The deadline for turning in signatures for the Death with Dignity Initiative 1000 is next week. Supporters turned in the first batch of signatures yesterday. There will be a press conference on Wednesday, July 2 at 1PM when the remaining signatures are turned in.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Life is sometimes good, death is sometimes good. Life is no more a good in itself than any other value is. Life is good when and if it is good, because of circumstance and because of context. When life is not good, it’s quite possible that it is not worth preserving. Let the individual be free to decide this deeply personal issue for him or herself.
The city of Seattle is having a problem with young prostitutes, some as young as 11. What a great city. What is it about living in Seattle that makes you want to pay to have sex with little boys & girls?
“One of the ideas is to reach out early by teaching about the dangers in middle school.”
Yup, teaching that liberal agenda didn’t turn out so well did it.
@2 “What is it about living in Seattle that makes you want to pay to have sex with little boys & girls?”
Alas, Republicans are allowed to live in Seattle too. Of course, as you well know, most Republican males are pedophiles. Some fuck pigs too.
Checking out the suicide webpage you linked to…
Why the need for a doctor’s approval. A woman doesn’t need a doctor to approve of her reasons to flush a kid down the drain. And will this apply only to those that have a physical disease that can be proven? What about a lonely depressed person, shouldn’t he have a choice about ending his suffering? Rough childhood, things only got worse despite the person’s best efforts. In his 40’s, never been loved, lived in poverty, second class citizen. Why shouldn’t byebyegoop be compassionately helped to end his suffering.
If it’s about compassion and not about saving medical resources for the young, the depressed should have the same option.
@4 Stay away from kids, you creep.
I knew I shouldn’t have written something you don’t agree with. Sorry. You always get pissy when people don’t agree with you.
It’s strange you got so bothered by my post. Almost like you felt I was pointing the finger at you.
@2
Are you actually dumb enough to think that Seattle is the only city with this problem?
@4
The need arises from the fact that the drugs used for the assisted suicide are controlled substances – hence doctor approval. Yeah, a person who wants to die could shoot themselves in the head, but that’s why the initiative is called Death with Dignity. I’m sure one of the other commenters can explain to you what that word means, since it’s clear from the amount of time you spend here humiliating yourself, dignity is something you’re clearly not familiar with.
From a modern-day Republican point of view, “dignity” is just another commodity that should be available only to the priveleged few who can afford it.
Stamm,
You’re such a forceful Republican. Heard the latest from the Groverman?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....ma-jo.html
“John Kerry with a tan.”
While I support the I-1000 , I am also worried that it could be misused to interfere in the existing process of allowing patients to die.
Death of the terminally ill is not a simple matter of waiting for the spirit to depart. Decisions need to be made that balance a person’s pain, psychological state, wishes (what Buddhism calls attachement), viability, and the feelings of their family.
If someone is near death but very agitated, do you give them tranquilizers that make it easier to accept death?
If someone in in great pain but pain druigs make other body functions less able, to you alllieve pain?
If a person has said they do not want to be resuscitated but you know that they have a good chance of living later do you resuscitate anyway?
If a family is tightly tied to the person, maybe to the point of believing the existence of a soul in what is clinically a dead person, who decides then?
All of these are very real questions. Currently such issues are answered ina very informal way that depends on the trust of the patient, the family and the physicians.
Is this trust ever abused? Would Swedish’ CCU work harder to keep Daddy Gates alive then keeping some down and out drig user alive?
I suspect abuse occurs, but I also believe that intrusion of our legal system into these immensely personal decision would make matters much worse.
So, SJ’s concern is that in an effort to legalize suicide, we might grease the slippery slope leading to an expensive and personally harmful change in how folks dies now.
I dunno how many of you have ever watched someone die of bone cancer (or any other form of cancer for that matter), but if I ever had to face that situation, the “Death with Dignity” solution like they have in Oregon would be a great mercy. Look at some of the stories out of Oregon before you make up your mind about this. This isn’t something that is ever done lightly, and shouldn’t be. But it is a last option that should be available if you want it.
@9 Keith Olbermann will be addressing the issue of Grover calling Obama “John Kerry with a tan.”
In Oregon, there have actually been very few patients take advantage of the Death with Dignity law. Some have changed their minds, some have died before they could go through the procedure. Nobody has been forced to commit suicide.
