The highly-respected former governor of Washington, Booth Gardner, 70, went public recently with his intentions to run an initiative in 2008 to legalize doctor-assisted death for people with terminal illnesses.
Governor Gardner has Parkinson's, a progressive neurological disease with a bad prognosis and a painful, high-maintenance exit that's especially grubby and disturbing for loved ones.
"I've always done all the heavy lifting in my life; I've always made all the heavy decisions. I should be able to make the final one — how and when," Gardner told Carol Ostrom in the Seattle Times.
It was only last month the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Oregon's law permitting doctors to prescribe lethal medication to assist death. The Constitutional stops seem to have been pulled- all that's needed is the hearts and minds of the people and a law.
Religious right-to-life organizations are tooling up for the fight. Catholic doctrine, and evangelical teaching strongly oppose this- are they the most arch of Buttinskies? or are they champions of life?
Where is your heart and/or mind?
People whose care is deemed too expensive for the socialist government to continue supporting are being pulled out of rest homes and injected. It is a holocaust.
Posted by: santo | February 11, 2006 at 12:54 PM
If people can put their pets down they should be able to put themselves down.
However I worry that removing the restriction might reveal hazards we haven't had to deal with and I'm not sure that our society is flexible enough to handle it.
1) Will poor people commit doctor assisted suicide for economical reasons?
2) Might someone be talked into doing themself in?
3) Might people in allot of pain do themselves in despite the fact that they could recover? (yes)
4) Will life insurance still be rendered?
In particular I don't believe our society can address problem number 1 because we don't yet believe in equal health care. We currently let poor people die and this law would simply speed up the process.
Posted by: Andrew | February 11, 2006 at 11:15 PM
As with abortion this is nobody's damn business but those involved. There is nothing more insulting to the concept and glory of the individual than to meddle in personal matters. So says this libertarian.
Posted by: Barkless in Seattle | February 11, 2006 at 11:44 PM
People like Barkless have no clue. This subject is too complex and far reaching to be summed up in this response, but I have a problem with assisted suicide as it has been presented so far.
Where do you draw the line? What are the deciding factors? Age? Income? Social Status? What's the real difference between a terminally ill child and a terminally ill senior citizen? Are we going to start unplugging everyone on life support? And how about the Hippocratic Oath? Isn't it ethically immoral for doctors to back such a plan?
I think this type of bill, although benign in concept, is potentially much worse than the pain it's trying to prevent. Without proper guidelines and limitations, what you'll have is another Pandora's Box on the books and once it's there, there ain't no fixing it...
Posted by: Joe | February 12, 2006 at 12:52 PM
I'm on the side of assisted suicide. We'll have to watch Oregon to see what happens . . . I'd rather have the choice.
I know there are all kinds of caveats . . . you all make good points.
Posted by: joanie | February 12, 2006 at 01:12 PM
The WA state assisted suicide measure we rejected in 1991 and the Oregon Death with Dignity Act both have stringent criteria on who, why, how, and by whom a patient's death can be assisted. Safeguards are in place to ensure that the alleged "holocaust" mentioned above will not occur. In fact, according to a 1996 JAMA article, physicians in WA are already receiving requests and prescribing meds for deaths with dignity. It is not always possible, Andrew, to recover or even relieve pain in terminal illnesses. IMHO, people who would be served by a WA Death With Dignity measure are incredibly fortunate to be able to die as, and when, they choose. I totally support Gov. Gardner in proposing this initiative. The Oregon Death With Dignity Act is here:
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/
Posted by: Fremont | February 12, 2006 at 02:29 PM
"It is not always possible, Andrew, to recover or even relieve pain in terminal illnesses"
I never said it was, you must have read me wrong.
Posted by: Andrew | February 12, 2006 at 03:40 PM
Sorry, Andrew, I thought "Might people in allot of pain do themselves in despite the fact that they could recover? (yes)" implied that people could recover from pain. I actually think the safeguards are too stringent...people should be allowed to determine if their lives are worth living, and take action based on that determination. I think this freedom should be restricted only in the event that someone is sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for murder...those people should not be free to take their own lives.
