Over at Effin’ Unsound, Lee applies a little logic to some of the illogical arguments being thrown against the I-1000 Death With Dignity initiative:
Think about what happened on 9/11 for a second. If you remember, there were people trapped on the highest floors of the second World Trade Center building who instead of perishing in the inferno behind them, decided to jump to their deaths. Should their death certificates say that they committed suicide?
It’s a great analogy I hadn’t heard before. The Catholic Church, the main backer of the No campaign, considers suicide to be a mortal sin. So… did the 9/11 WTC jumpers commit suicide? Or were they murdered by terrorists?
And if choosing one certain death over another is not suicide in that situation, how is it suicide for the terminally ill?
There is still a difference. The people who jumped from the World Trade Center believed they would be dead within minutes from the fire. Someone who takes a lethal overdose of drugs under I-1000 would be doing so under the belief that they had less than six months to live. Even if the 9-11 jumpers believed they could have lived for another hour, we are talking about a time ratio of over 4,000 to 1 in the respective decisions to immediately terminate one’s mortal existence.
If you take the six month life expectancy standard for self-termination under I-1000, and multiply it by 4,000, you would be able to justify suicide at any point after birth (or before birth for that matter, which would be the legal guardian’s decision to make at that point in time).
So regardless of how one feels about I-1000, I don’t see how one can compare a decision made by a person facing death within minutes to a decision made by one facing death within six months.
Perhaps the more relevant comparison would be whether any of the 9-11 victims would have chosen to terminate their mortal existence by taking a lethal drug overdose, instead of burning to death? Somehow I think most would not have taken the route. The vast majority simply burned to death, and the ones choosing self-termination would have most likely perferred to jump, over taking a drug overdose.
I wonder if anyone ever did an analysis on the number of people who had a reasonable opportunity to jump on 9-11, versus the number of people who actually did jump.
What *do* their death certificates say?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/s.....mper_x.htm
A spokesperson for the medical examiners office said all were listed as homicide because they could not differentiate between jumpers and those that died in the collapse.
Quite different from the argument you’re trying to make here.
@1 Richard, how much sense does it make to argue that it’s okay to jump from the 90th floor to avoid suffering agony for a few seconds but it’s not okay to give yourself a lethal injection to avoid suffering agony for 6 months?
@3 Whether they could tell them apart is irrelevant. Do you think for an instant any public official would have the balls to put “suicide” instead of “homicide” on any 9/11 victim’s death certificate? They’d get run out of town … no, they’d get run out of the country.
By the same token, a terminal cancer patient who uses a shotgun blast or lethal injection to relieve his suffering was killed by cancer, not by the shotgun or needle. I think you’d have a hard time convincing his relatives of anything different.
Remember the scene in “Saving Private Ryan” where Tom Hanks’ character tells the medic to give the badly wounded soldier more morphine? The overdose, of course, ended his agony by killing him. Was this soldier killed by the Germans, or by his comrades? While this film scene is fictional, this exact scenario happened all the time during the war. Would anyone argue those men were killed by “friendly fire” instead of the enemy?
Roger Rabbit @ 4
I don’t think I made any explicit value judgments in my analysis above.
In any event, there is no requirement in I-1000 that a terminally ill person be suffering agony in order to choose to immediately terminate their mortal existence. I-1000 merely requires a disease which doctors reasonably predict will cause death within six months.
Perhaps writing “agony” into I-1000 would make it an impossibly subjective standard. But self-termination is available to anyone with a “terminal” disease under I-1000, regardless of the level of pain they may be suffering.
Roger Rabbit @ 5
By the same token, a terminal cancer patient who uses a shotgun blast or lethal injection to relieve his suffering was killed by cancer, not by the shotgun or needle.
I would have to call it suicide, unless the law says something different. There was no danger of imminent death, unlike the 9/11 jumpers. And presumably no law in place like I-1000 which changes existing standards.
The effects of morphine on someone in extreme pain are debatable. The pain itself may kill the person, unless the morphine dosage is increased. Clearly, the wound (or disease) would be the underlying cause of death in that situation.
@1: Stalin once remarked that a single death was a tragedy, a million merely a statistic. But hey, who am I to compare such things and go all Chomsky on you….
Did Butch and Sundance go out with guns blazing, or did they commit suicide?