Steve @3 did you hear that today Rep.Vitter (R-ProtitutesAreMyFavorite) and Sen. Larry (R. Wide Stance) have introduced legislation for another go at Defense of Marriage?
I laughed so hard I about drove off the road.
@10
Steve, if I came up with ways that our abortion laws could be abused, does that mean we have to make abortion illegal again?
@14
Awesome
14 – LMAO!! I wonder what our Republican shill Stamm thinks of that?
Today Wide-Stance Pampers defended marriage!
LMAO!!!
These Republicans are the best entertainment going!
@2 I don’t see that as a liberal or conservative issue, I see this as a failure of capitalism. Or better yet, it’s an end result of unfettered capitalism.
@15 Lee … I do not understand your question.
We now have a system that is loose enough to provide a lot of discretion in letting people die.
My fear is that in legalizing assisted suicide we might creeat legal code that would block what now happens that is good.
Presumably, most legal suicide would happen in conditions where the subjects and the physician both agreed that a patient’s condition was irretrievable. In practice this happens now. Most terminal death in a hospital or hospice is vountary in the sense that someone, hopefully wiht the patient’s content, has put a limit on what may be done to make death more pleasant.
Lee, I just went through this with my Dad and I am very glad that we did not have to go outside the family and his physicians to make the needed decisions.
15 as far as your analogy to abortion, you seem to misunderstand. Assisted suicide is already legal in a very informal way. It is done many times each day. My fear is that “legalizing” it might make the existing system unworkable.
@10. Steve and I have had an ongoing debate about HOV lanes too.
A common theme of his is that if there is any chance that someone might take advantage of the process, be it HOV lanes or death with dignity, it shouldn’t be allowed. No shades of greys, no wiggle room. He wants absolute or not at all.
Now granted, an HOV cheater is not the same league as Death with Dignity Cheater.
Marvin has LONG ago been exposed a ped. Like all republicans, he has an inherent need for deviant sex.
15 Lee,
In defense of marriage
“Marriage” is just a word. If we accept the existing definition, then the word refers to a heterosexual union wherein some number of men and women make individual commitments to each other.
(I am using marriage in tis world wide sense not the ltd American form).
Given that men and woman are demonstrably different from each other, than what harm does the existence of the word do to any other form of relationship?
It is absurd to argue that homosexual commitment, in any ratio of individuals, is the same thing as heterosexual. Gender is a very real thing ..ask any teanager trying to figure it out. Recognizing this reality in no way diminishes any other form of individual mutual commitment.
It seems to me that the simplest answer is to remove marriage from the government charge. If you wish to be married, then do it in a chirch or Mosque. Then we can legislate whatever sorts of individual relationships we want have?
@20
I do not understand your question.
It was posed to point out an inconsistency in how you’re approaching this.
We now have a system that is loose enough to provide a lot of discretion in letting people die. My fear is that in legalizing assisted suicide we might creeat legal code that would block what now happens that is good.
It’s not about “letting people die,” it’s about allowing people to control their own death. My point with abortion is that what you’re saying here is that we should limit people’s freedom until we know that the law will be perfect. That’s not much different from saying “abortion should be illegal until we can be certain that there are no dangerous loopholes.”
Presumably, most legal suicide would happen in conditions where the subjects and the physician both agreed that a patient’s condition was irretrievable.
Agreed. And even though I still find this to be a constraint upon individual freedom, I’m convinced that it’s a constraint that no one will actually find constraining.
In practice this happens now. Most terminal death in a hospital or hospice is vountary in the sense that someone, hopefully wiht the patient’s content, has put a limit on what may be done to make death more pleasant.
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
Lee, I just went through this with my Dad and I am very glad that we did not have to go outside the family and his physicians to make the needed decisions.
This is why we need I-1000. It gives people one more option.
@21
as far as your analogy to abortion, you seem to misunderstand. Assisted suicide is already legal in a very informal way. It is done many times each day. My fear is that “legalizing” it might make the existing system unworkable.
You’ll need to explain this to me because the Oregon experience does not lead us anywhere near that conclusion, nor does common sense. Again, this is similar to someone saying before Roe v. Wade, “abortions happen all the time, “legalizing” it might make the existing system unworkable”.
@24
Steve, I think your neurons are misfiring again. I haven’t said anything in this thread about marriage.
