I want to follow up on Goldy’s post from yesterday on the strong push by Catholic Church dioceses and archdioceses to fund the opposition to the Death with Dignity Initiative, I-1000.
In the comments, and on Catholic web sites, there continue to be accusations that the I-1000 movement is displaying anti-Catholic bigotry. Let’s be very clear about this. Pointing out that the Catholic Church has had an alarming problem with not only allowing pedophiles to hold positions of power within their organization, but also actively trying to shield them from the law, is not anti-Catholic bigotry. It’s the truth. I don’t think that individual Catholics should be held responsible for these actions, but the organization as a whole still carries the weight of this tragedy.
The Catholic Church is allowed to lobby and donate money to certain causes. But that does not mean that what they’re doing is reasonable or fair. And when people are wary of what this organization is pushing for, this is not automatically evidence of bigotry. The Catholic Church can impose any sort of rules they want upon their own membership. But in a nation that truly has freedom of religion, they should not be able to impose rules that extend beyond their membership, as they have tried to do in the past by trying to restrict the sales of birth control or to ban abortion.
As has been pointed out here, the current way that end-of-life treatment takes place has not kept up with the realities of a plural, modern society. Doctors are put in uncomfortable situations in dealing with terminally ill patients who desire a dignified and less painful way to exit this world. The correct solution is to ensure that people have the legal right to make their own choices and for a doctor to be legally allowed to respect that choice and evaluate whether it’s being made freely. The safeguards in this bill ensure that the old, the depressed, and the disabled won’t be coerced into ending their lives prematurely. The bill has worked exactly as expected in Oregon for 10 years.
Why does the Catholic Church oppose it? That’s not for me to be concerned with. I’m not a Catholic, and while I respect their right to practice their religion, it’s not for me. Many Catholics in this world are inspirational people who do far more to benefit humanity than the average person. And if deciding that it’s a sin to take your own life along the parameters of I-1000 makes someone a better person, more power to them. But for the Catholic Church, as an organization, to expect that this paradigm be enforced on everyone crosses a line that should not be crossed. Supporters of I-1000 aren’t attacking the Catholic Church, we’re defending ourselves from it.
UPDATE: There’s quite a bit of carnage in the comments below already, and it highlights a very important point here. If you accuse someone of bigotry, as many people have been overly inclined to do on this issue, it helps to have proof. For instance, in the past I’ve accused SeattleJew of bigotry, but instead of just lobbing baseless accusations, I’ve linked to the proof. I hope that makes it clear.
Does the “weight of this tragedy” preclude the Holy C from political financial contributions? That seems to be your inference. I think that bringing this up in the context of the campaign for and against I-1000 is anti-Catholic bigotry. Your position seems to be that since the church allowed “this” (pedophilia) to happen, they should have no voice. Ridiculous!
I’m not sure if you are talking out of both sides of your mouth or you have no clue what the catholic church stands for or represents.
First, the church is not a bunch of old people sitting somewhere making the rules, it’s the people. So if you claim the church has a problem with pedophiles etc and continue to point this out as your major issue to disallow “the church” to have any say, you are basically claiming that every catholic is guilty by association.
We, the people (the church) have every right to express our support against I-1000 or for I-1000. The “church” is lobbying against this initiative and is in their right to do so, not just from the moral standpoint. This is the same as you pushing for legalizing of pot, gay marriage, Sound Transit tax increases, etc. The church doesn’t come after you (why are you so paranoid). Should I-1000 be approved it would become law in the state…but the church wouldn’t be in a position to either overturn it or change it, other than by legal means.
Unless of course you believe there are some sort of voodoo dolls passed out during mass to stick it to the Lee and make him squirm.
And yes, it is anti-catholic bigotry when you claim the church has no right based on their moral foundation and believes to oppose an initiatve just because some of the flock have been less than faithful or ideal.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of the people to associate. That is what the Catholic Church is, an association of Catholics. Saying a group of Catholics shouldn’t stand up for what they believe is like saying any other group shouldn’t stand up for what they believe. For instance, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
I think they are wrong on the issue, but I will defend their right, their privilege, and even their responsibility to promote their beliefs, as individuals or as an association of individuals.
@1
Does the “weight of this tragedy” preclude the Holy C from political financial contributions?
Nope.
That seems to be your inference.
Not at all. My point is that being wary about what they’re putting their money towards is not evidence of bigotry.
I think that bringing this up in the context of the campaign for and against I-1000 is anti-Catholic bigotry.
Absolutely not. If any other organization in the world was donating the majority of the money to a political cause, and that the organization had also been recently caught shielding pedophiles from the law, you better believe that people would be making an issue of it.
Your position seems to be that since the church allowed “this” (pedophilia) to happen, they should have no voice. Ridiculous!
Absolutely not. They have a voice. No one’s telling them they can’t donate the money, or speak out. But we also have the right to point out that this is an organization that very recently was involved in something quite heinous. That’s not bigotry.
