The I-1000 Death With Dignity initiative is holding a press conference at 1PM today to announce that they’re turning in the signatures required to make it onto the November ballot:
Former governor Booth Gardner, a well-respected leader of the death with dignity movement, who has called this his last campaign, will speak about his support for aid-in-dying. Volunteer Nancy Niedzielski, whose husband died of brain cancer, will also share her experience and discuss the reasons that it is important to decriminalize death with dignity.
I’ve been a pro-choice advocate on this issue for a long time and I’m excited to volunteer to help get this initiative passed. If you would like to help out, visit their website and sign up.
Unfortunately this will probably result in another negative column on the topic from our otherwise remarkably enlightened friend Joel C. I’ve worked to prevent people killing themselves for over 15 years as a volunteer at the King County Crisis Line, but my personal belief is that the decision to end your own life in the situations that I-1000 covers is the ultimate civil right.
Hey right wing turds – Nancy Raygun would vote for this.
If you’re terminal and in pain, you don’t need a death-with-dignity law if you’ve got a .45! How the hell are they going to prosecute you after you blow your brains out? Why would they want to? Makes a mess, though — bleccch!!
@3
If you’re terminal and in pain, you don’t need a death-with-dignity law if you’ve got a .45!
I’m not sure you’re comprehending the “dignity” part… :)
I suppose decriminalizing suicide might be important to lousy shots who are afraid they’ll miss …
Roger,
Terminal patients in pain now ARE LEGALLY assisted by giving them enough analgesics even though the drugs will hasten death,
This is a terribly touchy subject, and with all DUE respect to your profession, I worry that making law could worsen the issue.
For example, my understanding is that I-1000 would require formal concurrence of two physicians and counseling from some person who would offer alternatives. Having just watched my Dad die under exactly those circumstances, the LASR thing I would have wanted was some bozo inserting herself or some formal process intervenign in what works now.
My uinderstanding is that ll of this may be a typhhon in a thimble since very Oregonians have requested this service.
IMHO, laws should only be made when common sense does not suffice.
@6
To the extent that doctors could hasten death for terminal patients in the past, nothing will change on that front (and it’s not fully agreed that it’s legal). Nothing about your dad’s situation would have been any different had he been in Oregon, or had it happened under a system that I-1000 specifies.
Lee
WADR, you have as great deal of knowledge, but you are neither an attorney, a physician or a seer.
I am, at least, a physician, and have participated in more than one end of life exercise. Believe me, these are difficult now and I really do not want to see them made worse.
While it is true that no harm has happened in Oregon, it also appears that the law has not achieved much either.
As to how the Oregon law would have affected my Dad, for obvious reasons I choose not to be specific. I can tell you that I have sat and listened to conversations between an ill patient who has had enough and a physician who offers to help ease the patient’s pain and anxiety. As I understand the Oregon law, this normal behavior might become very perilous if the now impolicit, caring decision becomes a formalized permission to end life. Imagine adding the need for a second, independent physician to agree and subjecting the suffering person to a psychiatric interview to assure that the decision is clear and rational.
If you want a dreadful example of how such laws can be misused look at the later term abortion issue. It is now illegal to terminate a pregnancy unless one does so w/o first delivering the baby’s feet. Other than being bizar, this new law also effectively puts physicians managing late term pregnancy at risk. They know this and, unfortunately, the results are harmful to patients.
I will probably vote for I-1000 because I think it is just but I will not work for it because it is yet another example, like medical marijuana (sorry), late term abortion, second amendment rights (from both sides) of activists creating issues to leverage their POV w/o considering the long term consequences.
I would much rather see a law building on the right to privacy that makes such decisions the patient’s concern ONLY.
@8
WADR, you have as great deal of knowledge, but you are neither an attorney, a physician or a seer.
WADR, you have a long history of being spectacularly and embarrassingly wrong about a number of subjects and have stubbornly carried on arguments long past the point where it was obvious you were full of shit.
I am, at least, a physician, and have participated in more than one end of life exercise. Believe me, these are difficult now and I really do not want to see them made worse.
Neither do I. And I’m telling you that there’s absolutely zero justification for believing that this law will make these situations worse. And we have the experience of 10 years of Oregon’s law to back that up.