UPDATE: Sorry, I was confused. I forgot about the other topic meandering through here. :)
C’mon SJ….that is not the point of my post–its the screaming hypocracy of two men who are not exactly poster boys for A Good Heterosexual Marriage–period.
How can they stand there, with straight faces, and tell people that gay marriage will harm the institution of marriage??? Howsabout they lead by example and start honoring their own marriages?
@27 I agree with you to this extent, both sides of this are behaving like assholes (to coin an appropriate phrase).
On the pro gay marriage side, my impression is that folks want social acceptance of their relationships as not being different from tradition. The price they would exact for this is that society not distinguish between homo and heterosexual pairing. In other words, they want to rule out the recognition of heterosexual pairing as being something unique.
I call BS and doublethink on this. There is no reason that all forms of human voluntary associations … polygamy, polyandry, kibbitzim, marriage, homosexual pairing, brother sister pairing, father daughter pairing, nunneries … can not be evaluated on their own rights.
In practice, countries that offer some form of bonding agreement as an alternative to marriage find that heterosexual couples choose bonding. Offering binding, by whatever name, alongside marriage seems to me to be the rational answer.
On the antigaymarriage front, there is a revulsion against sodomy and whatever it is that lesbians use as sex. I have never understood what the particular form of sex act has to do with whether or nto marriage is legal.
BTW, whatever you want to call it, should sex be REQUIRED for marriage? What if I love Lee and he loves me (sorry Lee) and we really want to live together but have no interest in playing greased monkey games?
The simplest answer of this is to stop calling the state contract aspect of this marriage. Call commitment between people. 1:1, M:F, MM:F, M:F:F:F, F:F:F bonding and allow many (but not all ) forms of bonding.
Lee,
Please understand, OF COURSE I WANT SUICIDE to be legal! The decsion to take ones own life is the ultimate test of the right of privacy!
My ocnern is that by legalizing assisted suicide, we will be codifying a practice that already happens now without regulation. Once you create such legal codes, there is a danger of restricting existing freedoms.
Let me use your example of abortion as an analogy/ Suppose that we lived in Cascadia, an ideal place where abortion was not against the law because we had no law regulating the issue.
The some woman goes to a hospital and Dr. Rossi, a devout Roman Catholic, refuses to assist her in an abortion.
Bloggers blog and soon there is I 999, an initiative to allow assisted abortion. This initiative, of course, sets out rules and definitions.
Would Cascadia be better off, more free, with law enabling what previously was unregulated?
The Oregon experience suggests that this is really a home hum issue. That is, very few people actually make the choice so the law serves its purpose for those few folks. If I 1000 is well written, I will support it.
Shabbat Shalom.
BTW .. take a look next week at SJ. I am posting a very interesting dialog I have had with the Rabbi who attended at my Dad’s funeral. The topic is whether a rabbi has the right to be intrusive in re religion. ..another sort of take on the whole rights of death issues.
@29
Any current cooperation by the Doctors an Nurses in any active such action is ILLEGAL. This doesn’t mean it never happens, but It’s painfull, slow, and difficult.
I’ve watched it twice.
Alas, Republicans are allowed to live in Seattle too. Of course, as you well know, most Republican males are pedophiles. Some fuck pigs too.
NAMBLA is fully liberals as well as the liberals school teachers in Seattle who molest children
Wow. Death with Dignity. Boy that is something that people will get excited about..hehehehehe
ROGER SHOULD GIVE THAT DEATH WITH DIGNITY A TRY AND TAKE BYEBYE WITH YOU.
Even the wife of Ronnie Raygun is in favor of things like this. I hope that every right wing piece of shit who opposes DWD finds his own family in the middle of terrible tragedy, pain and loss and WITHOUT this option. Serves em right.
Howsabout they lead by example and start honoring their own marriages?
GOP = do as we say (legislate), not as we do! (Oh, and we’re going to peek into your bedrooms to make sure you’re not cheating!)
Steve @ 3 said:
“Alas, Republicans are allowed to live in Seattle too.”
But I don’t think many live there, Steve: Seattle is more for the Neo-socialist crowd than it is for Republican, Libertarians, and other independents.
I’m for Initiative 1000. I’m also for medicinal marijuana to alleviate suffering.
