The ongoing attempts to mislead Washington state voters about Initiative 1000 continue with a guest editorial in the Seattle Times from Margaret Dore. Dore is an attorney in Seattle who deals with Elder Law, and is the President of the Society of the Friends of St. Patrick. She writes:
Up until two months ago, I had no strong opinion on the proposed Death with Dignity Act, which is on the ballot as Initiative 1000. That was, until I read its actual language. I urge you to read it now: The backers’ claims are misleading; the proposed safeguards are illusory.
I’ll second the encouragement to read the bill, but I was more than a bit skeptical of this attempt by Dore to paint herself as an impartial person just discovering what this bill is all about. Opponents of I-1000 have been desperate to portray themselves as just ordinary folks, rather than fringe extremists, but they should probably keep in mind that Google exists.
Ms. Dore is far from being just your average Democrat concerned about I-1000. For starters, she’s still listed as a contributor to this blog, which contains a bunch of posts in support of Terri Schiavo, like this one:
The Schiavo vs. Schindler case symbolizes the plight of thousands of vulnerable people throughout the USA who are being ripped off by the fraudulent guardians. Terri’s fight has given a lot of publicity to only one aspect of the issues that are being faced on a daily basis by a very vulnerable group of people. The Greer decision to allow hearsay evidence by the husband, who is incidentally also the guardian, has far reaching consequences for others who are in the same circumstances as Terri.
For this woman to start a guest editorial in the Seattle Times by claiming to be someone who was undecided until recently about this initiative is laughable. Knowing that the issue is central to her life’s work and is a hot button issue for Catholic groups like the Friends of St. Patrick, it’s clear that Dore takes the kind of extreme view of these matters that caused Ms. Schiavo to have the most undignified death in modern American history.
But the problems with this editorial go far beyond her initial misrepresentations. Ms. Dore’s argument against the initiative is a mess of poor logic and misconceptions. Let’s go through it:
The Initiative’s campaign literature states: “All decisions made by the patient must be entirely voluntary,” and that the application to obtain the lethal dose has “objective witnesses.” The proposed act, however, allows one of two required witnesses to be an heir.
When signing a will, the same situation would create a presumption of undue influence, for example, that greedy son pressured dad to sign.
This is just nuts. We’re talking about terminally ill people who have been determined by a doctor to be unlikely to live for another six months. Does Ms. Dore really believe that an heir is going to coerce a terminally ill relative to repeatedly lie about wanting to kill himself, find a willing accomplice who stands to gain nothing, and then attempt to defraud two separate doctors, all so that he/she can get an inheritance a few months earlier? Really? That’s a conspiracy theory on the level of 9/11 Truth. I haven’t heard stuff that crazy since, well, since the Terri Schiavo mess.
If someone is that motivated to off their own relative in order to collect an inheritance, they’re not going to wander through a highly safeguarded process like this one. I recognize that there are a lot of very unscrupulous people that Ms. Dore deals with in her practice, but these people aren’t going to find I-1000 to be an easy avenue to exploit. Doctors are very smart about how to tell when patients are being coerced. If anything, people who are dumb enough to try to coerce a suicide through the I-1000 process are just making it more likely for themselves to get busted by a conscientious physician or mental health expert.
Getting past the bad logic there, let’s move on to the distortion. She writes:
The initiative’s campaign literature also states: “No one other than the eligible patient may administer the [lethal dose].” The proposed act, does not, however, say this. It states only that the patient “may” self-administer the lethal drug. The act also defines “self-administer” as merely the act of ingesting.
…
In other words, greedy son putting the lethal dose in dad’s mouth qualifies as “self-administration.”
Here’s the actual passage that she’s referring to:
To receive a prescription to medication that the qualified patient may self-administer to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, a qualified patient shall have made an oral request and a written request, and reiterate the oral request to his or her attending physician at least fifteen days after making the initial oral request. At the time the qualified patient makes his or her second oral request, the attending physician shall offer the qualified patient an opportunity to rescind the request.