Posted by: Fremont | February 12, 2006 at 05:38 PM
Santo, admit it. You pulled that statement out of your ass...
Posted by: sparky | February 12, 2006 at 06:00 PM
Santo is a troll!
Posted by: Fremont | February 12, 2006 at 06:05 PM
Geez, BlaM, this thread is fizzling like a firecracker dud....who wudda guessed?
Posted by: Fremont | February 12, 2006 at 09:34 PM
Geez, BlaM, this thread is fizzling like a firecracker dud....who wudda guessed?
Posted by: Fremont | February 12, 2006 at 09:35 PM
I think most people agree that it should be allowed but the problems it creates are overwhelming and hard to comprehend.
It wouldn't be this way if we had allowed it from the begining. It's like if we had never allowed alcohol we'd never have had to think about drunk driving or alcohol abuse or any of the domestic problems that drunks cause.
Maybe someday we'll also have the moral courage and curiousity to question what makes people criminal rather than simply throw all the rotten apples in a compost pile. It would sure be nice to have fewer criminals rather than have more law enforcement.
Posted by: Andrew | February 12, 2006 at 10:36 PM
I heard on the news that the crime rate is up again . . . it had gone down for much of th 90s. Do you think crime has anything to do with poverty, unemployment, the polarization of wealth and people feeling hopeless?
Just asking . . .
Posted by: joanie | February 12, 2006 at 10:57 PM
I think it would be a sad day if our society condones someone taking their own life. And even sadder if we make it legitimate for doctors to assist.
People already have the choice to take their own life. There's unlimited numbers of ways for someone to commit suicide. I think it would be sad to have it codified into law that ending your own life like that is OK.
And no, I haven't witnessed first hand someone going through the painful final days/weeks/months/years of life due to terminal illness. So I'm aware that my empathy level is lower than people that have experienced it. I think it's not a good idea to extend lives excessively through artificial means, but I'm not a supporter of artificially ending them either.
Posted by: ExDem | February 12, 2006 at 11:36 PM
ExDem: "People already have the choice to take their own life. There's unlimited numbers of ways for someone to commit suicide. I think it would be sad to have it codified into law that ending your own life like that is OK."
ExDem to terminal cancer patients: jump out the hospital window, hang yourself with your shoelaces, take all of your meds at once.
The fact that you take a strong stance on this issue without firsthand experiance is further demonstration of how dangerous your rationalising mind has become as a dogmatic conservative and hater of true freedom.
I, for the record, do have first hand experiance and with it I tell you that you trivial concern over having it "codified into law" is meaningless and even an insulting comparison to the pain caused by many terminal illnesses. Keep in mind that terminal illnesses are such because they destroy your body one organ at a time.
Posted by: Andrew | February 13, 2006 at 01:21 AM
When I hear someone say that someone shouldn't have the right to terminate their own life as opposed face 6 additional months of agony for themselves and their loved ones - it just creeps me out.
It's almost always seems to be followed up by, "the bible says..." and "god does things for a reason..."
A sane, stable person looking at the facts of their prognosis and saying, "I'm getting out of here while the gettings good!" - hits me as the ultimate excersize of personal liberty.
Posted by: SpamButcher | February 13, 2006 at 01:36 AM
ExDem, our conversation on another thread seemed to stall at this question so I'm asking it again:
"ExDem, you talk as if you are not part of government.
I'm asking you what you will do when you go to the ballot box.
Will you vote or sign initiatives that increase "government's" control over people''s personal choices;
or will you vote and sign initiatives that give people the oppotunity to be included and have the same rights and privileges you have?"
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2006 at 08:06 AM
ExDem . . . these two go together:
"So, I'm confused.
You think people should be allowed to have choice and that if they make a choice you don't agree with, you'd rather use persuasion to change their hearts and minds.