While it is true that no harm has happened in Oregon, it also appears that the law has not achieved much either.
Once again, you’re changing the parameters of the debate because I’ve caught you being wrong. This is why I don’t take your opinion seriously any more.
As to how the Oregon law would have affected my Dad, for obvious reasons I choose not to be specific. I can tell you that I have sat and listened to conversations between an ill patient who has had enough and a physician who offers to help ease the patient’s pain and anxiety.
Sure, everyone knows this happens today. No one’s arguing that.
As I understand the Oregon law, this normal behavior might become very perilous if the now impolicit, caring decision becomes a formalized permission to end life.
Incorrect. And this is the root of your misunderstanding here. In Oregon, this didn’t happen. Why? Because establishing a narrow situation to have black and white rules does not make any difference in the gray areas that surround it. For some reason, you’ve convinced yourself that this law will somehow have an effect on things outside of its scope. Your only justification for believing this appears to be some sort of hunch, despite the fact that it’s very simple to just look at Oregon to find out whether it makes sense to believe it or not.
If you want a dreadful example of how such laws can be misused look at the later term abortion issue. It is now illegal to terminate a pregnancy unless one does so w/o first delivering the baby’s feet. Other than being bizar, this new law also effectively puts physicians managing late term pregnancy at risk. They know this and, unfortunately, the results are harmful to patients.
I’m well aware of this, but it doesn’t support your point in any way. In the days before Roe v. Wade, these procedures were certainly not safer. If you’re arguing anything else, you’re really not understanding your own premise very well.
I will probably vote for I-1000 because I think it is just but I will not work for it because it is yet another example, like medical marijuana (sorry), late term abortion, second amendment rights (from both sides) of activists creating issues to leverage their POV w/o considering the long term consequences.
Steve, what long term consequences is Oregon suffering from that we need to avoid?
I would much rather see a law building on the right to privacy that makes such decisions the patient’s concern ONLY.
So would I, but this is still a step in the right direction. What fascinates me is that there’s someone in the medical marijuana community who thinks exactly like you, who believes that every step forward that doesn’t take you to the perfect outcome is actually a step backwards. He and you have no concept of politics, no concept of how the world functions, and no concept of how laws actually shape our behavior (which is also why when I met you, you were still among those who believed that the drug war helps black communities). Thankfully you’ve move on from that nonsense, and hopefully you’ll start getting the bigger picture soon.
Le
Well one of us may be full of shit, lets hope that is the worst of it.
One thing you really ought not to do, is argue by putting words in others mouths. No, I never said that “drug war helps the black community.” Nor have I ever believed that.
As for medical marijuana, the arguments you make FOR it are based on bad science … just like the arguments the opponents of marijuana make are based on bad science. Trashing rationality may makes sense to you “politically” but I would rather have the shield of fact then depend on any fiction.
MM is a great example. There most certainly is reaosn to believe that THC has modest therapeutic benefits. If people need or want it they should be able to get it. The same can not be said for green vegetable matter … no study you have pointed to has shown an effect that can no be attributed to THC. Using science to justify a poorly characterized concoction vs a pure drug is not a smart move. Rather, in my world, the lack of rationality in the MM community is a deterrent to using ral science to getting marijuan out of purdah.
On the second issue, I do not see your point. You tell me that you think that the law has done no harm in Oregon and has not inhibited physicians. Your evidence that this has NOT happened is no different then mine that it has. OTOH, the law does open up the real possibility that a physician can prosecuted. FWIW, here is the law with some comments of how I feel it might be misused:
THE LAW (excerpts)
(a) Make the initial determination of whether a patient has a terminal disease, is capable, and has made the request voluntarily;
(c) To ensure that the patient is making an informed decision, inform the patient of:
(A) His or her medical diagnosis;
(B) His or her prognosis;
<What of the Dr. is wrong?
(C) The potential risks associated with taking the medication to be prescribed;
(D) The probable result of taking the medication to be prescribed; and
(E) The feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control;
(d) Refer the patient to a consulting physician for medical confirmation of the diagnosis, and for a determination that the patient is capable and acting voluntarily;
so, the physician may not discuss this very private matter with her patient, but most opnen it to another physician. The law is disturbingly vague abut how this might be done, Are members of a group practice allowed to do this for each other? <
(e) Refer the patient for counseling if appropriate pursuant to ORS 127.825;
……….
