protect us all from the greed that can exist within families, in government and in our for-profit healthcare system. Vote NO I-1000.
I support the initiative because it gives patients autonomy over the manner in which they die. It offers compassion to those who are dying anyway, many of whom are dying with pain and suffering. I think society has a strong interest in preserving life, but sometimes individual liberty must win out
over that maxim. Also, some in the medical profession would tell you that PAS already occurs but under the radar. Legalizing it will lend an openness to the discussion.
Dominic, your friend Kim's situation is very sad. I'm sorry you had to watch her go through that. And the religious doctors' reaction highlights something important—death is often not pretty. I can see there are some legitimate reasons to oppose this initiative (although I am staunchly in favor of it) I just hope people aren't letting a fear of death and a fear of the mess that often comes with it cloud their thinking on the issue. Because initiatives like I-1000 will help us make death better for people suffering with painful, terminal illness.
If you think that the state won't pressure poor people to opt for suicide, you are wrong. In Oregon, Barbara Wagner was denied an expensive cancer drug (which she could not afford) but offered a suicide drug by the Oregon Health Plan. See, Death Drug Causes Uproar in Oregon, ABC News, August 6, 2008 at http://abcnews.go.com?Health/Story?id-5517492&page=2
If you think that the state won't pressure poor people to opt for suicide, you are wrong. In Oregon, Barbara Wagner was denied an expensive cancer drug (which she could not afford) but offered a suicide drug by the Oregon Health Plan. See, Death Drug Causes Uproar in Oregon, ABC News, August 6, 2008 at http://abcnews.go.com?Health/Story?id-5517492&page=2
@22: This case has been discussed here before. Oregon's state health plan doesn't cover treatments that don't have a 5% survival rate over five years. The treatment she wanted didn't fit that requirement. That the government suggested death with dignity is appalling to _all_ death with dignity supporters. This case needs to stop being used as a reason to not support I-1000.
One thing to remember is that nine studies of the Oregon law have concluded that NONE of these abuses have occurred in the decade the law has been on the books. Would Washington residents be so different that we breed greedy sons (notice it is always a son and not a daughter?)?
And the money issue- think about social movements people. Death with dignity laws have failed numerous times in other states for years and years. These failed attempts produced frustrated supports who want to see this movement, well, move. So they donate. Just like I donate to secure Dems in close congressional districts where I don't live. I don't see the difference.
@22: This case has been discussed here before. Oregon's state health plan doesn't cover treatments that don't have a 5% survival rate over five years. The treatment she wanted didn't fit that requirement. That the government suggested death with dignity is appalling to _all_ death with dignity supporters. This case needs to stop being used as a reason to not support I-1000.
One thing to remember is that nine studies of the Oregon law have concluded that NONE of these abuses have occurred in the decade the law has been on the books. Would Washington residents be so different that we breed greedy sons (notice it is always a son and not a daughter?)?
And the money issue- think about social movements people. Death with dignity laws have failed numerous times in other states for years and years. These failed attempts produced frustrated supports who want to see this movement, well, move. So they donate. Just like I donate to secure Dems in close congressional districts where I don't live. I don't see the difference.
When they passed this in Oregon, all heck broke loose and the state went downhill.
Oh.
Wait.
That never happened.
This sweet little ditty is from the Our Lives For Christ blog-
"I had my first experience with public speaking on the issue last week - we couldn't find a speaker to go to Tacoma, so at the last minute I had to do it. I was so nervous, especially because the I-1000 person who I was up against was a retired oncology nurse - WAY better credentials than I could offer."
But this about the Right to LIFE people, why have someone qualified offer the best argument, we just need some "facts"...
Papists have visited murder and rape and pillage on the world for two thousand years. Now, they claim a moral high ground after the exposure of the Vatican's systematic rape of children for decades if not centuries. Real freedom is freedom from religious dogma and lies.
Fat Ins. Co's & Lord Byron for I1000!
Wake up and smell the strychnine -- anyone who has ever wanted to end it, still can. This law does not help people who want to end their own lives sooner -- those people don't need any help. Nay, rather, this law helps the busy body third parties to give them them an extra nudge, or shove, over the edge of the abyss.
Now, who would want to do that, and why? Lord Byron had the answer:
Sweet is a legacy, and passing sweet
The unexpected death of some old lady
Or gentleman of seventy years complete,
Who've made 'us youth' wait too--too long already
For an estate, or cash, or country seat, . . .
Don Juan, Canto I, st. 110 - 165
Yep, its (again & always) about $. Greedy heirs, and even greedier Health Insurance execs who can cut costs by cutting throats.
So, this noble patina of self-determination is a ruse, I1000 has it exactly backwards; what the toxically porous inititative does is take power from the self and give it to others, then lets them lie, hide, and profit. Cha ching.
What’s the old adage, if you don’t have a good argument, lead with a personal attack? Or, better yet, take a jab at the Catholic Church. This is a major tactic of the “yes” on 1000 campaign, to divert attention from the serious flaws in its initiative.
The biggest problem with I-1000 is the lack of required witnesses at death. Without required witnesses, the opportunity is created for an heir or stressed out caregiver to administer the lethal dose to dad without his consent. Even if he struggled violently, who would know? With no required witnesses, I-1000 creates the prefect alibi.
Family members, of course, do this kind of thing all the time. Just last week, the Seattle PI ran a story about a mother and son who hired a hit man to off her husband. Why should we pass an initiative that rewards this type of behavior with a “get out of jail free card?”
Sadly, people commit suicide now. Let’s help insure that it’s their choice. Vote “No” on I-1000.
What an outstanding example of bigotry this article is! Is this the liberal tolerance we hear so much about?
Every person can sign their own end of life directives about whether or not they want treatment, life support, resuscitation etc. Every person also has the option to commit suicide.
But I-1000 says everyone has a right to involve someone else in their suicide, which puts others at risk: folks in Oregon, for instance, are being offered lethal injections because their cancer treatments are too expensive and the insurance companies don't want to pay. Is this compassion?
folks in Oregon, for instance, are being offered lethal injections because their cancer treatments are too expensive
C@30, please see Queen @ 22, kthx.
The latest ad on TV about the brother who died of a brain tumor angers me. I also lost a brother to a brain tumor, but I am confident he would NOT want this bill to pass. He fought all the way until he lost his battle! He had all of us sticking by him. The meds that are available 'kept him comfortable'. If our loved ones could 'come back', I am confident they would want us to fight this and stop the insanity of 'assisted suicide'! I know the Drs and the nurses are fighting this also! This is an 'insane idea'!!Assisted suicide, indeed!
Why is it that so many people cannot post on-line without using crude language? I'm referring, of course, to the expression "three-year anniversary". Please, wash your mouth out. Other than that, I have no objection to what the writer says.
This isn't about conservative values, it's about stupid logic, which is what Holden is trying to get you all to take his bait.
I-1000 is the most inhuman solution to the problem at hand. That's why people of all faiths, or perhaps no faith, believe this is a bad deal. Show some real compassion and kill I-1000.
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.