The NY Times reported on Saturday about the first Washington State patient to die under the death with dignity law. I’m going to ignore the headline that erroneously calls it “assisted suicide” and focus instead on this paragraph:
In November, voters approved the Death with Dignity Act, 58 percent to 42 percent, making Washington the second state — after Oregon — to allow assisted suicide. The laws in both states have been deeply controversial, particularly among religious groups. Washington passed its law after the United States Supreme Court in 2006 rejected an effort by the Justice Department to block Oregon’s law, which took effect in 1998.
It passed with 58% of the vote. You’d be hard pressed to get 58% on a vote to declare puppies adorable. Yes, the initiative had it’s critics, and I have no problem with the Times getting their point of view. But to characterize something that passed with a significant majority of the vote “deeply controversial” implies that the opposition was more widespread than it actually was.
Or perhaps it means the resistance is more entrenched. Two-thirds of the people in this country want abortion rights, but we argue about them every fucking day — that’s controversial, nu?
Carl ..
The law remains controversial for physicians. As in Oregon, very few physicians are willing to participate because the law violates fundamental ethical principles.
I don’t see what the big deal is. Guns are so ubiquitous in this country that anyone who wants to leave this world can readily do so. If you need assistance with pulling the trigger, simply go to 3rd and Pike after midnight, and someone will send you on your way.
Roger
Thdere are several ethical and legal problmes in the way I-1000 is written:
1. It requires a doctor to prescribe drugs that can have untoward circumstances .. that is if not used properly, a paerson could live with serious new damage.
2. The law requires doctors to assert that th4e patient is NOT depressed. AND, since the majority of physicians will not do this, the law encourages physicians who do not know the patient to make this very difficult diagnosis.
3. The law requires oversight by a second physician, so me thing that is NOT required if the physician simply administers morphine to a patient in distress.
4. The law regulates trhe diagnosis of cause of death.
5. The law does not protect poor patients from being forced into this choice to save money.
**********
The saddest part of all this is that patients who could really is “DwD” .. people in terminal, untreatable suffering can not get the help they need.
@3 Rodent:
Anytime you need help with that let me know. I’d be happy to help you off.
All in all, I’d say the Death With Dignity Law is a good one. In this first example, it looks as if it worked as it was intended to work. From what I understand about the situation, this poor lady was in some pretty bad pain with her pancreatic cancer.
I’m not sure if it implies that the opposition was more widespread. I think it speaks more to passions. I think something can be deeply controversial and still be lop-sided in terms of those who support vs those who oppose.
Wow. I’m impressed with my last comment. Thoughtful. Well-reasoned. Civil.
Did anyone else notice that?
@8: ‘Twas.
@7 hit it right on the button.
Seems to be the new word of the year for “journalists”.
Controversy – A discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute (merriam-webster.com)
Pretty much covers most anything that people have to vote on.
@5 I’m already armed, thank you very much — all liberals should arm — but bring a gun anyway so I can claim self-defense.*
* Just kidding! Ann Coulter death camp joke.
@10 I don’t think this statement is controversial:
REPUBLICANS SUCK
It appears most people agree on that one.
@4 SJ, all I’ve ever said about I-1000 is that people have always had the ability to terminate themselves, law or no law.
@13 RR
Yes, but Roger, you have a major disability ,,, you are usually rational.
The problem with the crew promoting I-1000 is that they are more interested in the crusade than in the underlying issues or the untoward side effects of their noble deeds.
I have three real concerns with this law:
1. It can lead to suicide as an economic decision. Reports abut the women with pancreatic Ca said she was already impoverished bit the spokesperson for the DwD folks said that should not be an issue. They are very wrong about this. This decisionb should always be made independently of ones ability to pay for a comfortable death.
2. I AM CONCERNED THAT THE LAW MAY CHALLENGE CURRENT LAW. Case law NOW, across the US, permits physicians to assist in suicide and even kill a patient (or let them kill themsleves) using morphine as long as the goal is to relive pain and suffering. The wording of this law could lead to challenges to the current practice.
I am not sure what “new” freedom was exercised here other than the public nature of what ahs always been a private decision before.