(L)(A) Dispense medications directly, including ancillary medications intended to facilitate the desired effect to minimize the patient’s discomfort, ………
does this mean the physician must be trained in the physiology of executiuon to do this? This is NOT an idle question. For animals there are quite strict laws about the choice of fatal agents.
127.820 s.3.02. Consulting physician confirmation.
………..
127.825 s.3.03. Counseling referral.
If in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment, either physician shall refer the patient for counseling. No medication to end a patient’s life in a humane and dignified manner shall be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the patient is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment. [1995 c.3 s.3.03; 1999 c.423 s.4]
127.850 s.3.08. Waiting periods.
No less than fifteen (15) days shall elapse between the patient’s initial oral request and the writing of a prescription under ORS 127.800 to 127.897. No less than 48 hours shall elapse between the patient’s written request and the writing of a prescription under ORS 127.800 to 127.897. [1995 c.3 s.3.08]
<This is very scary. Suppose I am treating a terminal cancer pt and he is in great pain that I can not solve and requests death. Suppose I decide, with his consent, to use enough morphine that the pain will be relieved but he will die.
According to this I now need to gwt another consultation (a very poorly defined process here) and possible invoke a psychologist who is almost certain NOT to have training for this task, and then wait 15 days while my patient suffers????
127.855 s.3.09. Medical record documentation requirements.
The following shall be documented or filed in the patient’s medical record:
(1) All oral requests by a patient for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner;
(2) All written requests by a patient for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner;
(3) The attending physician’s diagnosis and prognosis, determination that the patient is capable, acting voluntarily and has made an informed decision;
(4) The consulting physician’s diagnosis and prognosis, and verification that the patient is capable, acting voluntarily and has made an informed decision;
(5) A report of the outcome and determinations made during counseling, if performed;
(6) The attending physician’s offer to the patient to rescind his or her request at the time of the patient’s second oral request pursuant to ORS 127.840; and
(7) A note by the attending physician indicating that all requirements under ORS 127.800 to 127.897 have been met and indicating the steps taken to carry out the request, including a notation of the medication prescribed. [1995 c.3 s.3.09]
NOTE: there are no provisions here that explicitly protect the physician from prosecution.
Finally,
May I suggest that the only effect of ad himinem attacks is to weaken you argument?
In the case of I-1000, I have expressed tepid support because of some obvious and real issues. I did not blow this up to a tantrum againt Dr. Death, BUT I did suggest that careful consideration must be given to the unexpected consequences. You know, the sort of attention we all wish Bush might give before deciding to wake up in the AM.
Oh well, last I heard most monkeys toss shit …more evidence that the intelligent designer is eother not intelligent or a real ass hole!
Reminds me of my dear Mom’s doctor. Now, Mom was his 2nd patient when he began his practice. Second client! She even changed her medical insurance in order to stay with him. Decades later, I believe 30 years, even when she was in the nursing home (with its own doctors) any time she had questions, my Sisters would schedule their own exams bringing Mom along so he could check her out without needing to pay. He stopped several times just to visit her in the nursing home when he was on that far other side of town.
Just 1-1/2 weeks before her death from the breast cancer, a strange doctor (different hospital because her’s emerg room was too full to take any more patients) – this stranger doctor insisted on doing a mastectomy, even had them pulling the gurney to be hauling her for surgery, telling her your daughter knows all about it. WRONG! Sis had told him she needed 2 hours to talk to the doctor & nursing home, not approving any surgery till she knew what was going on. Mom was mentally fit until the morphine later started. She had them get her clothes and get her out of there, back to her nursing home when she realized they were pulling some ‘funny’ there.
When I asked WHY would any doctor do such a thing? If they couldn’t stop the bleeding from the tiny hole in her breast (had to take her off the blood thinners) HOW could they stop the bleeding from the gash of a whole breast removal? Sis said, well it’s a For-Profit hospital, an old lady and Medicaid would pay. Who cares what pain she might have to go through if they could make a buck?