Somehow, Ms. Dore read through that passage and came up with the idea that “greedy son” would be able to take advantage of these provisions by forcing old dad to go through all of these hoops, with the knowledge that in the end, “greedy son” is going to just violate the law and pour the prescription down his throat anyway. Is she serious? If “greedy son” really wants to collect the inheritance that badly (and I don’t doubt that these situations occur), they’re not going to wander through the detailed process laid out by I-1000 and risk getting busted. They’re just going to push dad down the stairs and say it was an accident. Yes, these things happen, and they’re terrible. But there’s absolutely no basis to believe that I-1000 makes it any easier for “greedy son” to collect his old man’s inheritance.
I don’t fault the Seattle Times for seeking guest editorials from both sides of an issue, but could they possibly find someone who isn’t a fringe lunatic to represent the anti-choice viewpoint on I-1000? Or is this initiative so straightforward and obvious that it’s only the fringe lunatics who are opposing it?
And this morning in the PI, Joel Connely slanders Booth Gardner by innuendo in the Blog, Strange Bedfellows.
Would it be too much to ask for this cunt to just go ahead and take the cocktail herself and rid the world of her and her stupidity? What a load of horseshit! Even that old bitch Nancy Ray Gun thinks this is a good idea!
A good post that addresses the fears of some that this initiative will make parricide easier.
Growing up, grandma always asked that we not extend her life if she ended up a vegetable for any reason. Unfortunately, her own body betrayed her: multiple strokes stripped her memory from her, reducing her day by day to the vegetable state she feared. Finally reduced to life on a feeding tube, we honored her last wish and removed the feeding tube. And then we waited two weeks in our own agony, watching her body consume itself in a misguided attempt to continue life. It was hardest for mom, who cried endlessly about starving her own mother to death, but she had promised she would do this.
I desperately hope that grandma was gone in the end and didn’t feel what we had to put her through. Certainly, it would have been easier for her and for the rest of the family had she been able to make the choice for herself.
Lee
Your arguments come close to psychotic in the suspension of reality.
1. Once again, you diss an opponent because she is a catholic who holds catholic views.
Fine, you are disgruntled pothead. And the point of this sort of personal attacks is?
2. You misuse the word “logic” as a synonym for any proposition YOU make. I-1000 does, of necessity, open door to abuses … including some Dorn has NOT pointed out. There is nothing illogical about your opponent seeing these potential abuses as an argument against the initiative.
3. And, of course, when asked to provide evidence for what you call logic you miscite the literature.
*******************************************
This kind of behavior, on the right or the left, is what makes many of us disgusted with the political process. Your style is no different from the worst from Dori Monson .. are you his undeclared brother?
**************************************
To others in the thread.
I-1000 is a part of doctrinaire party credo. “We” can do better than this.
As a start, here are five liberal arguments against I 1000:
a.the act would create conflicts of interests because the providers of this cocktail might use it to save money. Do we WANT Primera to have the legal authority to offer death rather than pay the ocsts of terminal care?
b, as written, the act may limit current rights of doctors to work on this issue with patients. For example, physicians now may provide relief from pain even at the cost of shortening of life.
c. the act violates the Hippocratic oath,
d. the act may increase health care costs by creating another bureaucracy.
e. the promotion of the act by Gov. Gardner gives the false impression that it would address needs of the chronically ill. This does nothing to resolve his issues nor does it resolve the serious issues of our system of providing terminal care to even middle class people.
FWIW,
As a liberal, I think I-1000 is flawed legislation. We can do a lot better.
@3 Great example of the real issue. Unfortunately I-1000 does not help this case unless your Grandma was fully conscious at the time.
In fact it might complicate the matter by requiring the concurring physician anjd psychologist.
If I-1000 is flawed, fix it and get it enacted.