@29
Would Cascadia be better off, more free, with law enabling what previously was unregulated?
Yes. This should be obvious to you why.
@31
NAMBLA is fully liberals as well as the liberals school teachers in Seattle who molest children
Mark Foley was a liberal? And all those Catholic priests? All liberals?
@29
My ocnern is that by legalizing assisted suicide, we will be codifying a practice that already happens now without regulation.
But is illegal. It’s not codifying it, it’s legalizing it. The same was true for abortion, and taking abortions out of the back alleys and into regulated medical practice was clearly beneficial.
@38 Lee
No, it is not obvious.
Do you really believe it is always good to regulate hings by law? Lewt me give you an example of a law that is massively malfunctioning … HIPAA. The intent of HIPAA was to protect patient privacy from insurance companies. The result has been a multibillion dollar added cost t health care that has done nothing to protect us from the insurance companies but added huge costs because of new limits of how physicians can communicate about patients, new computer systems needed to assure that patient data will not be hacked, etc. etc. DUMB.
Let me say it again, in my opinion what I do with my life ought to be utterly protected. Suicide shlould be legal. If I-1000 were that sort of consitutional amendment, I would support it.
On the other hand, contrary to what David says above, physicians do routinely make decisions that are about death. WADR, the difference between “do not resuscitate,” “make her comfortable,” and asssiting in death is a subtle one .. something better left up to judgement than law.
Here is a real world example,
1. a 75 year old man came into the hospital comatose. Though he was able to breath, neurological data made it very clear this man would never be able to hold a conversation again. Keeping such a patient alive requires man by expensive procedures .. e.g. if someone can not eat, they need to be nourished artificially.
2. same patient, but now the person has bine cancer. The cancer can be contained but not cured. The cancer is known to produce deep pain. Trating the pain will suppress the patient’s ability to breath, accelerating death.
3. a child is born with severe cerebral injury. The injury is such that we know the3 child will never be able to walk or talk and will be severely retarded. Again, this child is not viable without extensive efforts to maintain life. This child develops a severe pneumonia. How aggressively do you treat the pneumonia?
Decisions like these are now made all the time with minimal de jure input. There is no evidene the system is abused. Do you want laws to regulate it?
Mark Foley was a liberal? And all those Catholic priests? All liberals?
Of course the teachers union actively protects child predators. I wish we could sue the Seattle schools out of existence like we have the Catholic church. The children of Seattle would be better off.
@41
So the HIPAA law would work better if it were illegal for doctors to keep information on patients, but they did it anyway? Huh?
In the last three examples, keeping assisted suicide illegal is the worst-case scenario for all three. Establishing an assisted suicide law WILL HAVE NO EFFECT on what happens outside of its narrow scope. There’s no reason to believe that the things that have been happening, which are technically illegal, but have been ignored, are going to become harder for doctors to do. What evidence do you have from Oregon that it happened?
@42
Of course the teachers union actively protects child predators. I wish we could sue the Seattle schools out of existence like we have the Catholic church. The children of Seattle would be better off.
The Catholic Church was sued out of existence? I had no idea. And you still haven’t addressed my question. Mark Foley and all those Catholic priests are liberals? How stupid can you get today, JBD? Want to go for a record?
44
There are many more child molestors in the public schools (liberals) then in the Catholic church. You can take that to the bank. No the Catholic church is not shut down, but some parishes had to close from lawsuits. And that is the way it should be. Just like we should shut some public schools down. Its win win for the kids either way.
44
Of course if you are a liberal you have no problem protecting molesters if it promotes your precious teachers union. You have to indoctrinate kids soemway, since many libs abort their kids.
@46
Ah yes, the old “if you say it enough times, somebody might start to believe it” trick. It usually works better if your audience is drunk as a skunk – like at the republican state convention.
47
You can take your head out of that hole already, the last molester in North Seattle was put away a month ago. Keep the hole nearby though. hhehehe
@45
There are many more child molestors in the public schools (liberals) then in the Catholic church. You can take that to the bank.
And the teller will be laughing at that too. The Catholic Church had to settle out over 4000 abuse cases. I guarantee you that the number of abuse cases in all of America’s public schools (which covers far, far more people) hasn’t been that high for the same time span.
Just like we should shut some public schools down.