7 Richard, you’ve made a very important point, which I’m not sure everyone is likely to grasp. However you define “agony”, is it then necessary for the person involved to be suffering some arbitrary quantity of it, or is there some definition of “impending agony”? We’re getting into some pretty squishy stuff here to make law out of.
What I’m getting at here is that if something becomes part of the RCW, it’s no longer merely a moral judgement voted upon by the citizenry at some point in time–it’s a civil statute that whatever hacks control the Legislature might in the future tweak into God knows what.
I don’t see dozens of physicians getting indicted for manslaughter for turning up the morphine drip on terminal patients. All of this is likely better left to the judgement and discretion of patients, their loved ones and their caregivers than it is to the likes of, say…..the Dino Rossi’s and Luke Essers of this world.
First of all, I voted for the initiative, and I feel like this “cause of death” is a non-issue designed to scare people into thinking records are being “falsified”.
#5, I was not entirely clear in #3. All were listed as homicide; what was unclear was the immediate cause of death.
Telling the family how they died is irrelevant. We’re talking about clinical cause of death, not the way we remember granny went.
I-1000 would list the underlying cause of death as the terminal illness, which is standard practice in cases of “pulling the plug” and it’s idiotic to argue over this point.
What I find odd is that people argue that the lethal injection is some kind of “terminal event” (eg, cardiac arrest) which is not listed on the death certificate. The injection causes a terminal event. How could it be the terminal event?
@10: Art. If suicide was legal, would we be having this conversation?
Further. I am not so sanguine about the touching concern of “their loved ones” as you appear to be. I have witnessed all too much tragedy involving family squabbles over even relatively small estates, or what desparate people will do to get out from under crushing financial burdens\obligations (i’m thinking health care costs here).
I am sure you are no advocate for “quiet off-the-books murder”, but all too often that is what you would seem to get (assuming turning up the morphine drip is somehow ‘common’). As for hacks in the future…well, that’s the future.
This issue pisses me off more than I can say.
I am a terminal cancer patient. If you don’t want to take your own life than don’t, I could care less. Needlessly suffer all you want.
How about you stay the fuck out of my life. If I feel like calling it quits than I should have that right. I shouldn’t have to figure out a way to take my own life because my doctor isn’t allowed to help me.
I’m going to fucking die. Why in the hell should have have to needlessly suffer in the last days of my life? Stay the fuck out of my life. This shouldn’t even be an issue. Of course I should be able to end my life when I decide I’ve had enough. But no, because of your fucking stupid religious beliefs, I should have to suffer even more.
I’m 33 years old, most of my life is already going to be taken. Why the fuck do you care if I live out the last bit of my life? FUCK you, stay out of my life. I DECIDE WHEN I DIE, NOT YOU. I shouldn’t have to suffer because of what you think. Do what you want with your own life, stay the fuck out of mine. If any of you anti right to die people were here, I’d fucking spit on you.
There is only one thing in this life that is 100% guaranteed: every single one of us are going to die. From day one we are forced by life to eventually die. We all pretty much die from the same final cause too: cardiac arrest. The heart stops for all sorts of reasons that have been identified as causal, but really when the heart stops, and can’t be restarted, we die.
Now the issue here is really quite simple. We, as human beings have two choices: we can use rational reasoning to live our lives as we choose, which includes choosing the time limits of our lives; or we can subvert rationality and hold the psychotic view that some invisible, omniscient, male-being alone makes that decision. If you like invisible creatures controlling your life vote No; if you like to think and use your rational mind, exercising your cognitive liberties, then Vote YES, like me.
Once again, I want to pint out that the issues in I-1000 are nto whether people should be able to choose how they die, but whether doctors should be put in the position of prescribing death.
Terminal use of morphine is not simply a way of saying, “take this to end your life,” it is a way of helping a patients deal with pain. This differs immensely form the barbaric idea that doctors shoulod precribe death cocktails.
As a liberal, I am also very worried about an intiative that pays health care providers MORE if they terminate life rather than if they extend it. The defenders of I-1000 rightly point out that this has not yet been a problem in Oregon but who is foolish enough to believe that Aetna will not optimize its profits by offering terminal patients this alternative?
A serious consequence of I-1000 is that it pays patients to die. This happens because of the means test for medicaid. Intentional impoverishment is already a tool used by social workers to help terminal patients get on Medicaid so they can afford terminal care. Do we really wnat to offer suicide as an alternative to impoverishment?
The initiative also brings government into a very personal matter in a very intrusive way. Very few patients or physicians want to involve government in the terminal process .. perhaps this explains why there have been very people in Oregon willing to go this route.