@4
Once again, you diss an opponent because she is a catholic who holds catholic views.
No, I’m dissing someone because they’re trying to impose their Catholic views on non-Catholics.
I-1000 does, of necessity, open door to abuses … including some Dorn has NOT pointed out.
Name one.
And, of course, when asked to provide evidence for what you call logic you miscite the literature.
Provide a link to an example of this.
the act would create conflicts of interests because the providers of this cocktail might use it to save money. Do we WANT Primera to have the legal authority to offer death rather than pay the ocsts of terminal care?
Premera does not profit from use of the cocktail, nor does this law give Premera any more ability to deny people life-saving care.
as written, the act may limit current rights of doctors to work on this issue with patients. For example, physicians now may provide relief from pain even at the cost of shortening of life.
The link to the text of this initiative is above. Please cite the part of the initiative that does this.
the act violates the Hippocratic oath,
That’s an opinion you have that’s not shared by the majority of AMA doctors.
the act may increase health care costs by creating another bureaucracy.
Did that happen in Oregon?
the promotion of the act by Gov. Gardner gives the false impression that it would address needs of the chronically ill.
Incorrect. The act addresses the needs of the terminally ill, not the chronically ill. Again, the link to the initiative is above. Please read it so that you can join the discussion as an informed individual.
This does nothing to resolve his issues nor does it resolve the serious issues of our system of providing terminal care to even middle class people.
You clearly do not understand the initiative, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly for several weeks. I-1000 is not meant to improve palliative care. That’s a separate issue. Expecting this initiative to fix those problems is folly.
How pathetic the left has become when someone who advocates life is labled ‘extreme’.
Fool.
@5- she wasn’t conscious that I’m aware of at the end, though her decline from multiple strokes took nearly a year before she got to that point.
@8- Choosing to live is not extreme. Removing someone else’s choice because you think you know better is extreme.
For the love of heaven, earth, the Great Spaghetti Monster and Jerry Mathers as the Beaver, aren’t there more important issues to be concerned with this election cycle?
Lee, your repeatedly bringing this up borders on obsession. Clearly, some of us aren’t going to agree with you, no matter how much you berate us. Deal with it.
Art,
There are a lot of important issues to care about this cycle, but I care about this one in particular because issues of personal liberty matter a lot to me.
I’ve had some good discussions with I-1000 opponents already. You and John Barelli are two examples. I know that many people are set and unwavering on this, but what I hope to do here at HA is to counter the misinformation and poorly reasoned arguments that show up in major media outlets.
Sorry, Lee, but I gotta post the link to this video. I’ve got to do it because it is relevant (in a way), and, well, I can’t help myself.
Loved One Die Recently? Cash In!
@12
LOL! Give me my teeth back!!
Thanks for posting that. :)
@10 Art
The problem here is that lee is obsessed. I do not plan to answer his questions above becuase the answers have been given many times. All that happens when Lee does get answer is that he responds with derogatory remarks.
This is very sad because the main reason for replacing the Repricans is that there party is in the hands of a fring that is irrational. The dem. party right now is proudly free of Lou Guzzoes, Michael medveds, Rabbi Lapins, Rush and Sean ….. We have enough important stuff where science IS on our side without resorting to their faith based politics.
FWIW, I do think this intiative is flawed in serious ways, but I also think we should put a lot of attention into termnal care. It is common today, for example, to put the terminally “out” on the street or send them to poorly prepared homes once they no longer have “reimburseable” needs. In fact, one reason I oppose I-1000 is because it offers an all to easy alternative to the old lady who is afraid of being sent home to die as a burden on her children.
************************
As a matter of objective fact, Lee’s claim that “That (violation of the Hippocratic Oath) (i)s an opinion you have that’s not shared by the majority of AMA doctors.” is not supported by the one reference Lee asked me to read. If he wants other to read it, he can go find it again. I get very tired of Lee insisting he has read a literature and then mis-citing it. For the record, waht the aricle did show is than among non delegates a sizeable minority thinks that assited suicide is a good idea. That did surprise me but it is not at all waht Lee claimed.