Or you think the majority has the right to force and enforce what they want on the minority including excluding them from rights, privileges and/or personal choice.
Which is it?"
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2006 at 08:16 AM
And, this too, XDim: Of course, people "have an unlimited number of ways to commit suicide". Consider the terminal illness that renders you unable to jump out the window, swallow a handful of pills, aim a gun at your head. You are too weak or paralyzed to perform these tasks (as well as the daily chores of living), but your pain and prognosis are greater torture. These are the people who need assistance to end their miserable lives....and their wishes must be honored. HOW COULD YOU DENY THEM?
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 08:53 AM
ExDem >> You echo my thoughts completely. I find no comfort with the idea that there are stringent enough guidelines to prevent abuse.
Posted by: Joe | February 13, 2006 at 08:58 AM
"Maybe someday we'll also have the moral courage and curiousity to question what makes people criminal rather than simply throw all the rotten apples in a compost pile. It would sure be nice to have fewer criminals rather than have more law enforcement."
Actually, Andrew, there has been tons of research done on the question of criminality. The bigger question for law enforcement is "Can criminals be rehabiltated suficiently to live in the world without re-offending?" A rhetorical, smartass answer to your question of what makes people crimnals is laws make people criminals...e.g., making marijunas illegal makes people who use it (and get busted) criminals.
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 09:13 AM
Joe, what abuse? People must request assisted suicide...no one is mudering people. What abuse?
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 09:15 AM
"ExDem >> You echo my thoughts completely. I find no comfort with the idea that there are stringent enough guidelines to prevent abuse."
That doesn't make any sense. ExDem never said anything like that.
Posted by: Andrew | February 13, 2006 at 09:35 AM
Fremont, I don't think they are doing enough.
Most people still believe we are "created in God's image" and that if God can stay out of jail then so should everyone else.
Primitive schools of thought like to believe our brain is a clean slate and that we have 100% control over our thoughts and impulses, and that people either behave good or they behave evil.
We won't take the issue seriously until we agree that criminals are more complex than just being people who make evil choices.
Posted by: Andrew | February 13, 2006 at 09:48 AM
I do agree with you, Andrew...we may have gone too far, occasionally, with our "criminal chemistry" defenses such as Dan White's "Twinkie Defense" in the murders of Moscone and Harvey Milk. I oppose the death penalty for many reasons...one being the case of Ted Bundy. I think he should have had his active neural transmissions examined intricately and his living brain been made available for any/all new research into the congenital causes of criminality. Speaking of assisted suicide.....how about that Dick Cheney shooting his hunting pal in the face???
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 10:37 AM
If Big Dick hadnt taken so many deferments, perhaps he would have learned to use a gun. Thank God the Bush administration is finally doing something about bird flu..we no longer have to fear the Giant Orange Texas Quail.
Posted by: sparky | February 13, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Speaking of suicide, those McGruff The Crime Dog/Big Brother/Comcast internet ads on the KIRO live stream realy push me to the edge.
Posted by: Andrew | February 13, 2006 at 11:04 AM
Jeesus how is it that Che-ney delayed reporting this so long--was he drunk off his ass, which would be a serious hunting violation. David gregory is ripping Scotty to shreads today at the WH daily breifing. Will be interesting to see how Dori and others attempt to dismiss this one.
Posted by: Lump's Blister | February 13, 2006 at 11:54 AM
OK, I've got 4 questions directed at me. Let me give a response to each.
1. I'm told the following:
"The fact that you take a strong stance on this issue without firsthand experiance is further demonstration of how dangerous your rationalising mind has become as a dogmatic conservative and hater of true freedom."