When her own doctor came to Mom’s funeral, he hugged my sisters and told them that at least they were able to give Mom the peace that he, MD/son, was NOT even able to provide for his OWN Father. Seems his Dad had a doctor that wanted to keep the elderly Father alive. When MD/son kept asking to just let his Dad go, the other doctor screamed at him that he (MD/son) was just playing God! His Dad had even tried to hang himself in his hospital bed.
SJ keeps arguing that ALL doctors think alike & have the best of motives. I think in his arguments, SJ is full of crap. JMHO
@ 13 Actually, I should clarify. It was the blood clot that took Mom in the end. Because they had to take away the blood thinners.
@13 .. Frick
I am sorry you feel that way but you illustrate my point. Your take on 1-1000 is that MORE supervision wuld have helped your Mom or the father you describe.
That is entirely the opposite of the intent that I-1000 has. Its supporters feel that it is now too hard for a patient to choose suicide. I agree with that. However, to assuage feers about tthe ability of doctors to make these decisions, the legislation in Oregon (and I assume here) increases the regulation of how people die.
In the case of the Dad, he would have still been revented form being helped because of this physician’s objections. The only thing that could change is that the physician could now over-ride another physician’s (and the patient’s) judgement.
FWIW, I certainly do not think doctors are somehow better people than anyone else in our society. But, I also do not think that lawyers are terribly good people either. Writing the perfect law that can not be abused by lawyers is, well a task not even the Deity seems capable of.
FWIW, the actual process in most hospitals is very strenuous already. Decisions about the end of life are made by teams that include the a number of doctors, nurses and often admin of social workers. There are v ery clear rules about informed consent and a huge effort is made, if a patient cannot communicate, to determine who has the authority to make decisions.
After a patient dies, the death is reviewed before colleagues by a large group of staff ib a death conference. In the best of cases, if there are any questions, an autopsy is done and the pathologist issues an independent report, the Final Anatomic Diagnosis, Any discrepancies are reviewed at the death conference.
I am NOT saying this is perfect, but I suspect it is far more strenuous than most people realize.
Autopsies
If you want to consider medical death issues, consider this.
The percentage of deaths leading to an autopsy is way down despite extensive evidence that a high proportion of autopsies reveal issues that would have affected patient care.
In our for profit system, there is huge ncontroversy6 over who should pay for the autopsy and huge motivation by the system to avoid accountability,
Thank the US Supreme Court for assisting in this issue. The right to bear arms is directly linked to this issue. How? Because half the gun deaths in this country are suicides. Support the NRA all you good liberals! The Suicide you assist may be your own!
One thing you really ought not to do, is argue by putting words in others mouths. No, I never said that “drug war helps the black community.” Nor have I ever believed that.
You said that to me once at DL. If I heard you wrong (which is possible), I apologize. But it was within the context of talking about how arresting drug dealers helps the black community.
As for medical marijuana, the arguments you make FOR it are based on bad science
No, and I will once again extend my offer to put you in touch with doctors at UW who will set you straight. You are right now making an ass of yourself to the level that you were making an ass of yourself when trying to argue that Naveed Haq was taught to hate Jews in an Islamic School.
On the second issue, I do not see your point. You tell me that you think that the law has done no harm in Oregon and has not inhibited physicians. Your evidence that this has NOT happened is no different then mine that it has.
Incorrect, because if it HAD happened, there would be people angry at the law in Oregon over specific incidents. That’s how we know it’s not happening.
Lee,
As a loyal memebr of the HA, I assume you consider making an ass of oneself I compliment and I take it that way.
“‘[…, I never said that “drug war helps the black community.” Nor have I ever believed that.
You said that to me once at DL. If I heard you wrong (which is possible), I apologize.
Tx for tha pology and no I never doid say that. Nor would I have. OTOH, I thin believing that drug enforcement is a bad thing for the AA community is equally simplistic. Moreover, t tell the truth, the sooner the AA community takes full charge of its own affairs and others . you or me .. listen and learn, the better our whole society may be. As a wise man once said, “Goldman America, for hurting some of its own people!”
I will once again extend my offer to put you in touch with doctors at UW who will set you straight.
You gave me names before. Neither was esp. qualified, as I remember he was in rehab med. The other had some qualifications, I think I may have talked with him. If you want to, sure I would be ahppy and esp ton hear why he thinks GVM is a better drug than THC.