Nuff ..
back to work!
@14
The problem here is that lee is obsessed. I do not plan to answer his questions above becuase the answers have been given many times. All that happens when Lee does get answer is that he responds with derogatory remarks.
Excuse me? I believe there’s quite a bit of content in my response to you above. It’s true that I’m completely fed up with how you’ve repeatedly distorted my views and claimed that I’m saying things that I’m not saying, but I tried very hard in comment #7 to make my points clear and concise.
This is very sad because the main reason for replacing the Repricans is that there party is in the hands of a fring that is irrational. The dem. party right now is proudly free of Lou Guzzoes, Michael medveds, Rabbi Lapins, Rush and Sean ….. We have enough important stuff where science IS on our side without resorting to their faith based politics.
In addition to all the claims from comment #4 that you’re refusing to back up now, why don’t you add to that list any examples of when I’ve misrepresented science in this debate?
FWIW, I do think this intiative is flawed in serious ways, but I also think we should put a lot of attention into termnal care.
Are you going to give an example of why this initiative is flawed, or are you just going to keep repeating the same assertions that have easily been shot down already?
You and I agree that attention needs to be paid to terminal care, but this initiative is not meant to address those problems any more than it is to address energy independence.
It is common today, for example, to put the terminally “out” on the street or send them to poorly prepared homes once they no longer have “reimburseable” needs.
Agreed.
In fact, one reason I oppose I-1000 is because it offers an all to easy alternative to the old lady who is afraid of being sent home to die as a burden on her children.
How? A person can commit suicide today without I-1000. I-1000 does not encourage suicide in any way. It simply provides an alternate method of ending one’s life that is more dignified than the existing methods of suicide. It is also restricted for a narrow set of conditions. The experience with a nearly identical law in Oregon has not led to any noticeable increases in the overall amount of elderly people taking their own lives.
Is pointing this out to you somehow rude? Am I being mean by presenting you with facts and logic? Is it irrational to simply look at what’s happening in Oregon as a barometer for what will happen here?
As a matter of objective fact, Lee’s claim that “That (violation of the Hippocratic Oath) (i)s an opinion you have that’s not shared by the majority of AMA doctors.” is not supported by the one reference Lee asked me to read.
Well, this is obviously a matter of dispute between the folks I know who work on the initiative and you. Guess who I have more faith in to be able to understand the data and what it’s saying?
I get very tired of Lee insisting he has read a literature and then mis-citing it.
That’s precious.
For the record, waht the aricle did show is than among non delegates a sizeable minority thinks that assited suicide is a good idea. That did surprise me but it is not at all waht Lee claimed.
Good, and maybe you should harness that surprise and allow yourself to re-evaluate the entire premise of your opposition to this initiative. Doctors who have ethical problems with writing the I-1000 prescription will not be forced to do so. Legislating your interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath is not how it’s supposed to work.
Are you going to address any of the questions I’ve asked in this thread? Are you going to cite any information that backs up the claims you’ve made in this comment and #4? Or are you going to continue to complain about how I’m just a big, bad meanie and make lame attempts to compare me to Rush Limbaugh?
Pathetic.
Lee,
All of these have been replied to many times before.
I do remember suggesting that you stop using sexual and ethnic slurs in your arguments. I am glad that you have done so (unlike Limbaugh).
I do not remember complaining that you are a big bad meanie, but I do think your way of responding to an argument is reminiscent of Limbaugh. Of course be called “stupid” by ones opponent would inspire me to assume you are brilliant if I did not already have respect for much that you say.
Unlike the self serving conservative radio comedians, you support causes you really believe in, I believe Limbaugh can be paid to take any stand that will .. well pay off for themselves.
By and large that is all I want to say because most of this is really old bones.