My response: It is my observation in my life experience that people often try to solve complex issues without regard to the past. I can be provocative and judgmental and say that I believe it takes a certain sense of ignorance and/or arrogance to disconnect the past from issues like this. If it's so cruel to let people suffer in their final days in a world where we have technology and drugs which can relieve pain and extend lives, then it must have been even more cruel to allow such suffering in the past when we lacked such advances. So, ask yourself this question - why did society not choose to endorse assisted suicide long ago? In America, I've been told by many a liberal that we have a secular government that has a firmly established separation of church from state. So, it couldn't be because of religious reasons. I have no direct experience with terminal illness, but for some reason I'm in agreement with the position our government has on assisted suicide (other than Oregon). Without debating all of the fine points, suffice to say that there may be some wisdom into why our government has not condoned assisted suicide in the past.
2. Do I believe in choice? Yes, we all have free will. God made us that way. We don't always exercise that will in a way that is pleasing to God. I'm fine when the government passes laws that align with my values and I'm saddened when they don't. Since we don't live in a world that is heaven on earth yet, I'm willing to operate within the construct of our representative democracy. This form of government gives us freedom of religion. That gives us the chance for people to have spiritual conversion. In this imperfect world, I agree with the structure that allows the majority to set policy and laws. And, when I'm in the minority, it means I have to work hard to win the hearts and minds of enough people to create majorities for the values I support. If I fail, then I have chosen to honor the will of the people. If the will of the people ever got so far out of whack with my beliefs, then I'd have to find a different place to live and allow the people I'm leaving to have the society they created.
3. How will I vote - to include everyone or to exclude people? My vote depends on the issue. I'll vote for issues I agree with. That's why I like the initiative process so much - it takes the variables of the candidate's values/actions out of the equation and focuses solely on the issue. I haven't read the initiative that Tim Eyeman is starting up, so I'll wait until it gets on the ballot. If the initative would preserve basic human rights for people and not force people to make any endorsement of sexual activities they don't condone, then I'm guessing I'd be inclined to vote for something like that. Keep in mind, I don't view privileges and benefits to be on a par with human rights. There is no human right to welfare payments, or minimum wage, or universal health care, drivers licenses, etc. Because our founders recognized that our rights originated from our Creator, there are rights to life and liberty. The ballot box is one place where our society can debate on what to do about privileges.
4. HOW COULD I DENY THEM? Like I said, everyone has free will. We have laws against speeding, but it doesn't prevent people from going 20 miles over the limit when they are late for work. So, if people want to terminate their life early, they'll figure out a way to do it. I just don't want our society to endorse that behavior.
Posted by: ExDem | February 13, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Speaking of assisted suicide.....how about that Dick Cheney shooting his hunting pal in the face???
I'm an avid bird hunter, and something like this should never happen in the field. You are always aware of where members of your group is at all times. From what I've heard on the radio, they're making it sound like it was his friend's fault for walking in the line of fire.
Posted by: audioslave | February 13, 2006 at 11:59 AM
they keep changing the story on what happened. It was that the guy snuck up on Cheney and later was looking around in the grass for dead birds. Weird
Posted by: Lump's Blister | February 13, 2006 at 12:19 PM
Oh, no, Slave....I'm an avid birder and something like YOU should never happen in the field!
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Now we can add
Pro-Death to the Liberal Agenda which already includes...
Pro-Taxes
Pro-Abortion
Pro-Sadaam
Pro-Terrorists
Pro-Criminal
Pro-Anti-Americanism
And you guys wonder why you can't win a national election.
Posted by: Michael B. | February 13, 2006 at 12:22 PM
I'm all for this, and I have personal experience, both my parents having died in the hospital later than they should have, because giving a high dose of morphine with the intention of causing death is "murder" while giving a less high dose of morphine with the "intention" of easing breathing but with the REAL intention of causing death--just not as quickly--isn't.
Posted by: lukobe | February 13, 2006 at 12:24 PM
"Now we can add Pro-Death to the Liberal Agenda which already includes..."
Does that mean conservatives are Anti-Death? Are you able to halt the biological processes of death with the awesomeness of your faith?