That said, I have actually read the real literature and given you a list of papers that I beieve provide scientific support for a lot of what YOU say. One may even supprt GVM. Having said I recognize a compliment, “You are right now making an ass of yourself to the level that you were making an ass of yourself” by not taking advantage of the real literature.
As for when trying to argue that Naveed Haq, I did give you objective evidence that it hatred of Jews was a normal part of thye curriculu7m of Islamic Schools, likley including the one he attended.
His defense at the trial has stipulated that he does hate Jews. (or did). He also took his actions as amuslim.
So, leaving alone the hard issue of whether such hatred is an illness (FWIW I think it is a communicable illness) it seems ti me that I get the ass award for having my facts correct.
I guess I would award yoi the horseturds award, for not getting the facts right?
You say my concerns about Oregon are “incorrect, because if (something bad) HAD happened, there would be people angry at the law in Oregon over specific incidents. That’s how we know it’s not happening.”
With all due and quite real respect Lee, this too qualifies for the horseturds award. The fact that a problem has not yet arisen to public awareness is not informative. That standard is akin t the DI folks who say that glocal warming has not done any harm, yet.
I went to the trouble of posting the Oregin law and I pointed out sections that I beleive could do harm. Did you read them?
I wonder if the polarization in these Lee Steve dialogs reflects two guys with an excess need to wi? I know during the drug discussion I enjoyed and benefited from some of what you cited in terms of discrepancies in the response to white vs black cocaine. While I disagree wiht you about how to solve that problem, I thnk you do a **** job of pointing out something I and others do not see.
In contrast, consider the DWD laws. We both agree completely that folks should have this right. BUT, we disagree the means to the end, about the importance of the problem and about the possibility of an untoward outcome. Having worked for decades in medicine and observed my dad’s practice before then, I have noted that physician’s freedoms of action has beciome mroe and more constrained by laws. In and of itself that constraint is a bad thing.
Do you know that Galen oath for docs? primum non nocere First do not hurt! That seems to me to be a good basis for law making as well.
@ 15 SJ “I am sorry you feel that way but you illustrate my point. Your take on 1-1000 is that MORE supervision wuld have helped your Mom or the father you describe.”
Not clear how you drew the conclusion that THAT was my point. My point was that you keep inferring that all physicians ONLY have the best interests of their patients at heart. In fact, many physicians have (be it subconsciously) needs of their own. Many doctors can have some sort of “God-complex”, believing that no matter the quality of life, all that matters is that THEY & ONLY THEY should make decisions for the patient and keep them alive. No matter what that person, who is required to endure the process or the pain, may desire for themselves. (Such as happened with the MD/son’s Dad that I mentioned.)
SJ ~ “There are v ery clear rules about informed consent and a huge effort is made, if a patient cannot communicate, to determine who has the authority to make decisions.”
In the case of my Mom (LESS than one hour after my Sister said, via telephone to a doctor she had never even met, she would not give consent without 2 hours to check it out) – the gurney taking Mom to surgery arrived. SIMULTANEOUSLY with someone furiously signing her up with their OWN hospice care program. Probably easy to think it’s possible to bamboozle an 80-year old woman during all the confusion. Simple to slip in an extra page “consent form”, along with the hospice consent.
As I said my Mom was mentally alert, retired as an Accountant for the State of AZ, making her own decisions right up to the end. With no discussion beforehand by ANYONE with her, sudden gurney, and flashing of paperwork for her to sign – that’s when she said “Get me out of here, I’m not signing anything!!!”
Mom was a good Christian woman in a fantastic Jewish nursing home for 3 years. They had their own excellent hospice program – why the sudden push to enroll her in the For-Profit hospital’s different program? Medicaid Bucks, of course.
At least thankfully she was able die amongst family & her nursing home friends. The Rabbi officiated at her funeral in fact. One point we found humorous was that when Mom started hospice, they told her she could even eat porkchops in her room, if she wanted. Unbelievable concession.
The point to I-1000 is that the patient (the person required to do the pain & suffering) is the one who gets to call the shots, IF they so desire to ask for the help.
Certainly more dignity than trying to hang oneself in a hospital bed!
Someone who prefers to do the suffering routine simply doesn’t need to request the assistance.