To pick up on one of your comments that has not been chewed to death already, the comment about the old lady being forced to consider suicide vs. her other options. Here are two actual examples.
So ,,, if we can keep this off of ad hominem discussions, try this issue:
Imagine an elderly person, similar to my Dad, but with a few less financial resources. Imagine this person lives in Oregon. Now tell me this person would NOT be heavily influenced by the financial burden on his family.
Back at I-1000, I agree with yo that it is well intended. However, I have now given you a series of arguments about why it is badly conceived and addresses an issue that is simply too rare to be worth the risks it presents.
Here is another (polite) way we could debate. Let me list the benefits, faults, and risks I see in I 1000. Where you can do better than insisting I am an asshole or stupid or somesuch please present evidence that refutes my arguments:
The benefits:
People should have as much freedom as possible to control their own deaths.
On this we agree,
evidence of need:
I understand about 50 Oregonians a year choose this option. Of course, we do not know how many of these people would have gotten help quietly in any case. The demand may be small because specific groups mentioned, those with terminal illness of short duration, are already served by existing, more discretionary mechanisms.
I suspect that number is very small because There is no evidence of a demand for this right from the medical community. Though I agree many would participate, docs would be out there supporting I-1000 if they perceived a strong demand.
Once again here are the risks:
1. I-1000 produces a major change in the definition of what a physician is supposed to do. In doing this it violates the Hippocratic oath,
2. I-1000 provides an incentive to healthcare providers to offer suicide as opposed to expensive terminal care.
3. I-1000 provides an escape hatch society may use to avoid its terminal care responsibilities.
4. I-1000 violates the moral principles of a substantial portion of the American population … Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Evangelicals.
5. I-1000 may inadvertently limit physician-patient choices by creating a formal structure to oversee what is now usually done between patients, family and physician.
@4 “the act violates the Hippocratic oath”
I pointed out before, and linked to my source, that it appears the Hippocratic oath has changed significantly over the millinia. The interpretation of the relevant portion seems to be heatedly debated today. I don’t see it as being so black and white anymore – violate or not violate. You didn’t comment at the time. Would you care to now?
@16
My response to your situations:
Dad #1
One is of a colleague’s Dad. He had a terminal illness that did not have nice six month limit but went on for few years of decline, nursing home care, etc.
This went on while the social workers drained his resources to pay for as much as possible. Finally, penniless and with family that was dispersed so not able to care for him, he was threatened with being put on the street, that is sent home to care for himself. Fortunately he died before this unimaginable event happened.
How does this relate to I-1000 in any way? What I’m asking for is a situation where I-1000 makes it more likely for a person to commit suicide. This situation does not belong in that category, because, as you say, he was never considered within the last six months of his life. His situation is sad, but has absolutely nothing to do with what this argument is about.
Dad #2
Although my Dad’s finances were much better, he too was put in circumstances that were out of Kafka. Again, he was to be sent home to live and be cared for by his wife, my stepmother, who herself is in parlous health. This was not simply an issue of finances, it was an issue of a system that left him no rational way out of being sent to an institution where he would be treated coldly during a death that could linger for months or years. Fortunately, if sadly for all of us, his conditioned failed to improve enough to move him from the ICU and we switched the mode of care to palliative (what you call a wink).
The point is that if he did not finally die, his choices and our choices would have been all bad. None of us live in Boston anymore and his health was too bad to be moved from Boston. Perhaps, for enough money, we could have bought 24/7 nursing care and companionship. If you look into the cost of that you will see one needs to have a LOT of money to be able to do that for very long. The alternative, one I know many families have taken on, is for some memebr of the family to give up work and carear to care for their parent.
Again, what is the connection to I-1000? How is this situation changed in any way by having a law constructed as I-1000 is set up? It appears that you made an attempt to address that, so I’ll break it down below.