3. If, asin Oregon, most docs are not willing to go along with this, the result is likely to be a sort of referral clinic where physicians specialize in this prescription. The ethical implications of this are scary to me.
Hmmm…One of the little stumbling blocks here is that it’s hard to imagine how someone who knows they’re terminally ill could not be depressed.
It impressed me that this individual, at least as the media protrayed her, was pretty lucid and extraordinarily clear about her motives for wanting to “go out” in a way of her own choosing. Apparently she’d made her peace with the inevitable. On the other hand, it seemed to be all about her. She wanted to die in a manner of her own choosing, to avoid extreme pain, and to be conscious and clear-headed until very near the end.
If I was in such a situation, I’d like to think I’d be more concerned with those I love, and might if anything want to make “clean and speedy exit” to spare them the burden watching my undergo a long and grotesque death. In all the debate over this law, aside from Geov I haven’t seen many folks offer comments about this aspect.
@ 15. ArtFart
Well said! Granted, medical folks like SJ need to keep padding their paychecks, but why should people need to go through the pain & horrors just to make somebody they don’t EVEN know feel better?
My cousin died of Pancreatic cancer also a couple of years ago. One round of chemo and she said “No More”. Her parents and siblings agreed that it was HER decision. So, it took months for her to waste away but the end results were the same.
SJ, your lab rats are probably squealing for their dinners by now, don’t you think?
As for Frick n Frack, under existing law your cousin was free to choose pain relief vs. chemo. That is legal even though the result is death.
I think I-1000 is an example of the misuse of law by ideologues who care mor4e3 about their cause than about the people affected. The same shit hapens on the left and the right.
Look at it this way, does anyone believe that Teddy Kennedy is getting the same care he would get if he were poor? Will Obamacare assure fair and equal access to good ways of die?
@14 and 17 – SJ.
I have personally known the people who have been leading the cause for death with dignity in Washington state for the past couple decades. Contrary to SJ’s characterization, these are health care professionals (many associated with the hospice movement) whose ONLY concerns are the rights and well-being of the dying individual. They are highly compassionate, hard-working and selfless people. For SJ to suggest otherwise simply tells me he is making this stuff up for purposes of his own agenda on the issue.
Hey right wing ass-lickers – you are free to die in pain and agony – in fact I really hope you do. And if you DO take advantage of this law, then your final act will mirror the rest of your worthless lives – you’ll prove yourself to once and for all be a hypocrite. My only regret is that you fucks don’t just up and die now – today. Everyone’s going to die sometime. Why put it off?
@18
I am certain that the DwD advocates believe in their cause. Good people can beloeve in bad laws.
My concern is whether the advocates will turn their fervor to making the law work better here than it does in Oregon. So far, all I have read about, is an effort to assist patients who want this option .. sort of a marketing effort? I am unaware of efforts to assist the docs and hospitals with addressing the practical issues the law has raised.
This remonds me of the effort several years ago to stop the practice of forced committment of psychotics. The issues were real ,,, as a medical student I met more than one patient who was incarcerated with some diagniosis that she would never have been subject to if she could have afforded a shrink and a lawyer of her own.
So, we solved it. We changed the law, and now we qave lots of very sick people who roam the streets.
A few pretty wonderful people have persisted and still persist trying to find ways of funding mental health w/o the old state hospitals.
Another example was the desegregation of the Boston Public Schools. Another victory for the idealogues. Boston took the poorest kids, Irish and Black, stuck em both in shitty schools and let them fight it out. In the meantime, the liberal voters, THEIR schools were not integrated.
And the folks who led the noble cause? They tsk tsked the racism. Whe we lived in the black part of Boston our liberal colleagues shunned us ..THEY weren’t going TYHERE ..much less end THEIR kids to THOSE schools!
The Seattle School system has a very similar history.
Back at DwD, you say you are a supporter? What do you think needs to be done to make the law work?
SeattleJew, looks like Ms Fricknfrack don’t like you either. Pet those lab rats tomorrow for Puddy.
Actually I am allergic to rats!
BTW .. are yu a member of the NAACP*?
Puffybutt is a member of the NAAOP – National Assn for the advancement of OREO people!