If an school administration protected a child molester the way the Catholic Church did, they should absolutely be run out of town. But public schools are a public need in the way that the Catholic Church is not. Even a dog should be able to understand that.
@46
Of course if you are a liberal you have no problem protecting molesters if it promotes your precious teachers union.
What an assinine strawman. What are you, 5?
And the teller will be laughing at that too. The Catholic Church had to settle out over 4000 abuse cases. I guarantee you that the number of abuse cases in all of America’s public schools (which covers far, far more people) hasn’t been that high for the same time span.
Actually the rate in the public schools is more. The Seattle public screwls have more incident of child molesting in the last 10 years thatn the Catholic churches whole history in Washington state.
@46
Of course if you are a liberal you have no problem protecting molesters if it promotes your precious teachers union.
What an assinine strawman. What are you, 5?
Why can’t we use the strawman??? You libs like to use strawmen arguements all the time, why can’t…. wait libs are pussies.. Nevermind.
But public schools are a public need..
You’re half right. We need schools not government run screwls. Big difference.
@43 … Lee,
I have no evidcence that the Oregon law has created a problem, quite the opposite. Nor do I have evidence that the WASTATE law will create problmes, however that is why I am interested in knowing more about the details.
For example, if the law requires psychiatric counseling, as some have suggested, that could create problems.
I think the curious thing here is that the “liberal” stand is to create a law to pedrmit things that I am sure already occur because we do not have a formal law.
The small number if folks using Oregons’s law may be because the ned is already filled by existing practices.
As for HIPAA, it replaced a very responsible system that was not regulated by law (other than tort law) with a ponderous, expensive system that adds unneeded costs to healthcare.
I have seen estimates in the billions as to what this is costing us. If I use your anaqlogy to abortion, one thing HIPAA does is illegalize informal consultations that never appeared on the healthcare bill.
How about this analogy, currently use of fugo in the US is unregulated. Suppose, in an effort to protect folks from tetradotoxin (the lethal agent in fugo, we passed a “suchi security law.” Such a law might require that only fish from some official list be served as sushi and then that the sushi chgef inform every consumer of the pharmacologic issues associated with that fish. I guess this would solve the non-existant fugo problme in the USA but wouold the cost be worthwhile?
My main point is that we ought to hesitate to solve problems, regardless of whether we are coming from the liberal or con side, by adding new laws.
Back at suicide, why not just make it legal and get it over with. Who the F’s business is it if I would like to die?
@20 and @41.
How long did it take? Did you enjoy the wait. Both my parents lived, unconsious for several days after it was inevitable. A little increase on the morphine drip might helped, but that was denied in both cases.
My granddad did it right and I honor him also. He walked 40 yards from the house before he ate the pistol. My Grandma was kept alive serveral day more than should have been. They waited for the opinion of an asian witch doctor.
I want the choice to leave or make real and effective instructions. I don’t want the state or any religious or other “authority” having a say.
I am certain we agree on the right to die, but, here are the terms of I-1000
1. To participate, a patient must be:
– At least 18 years old and a Washington State resident
– Mentally capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself
– Diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months (applies only to people with diagnosed terminal disease, not physical disability or age)
– All decisions made by the patient must be entirely voluntary.
2. Two physicians determine whether these criteria have been met.
3. The attending physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives including comfort care, hospice care and pain control.
4. The application process includes an oral and a written request, a waiting period, and objective witnesses.
5. No one other than the eligible patient may administer the oral medication.
6. The patient may revoke her/ his decision at any time.
As you can see, under this law the physician would NOT have been enabled to assist your parent’s death.
As written, this does not even authorize the current WASTATE practice whereby a patient can request, via a living will, that her ife be ended.
While I utterly support the rights the bill does create, I also worry that by defining those rightsd the bill restricts existing practices.
Maybe I am advocating the slippery slope, I’ll ponder on that. Thanx
@50
Actually the rate in the public schools is more. The Seattle public screwls have more incident of child molesting in the last 10 years thatn the Catholic churches whole history in Washington state.
Um, what? Please provide a link on that one.
@52
My main point is that we ought to hesitate to solve problems, regardless of whether we are coming from the liberal or con side, by adding new laws.
Back at suicide, why not just make it legal and get it over with. Who the F’s business is it if I would like to die?
Exactly, but that’s one LESS law, not one MORE law.