Imagine an elderly person, similar to my Dad, but with a few less financial resources. Imagine this person lives in Oregon. Now tell me this person would NOT be heavily influenced by the financial burden on his family.
Of course he’d be influenced by the financial burden on his family. But he doesn’t need I-1000 to commit suicide. A person in that situation who wants to commit suicide is just as likely to commit suicide regardless of whether they’re in Oregon or not. The only difference is whether or not they’ll have a particular option that allows for a more dignified death if they happen to live in Oregon. Sometimes, a financial reason may influence a decision like this, but under I-1000, it can only be used by a willing and mentally sound person who is terminally ill and believed by a doctor to have less than six months to live. That’s very restrictive.
Back at I-1000, I agree with yo that it is well intended. However, I have now given you a series of arguments about why it is badly conceived and addresses an issue that is simply too rare to be worth the risks it presents.
But it doesn’t present any risks. What risks are you talking about? The scenario above does not constitute a risk because there’s no evidence anywhere that says that the person is more likely to commit suicide in the situation you describe with I-1000.
I understand about 50 Oregonians a year choose this option. Of course, we do not know how many of these people would have gotten help quietly in any case.
That’s irrelevant. They chose this method precisely because they didn’t want to “get help quietly”. They wanted to have death with dignity.
The demand may be small because specific groups mentioned, those with terminal illness of short duration, are already served by existing, more discretionary mechanisms.
At least you’re starting to back away from your previous statements that demand does not exist. The demand isn’t huge, but for the people who desire it, it’s very personal and very important to them. The government should not have the right to deny them of that right.
Once again here are the risks:
1. I-1000 produces a major change in the definition of what a physician is supposed to do. In doing this it violates the Hippocratic oath,
I strongly disagree, and so do many doctors. No doctor is being forced to recommend suicide or even suggest it. They’re just simply being asked to medically certify that the conditions for making the choice are being met.
2. I-1000 provides an incentive to healthcare providers to offer suicide as opposed to expensive terminal care.
No it doesn’t. Medical providers already deny people terminal care and force them into this option. I-1000 does not, in any way, make this more common.
3. I-1000 provides an escape hatch society may use to avoid its terminal care responsibilities.
Absolutely not. This is a serious red herring. I-1000 is not assisted suicide or euthanasia. The requirement that the person himself/herself must request it more than once is a firewall against all of that.
4. I-1000 violates the moral principles of a substantial portion of the American population … Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Evangelicals.
Then those people shouldn’t use the option. People of certain religions should not be able to use government to impose their moral principles on people who follow a different faith. This is fundamental to how this country was set up.
5. I-1000 may inadvertently limit physician-patient choices by creating a formal structure to oversee what is now usually done between patients, family and physician.
Why? How? I-1000 does not go out of its way to criminalize anything that’s currently being done today. If physicians and patients currently encounter situations where the patients are given palliative care and the known overdose limits are given with a “wink” (as you’ve described), and this does not cause legal problems today, there’s no reason to believe that they’ll cause legal problems under I-1000. What part of the language of the bill would open the door to that?
You’re more than welcome to keep believing that these risks are real. I’ll never be able to stop you. But they’re not (and one can easily look to Oregon to see if any of these risks are happening). And for the sake of setting the record straight, I will continue to explain this every time you try to reiterate them. I don’t do it to be an asshole. I do it because I care about the truth on this issue.
Lee,
And for the sake of setting the record straight, I will continue to explain this every time you try to reiterate them. I don’t do it to be an asshole. I do it because I care about the truth on this issue.
I do not think you do this to be an asshole nor have I called you anything of the sort. OTOH, you seem not to be able to distinguish between truth and your own opinions. Because you want something to be true us not a great argument that it is true. Looking through the arguments above, your only answer is to say that you do not believe it or make up non existent data, as in your statement that “many doctors” do not agree that I-1000 violates the oath. First, the citation you provided does not discuss that issue (or the specifics of the Oregon law). Second my point was not about what “many doctors” think but about the actual text of the oath.