Posted by: Andrew | February 13, 2006 at 12:51 PM
"And you guys wonder why you can't win a national election."
Yet another conservative using Argumentum ad Populum. Please learn something about logic.
Posted by: Andrew | February 13, 2006 at 12:55 PM
To Andrew:
Re: "Argumentum Ad Populum"
I didn't suggest that Republicans are right because they win national elections. (That would indeed be "Argumentum Ad Populum"). I suggested that Democrats lose because they champion unpopular opinions.
Now I do believe that most of the Conservative arguments are true, but not because they win elections.
Posted by: Michael B. | February 13, 2006 at 01:06 PM
"I suggested that Democrats lose because they champion unpopular opinions."
OK, who cares?
We champion ethics and social integrity and wether that's popular or not is irrelevant.
Posted by: Andrew | February 13, 2006 at 01:19 PM
XDim, Joanie is probably at work right now, and I'm just sitting here counting my hard-earned-disability- welfare-bucks-to-which-I-am-fully-entitled, so I will comment in her absence: You said: "So, ask yourself this question - why did society not choose to endorse assisted suicide long ago?"
This is an incredibly specious argument/answer! It's like saying why wasn't the wheel invented twenty years before it was invented? WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? Nothing happens until it happens! Necessity is a paramount driver of progress! Please rethink your loquacious first paragraph...you ended it with "there may be some wisdom into why our government has not condoned assisted suicide in the past." Was it maybe because there were no ventilators/respirators to disengage, no morphine to assist the deaths? C'mon, XDim, saying we shouldn't progress because our forefathers didn't is ridiculous!
And what does speeding have to do with assisted suicide? Your speeding is a threat to my personal safety; your assisted suicide is not. People may need assistance to implement the free will you cherish, and we now have the medical and legal tools to honor their free choice.
Again, WHY WOULD YOU DENY THEM?
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 01:33 PM
How can the repukes win on spying, torture and shooting their donors in the face? Those sound to me to be un-popular
Posted by: Lump's Blister | February 13, 2006 at 01:37 PM
"So, ask yourself this question - why did society not choose to endorse assisted suicide long ago?"
ExDem is Pro-Old and Anti-Improvement. He's also against gay marriage on the grounds that they didn't have gay marriage in the past.
Posted by: Andrew | February 13, 2006 at 01:39 PM
My opinion on the issue of assisted suicide: Doctors who involve themselves in this practice are breaking the hippocratic oath that they take when becoming a doctor. Can they live with that on their conscience?
This is something that is best left up to family members and caregivers to come up with the best possible solution to have a terminal person's final days as pain free as possible.
Posted by: audioslave | February 13, 2006 at 01:48 PM
Many doctors are living well, having made conscionable choices to honor patints' wishes.
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 01:57 PM
Respell patients'...
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 01:59 PM
Lump's blister...luv yer email addy :-)
Posted by: sparky | February 13, 2006 at 02:26 PM
BTW, Lump's Blister, I love your moniker! Perhaps ExDim can reach out to Lump and give him a ride to The Free Clinic of yore they cherish....he needs some band-aid social services on that blister before it becomes gangrenous, and, thereby assisting his early demise.
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 02:28 PM
Scooped again by Sparky!
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 02:29 PM
It's okay then, to break a professional ethical oath?
Now wouldn't this be another one of those "slippery slopes" that would / could cause more trouble than it's worth?
Posted by: audioslave | February 13, 2006 at 02:33 PM
It is, indeed, a slippery slope, but navigable with talent and a good pair of skis...definitely worth the trouble! There are two versions of the "Hippocratic Oath "(check Wikipedia) a classic and a modern oath. The newer version challeges health practitioners with this: "Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God." This has been a long-debated ethical concern, (e.g. Kevorkian) and doctors weigh in on all sides, but it is not an unresolvable issue. Removing legal restraints to assist death does not obviate the oath...it allows freedom to practice.
Posted by: Fremont | February 13, 2006 at 03:36 PM