I am a realist and suspect that the vast sums spent promoting I-1000 will work. I hope that the liberal community does all it can to see that no one uses this bad law in a discriminatory way.
@1
There is still a difference. The people who jumped from the World Trade Center believed they would be dead within minutes from the fire. Someone who takes a lethal overdose of drugs under I-1000 would be doing so under the belief that they had less than six months to live.
Richard, what you’re missing here is that the people who get the death with dignity prescription don’t get it to use right away. They wait until they’re closer to passing or not being in control of their bodies.
The differences in the scenarios are only to a small degree. In both cases, someone’s death has been predetermined. If the person wants to die in a different way, the cause of death should be what triggered that decision, not the decision itself.
@ 13. Herbalizer, Thanks! for sharing your thoughts. I’m in total agreement.
I collected signatures for I-1000, as well as voted FOR it. It was interesting how my senior citizen neighbors eagerly grabbed my pen to sign up. Yet baby boomer aged folks turned me down flat (like they don’t think death will become an issue for them?).
One major point I believe on the Death Certificate listed “Cause of Death” is because Life Insurance policies are supposed to be paid out for the individual who decided ask for Death with Dignity. Many Life Insurance policies exclude/exempt “Suicide” as a payable claim. Why would anyone insist on inflicting the stigma associated with suicide on the grieving family members anyway? When my coworker, that I cared for 6 years, lost his fight after AIDS had wiped out his body and mind the Cause of Death listed was Pneumonia – not AIDS.
Lee and Goldy Thanks for an interesting perception that I had never considered. I do hope I-1000 passes. People that don’t wish to utilize the program simply don’t need to ask for it. Additionally, people who DO request Aid in Dying are not compelled to take it to the last step – unless they choose to.
As an Agnostic, I shudder to think the Catholic Church feels so determined to define personal choices which should be decided between the individual (who gets to do the suffering) and their physicians.
@17 Frick n Frack
I expect I-1000 to pass. I am also reasonably sure, based on the Oregon experience, that very few people will be willing to compromise their privacy to use this intrusive law .. whether that means docs or patients.
The danger remains that the law will have a bad effect on current terminal care .. either by encouraging health care providers to encourage this option as a way of saving money or, paradoxically, by the anti-suicide crowd using this as a basis for legal action vs. doctors who currenlty and privately prescribe lethal doses of morphine to relieve pain and suffering.
I am also concerned that the interaction of I-1000 with HIPPA and IRB regulations could result in some very costly administrative costs, esp. if the anti crowd pushes the hairy legal issues that I-1000 skirts … impoverishment of the terminally ill, differential diagnosis of reactive depression vs. clinical depression, and, as I noted above, the need to create a HIPA compliant mechanism to supervide this all to public procedure.
But then what do the hospitals, medical association, and nursing association .. all of whom oppose this … know about health care?
Yes, just like the dying person isn’t considered ‘intelligent’ enough to know if their body or will isn’t up to the task? Hmmm? Only their Doctor/Nurse Practitioner/hospital KNOWS what’s best for them? From what I’ve read, the hospice care seriously improved in Oregon after this measure was in place.
Just curious, SeattleJew, you pontificated with so many posts, for MONTHS, about this issue without ever reading the initiative. Then seemed gobsmacked to discover there was a 6-month terminal death diagnosis required.
My computer crashed, so I’ve been out of the loop a while. Still curious, did you EVER so much as bother to read I-1000 or dignify the documentation by this point in time? FnF is merely wondering.
BTW, I saw your Letter to the Editor in the paper a few weeks back. Think you confused “Medicare” with “Medicaid”. But, at least you seemed to use the Spellchecker that time in the newspaper. Better done.
FnF
Is sarcasm a useful argument?
What I do not support is passing a law like this with no regard to the needs and rights of those who can be harmed.
There is an expression used in the Black community for liberal condescension .. “How White of you.” Classism and racism is a very real problem in the liberal community.
I-1000 for someone like myself, someone affluent enough to probably be able to pay for terminal c…. but all of these liberal issues need to be pursued with a much higher regard for others.
So, now we will pass I-1000. I hope liberals will join together to push hard for the kind of medical care that assures that this option is NOT misused. As a start, I would like to see legislation that prohibits health care providers form offerign the cocktail unless they can certify that terminal palliative care will be provided, if desired, by the patient. Comment?