Saying I am wrong, is pretty meaningless. If you think I am wrong, reread the text.
As to the examples I gave, your own response illustrates why I-1000 s a bad idea: Of course he’d be influenced (to suicide) by the financial burden on his family. But he doesn’t need I-1000 to commit suicide. A person in that situation who wants to commit suicide is just as likely to commit suicide regardless of whether they’re in Oregon or not. The only difference is whether or not they’ll have a particular option that allows for a more dignified death if they happen to live in Oregon. Sometimes, a financial reason may influence a decision like this, but under I-1000, it can only be used by a willing and mentally sound person who is terminally ill and believed by a doctor to have less than six months to live. That’s very restrictive.
Either I-1000 does not work at all or it offers a poor person faced with burdening her family the opportunity to make a rational
decision to commit suicide and be have that facilitated by her doctor. There is nothing in the legislation that says financial issues are not goo0d reasons for suicide.
People of certain religions should not be able to use government to impose their moral principles on people who follow a different faith. This is fundamental to how this country was set up.
The US Constitution guarantees free speech, including speech by religious people .. including such religious folks as Jefferson (Deism is a religion)and even GWB! As for the the rule of the majority on moral issues, that is implicit in our system of government. The only exceptions allowed are for those whose religions would make it impossible for them to follow the law. BTW .. when did you last try to buy a bottle of Jamiesons’s at a private liquor store,marry 4 women, or commit sodomy in a public place? Where do you think these laws come from? Rousseau? Hobbs? JS Mill?
2. I-1000 provides an incentive to healthcare providers to offer suicide as opposed to expensive terminal care.
Another common tactic (one well described by Dt. Goebells) is to make abald statemtn that has no evidence. As in: Medical providers already deny people terminal care and force them into this option. I-1000 does not, in any way, make this more common. Hunhh??? what medical care providers in WASTATE force their clients to commit suicide? or even offer suicide as an option that will relieve financial burdens on their families???
or in“(the proportion of the already small number of Oregonians)choosing suicide who could not get help under current law … is irrelevant. They chose this method precisely because they didn’t want to “get help quietly”. They wanted to have death with dignity.”
or in,
You have no evidence that there are even 50 people per year who are forced into an undignified death,
If physicians and patients currently encounter situations where the patients are given palliative care and the known overdose limits are given with a “wink” (as you’ve described), and this does not cause legal problems today, there’s no reason to believe that they’ll cause legal problems under I-1000. What part of the language of the bill would open the door to that?
The language that defines the rules of how a physician may offer the cocktail
@19
I do not think you do this to be an asshole nor have I called you anything of the sort. OTOH, you seem not to be able to distinguish between truth and your own opinions.
I’ve given you some truth and I’ve given you some opinion (in the form of well-reasoned logic). You, on the other hand, have only given me opinion, and poorly-reasoned opinion at that.
Because you want something to be true us not a great argument that it is true. Looking through the arguments above, your only answer is to say that you do not believe it or make up non existent data, as in your statement that “many doctors” do not agree that I-1000 violates the oath.
Throw your silly accusations at me all you want, but at least I’m not arguing with myself. Here’s what you wrote above:
A sizeable minority is certainly “many doctors”. In other words, many doctors disagree with you that assisted-suicide violates the Hippocratic Oath. But again, I-1000 isn’t assisted suicide, so you could assume that the number of doctors who believe it doesn’t violate the Hippocratic Oath is even higher.
First, the citation you provided does not discuss that issue (or the specifics of the Oregon law). Second my point was not about what “many doctors” think but about the actual text of the oath.
What part of the actual text of the oath is violated by I-1000? It’s certainly not “do no harm” as I-1000 is a decision being freely made by an individual.
Saying I am wrong, is pretty meaningless. If you think I am wrong, reread the text.
No, if you say that the Hippocratic Oath is violated by I-1000, you have to point out the specific part that’s violated, and explain why it’s violated.
Either I-1000 does not work at all or it offers a poor person faced with burdening her family the opportunity to make a rational
decision to commit suicide and be have that facilitated by her doctor.
How is it facilitated by her doctor? Anyone can pick up a gun and shoot themselves, or start the car in the garage and wait. You continue to be confused as to what this initiative will do. It does not provide an avenue for suicide where one did not exist before. It provides a more dignified avenue for suicide when it’s determined that the desire for ending one’s life is unimpeachably rational.
There is nothing in the legislation that says financial issues are not goo0d reasons for suicide.
And there’s nothing in the initiative that makes a person more likely to commit suicide for financial reasons. I’m not sure how I can possibly explain this any better. Most other people understand this pretty easily. What part of this are you having trouble understanding?
.The US Constitution guarantees free speech, including speech by religious people .. including such religious folks as Jefferson (Deism is a religion)and even GWB! As for the the rule of the majority on moral issues, that is implicit in our system of government.
Not always. For instance, discrimination is not subject to majority rule – and it never should have been. That’s why the federal laws were made to supercede state laws in the 1960s. Despite the wisdom of our founding fathers, it’s taken us over 200 years, and we’re still not getting this right. Matters of individual liberty should not be left up to majority rule, they should be above that. Masters of how our economic and political systems should function should be up to majority rule and can change shape and form over time.
The only exceptions allowed are for those whose religions would make it impossible for them to follow the law. BTW .. when did you last try to buy a bottle of Jamiesons’s at a private liquor store,marry 4 women, or commit sodomy in a public place?
I’m glad you brought up the Jamieson example because it gives me a good way to explain this (you were having trouble understanding this in an earlier thread when I was talking about prohibition and you kept bringing up Utah).
Telling a person that they cannot drink Jamieson’s is a restriction on individual freedom. In other words, it was a violation of the Constitution in order to make it illegal (hence the need for the 18th Amendment). For whatever reason, our understanding of the Constitution has withered away from that, which is why the drug war (which makes the same leap) has not required a Constitutional amendment. Our respect for what the Constitution means when it comes to individual liberty has taken a step back in that regard.
But as for whether it’s sold publicly or privately, that’s a matter of the economic system, and therefore, majority can rule. And if the majority feels that the state should control the sale, the state should control the sale. But it’s not a violation of individual liberty unless the actual purchase of the whiskey is made illegal.
Got it?
Hunhh??? what medical care providers in WASTATE force their clients to commit suicide?
The same ones that do in Oregon. Again, this goes back to your fundamental misunderstanding of both human nature and basic logic. You keep convincing yourself that without I-1000, people who want to kill themselves are going to be sitting around going, “boy if I only had I-1000, I could kill myself”. Do you really believe that?
Health providers fail to provide people treatment they need to survive all the time. Think about the Timothy Garon case. He was denied medical treatment (a liver transplant) that was basically a death sentence. Did that require something like I-1000 to be there as an alternative?
or even offer suicide as an option that will relieve financial burdens on their families???
They already push people down that road. If they then offer to cover I-1000, that’s still not great, but it’s better than what we have now, where the health provider just encourages the person to suck on a tailpipe.
You have no evidence that there are even 50 people per year who are forced into an undignified death
If 50 people per year are taking advantage of the law in Oregon, then what basis do you have for saying that similar demand wouldn’t exist in Washington?
The language that defines the rules of how a physician may offer the cocktail
How would that affect it in any way? It only talks about how the doctor may offer the cocktail. It doesn’t address at all what they can do otherwise. Why wouldn’t they still be able to do what they’d been doing?
The fact the Margaret Dore opposes I-1000 is all the more reason to vote for it. She is an idiot with a huge ego and personality disorder. Unfortunately, she represents people who don’t know any better and are impressed by her overinflated bio on her webpage.