@2
I’m not sure if you are talking out of both sides of your mouth or you have no clue what the catholic church stands for or represents.
I’m actually certain that you are misreading my post.
First, the church is not a bunch of old people sitting somewhere making the rules, it’s the people.
Who makes the decisions on how much money gets donated where? Do the members of the dioceses vote on that? (I truly don’t know the answer to this, you may have a good point here)
So if you claim the church has a problem with pedophiles etc and continue to point this out as your major issue to disallow “the church” to have any say, you are basically claiming that every catholic is guilty by association.
I’m absolutely not, in any way, saying that the church should be disallowed to have any say. I wrote:
We, the people (the church) have every right to express our support against I-1000 or for I-1000.
Absolutely. And I have every right to defend myself from the potential consequences.
The “church” is lobbying against this initiative and is in their right to do so, not just from the moral standpoint. This is the same as you pushing for legalizing of pot, gay marriage, Sound Transit tax increases, etc.
No doubt about it. Nothing in this post suggests otherwise.
Should I-1000 be approved it would become law in the state…but the church wouldn’t be in a position to either overturn it or change it, other than by legal means.
Of course. And since I want this passed, I want it very clearly understood that the Catholic Church is the only major entity opposing it.
And yes, it is anti-catholic bigotry when you claim the church has no right based on their moral foundation and believes to oppose an initiatve just because some of the flock have been less than faithful or ideal.
Well, I’m not claiming that, so it’s not anti-Catholic bigotry. I guess we’re on the same page.
@3
The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of the people to associate. That is what the Catholic Church is, an association of Catholics. Saying a group of Catholics shouldn’t stand up for what they believe is like saying any other group shouldn’t stand up for what they believe.
Who’s saying that Catholics can’t stand up for what they believe? What they can’t do is impose their beliefs on others who choose not to be affiliated with the church.
The issue with Lee’s charges is NOT with the freedom of the Church to speak it is with his unfair and absurd concatenation of issues.
I have even stronger issues with the Church then does Lee. As a Kid I was stoned by a catholic mob seeking revenge for the death of their God. Is that a basis for demeaning Catholic positions on liberation philosophy? Should I demean Barack Obama as well because one of his supporters is a fervent Roman Catholic?
Lee would do himself a lot of good by just apologizing.
@7
Lee would do himself a lot of good by just apologizing.
Excuse me? – glass houses and whatnot…
Lee:
Burdened as you are by anti-Catholic prejudice, you obviously do not see a big part of the picture.
The Catholic Church is the state’s largest provider of social services outside the federal government.
It does not simply serve the faithful — witness the non-Catholic kids enrolled in St. Therese School down the block from my Seattle home — but a wide range of the disadvantaged.
Included in that array of community services is a health system, including some of our largest hospitals. The nuns who for years have backstopped the local anti-war movement — the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace — run hospitals when not protesting wars.
As operators of health systems, Catholic dioceses have every interest and right to get involved in the I-1000 debate.
Once again, your post reeks of prejudice and anti-religious bigotry . . . of a sort that is somehow still acceptable in a movement that calls itself “progressive.”
@9
Burdened as you are by anti-Catholic prejudice, you obviously do not see a big part of the picture.
Excuse me, but how have I displayed anti-Catholic prejudice?
The Catholic Church is the state’s largest provider of social services outside the federal government.
Good for them. And I wrote:
What wasn’t clear about that?
It does not simply serve the faithful — witness the non-Catholic kids enrolled in St. Therese School down the block from my Seattle home — but a wide range of the disadvantaged.
Again, they have my respect.
Included in that array of community services is a health system, including some of our largest hospitals. The nuns who for years have backstopped the local anti-war movement — the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace — run hospitals when not protesting wars.
Again, kudos.
As operators of health systems, Catholic dioceses have every interest and right to get involved in the I-1000 debate.
They certainly do. And we have the right to point out how their support is an indication of a potential limitation on our freedom.
Once again, your post reeks of prejudice and anti-religious bigotry . . . of a sort that is somehow still acceptable in a movement that calls itself “progressive.”
Absolutely not. There’s nothing in the post above that can be considered prejudicial. At this point you are equating my willingness to point out that you cannot impose your churches rules on me with a form of bigotry. That’s intellectually lazy and morally reprehensible. You can fight to keep this law off the books all you want, but if you accuse me of bigotry for characterizing it (and the Catholic Church) accurately, you’re the one who’s crossing the line.
On the other issues Lee raises, I call for PROOF.
He claims that MDs are distressed by the current law. Really? Is this an initiative of the AMA or some other medical organization? Is there a single example of a physician who has been charged for assisting terminal patients with their anxiety or pain?
I would utterly support any individual’s rights to information, resources, guidance, whatever to take the decision to end life. Indeed, I have had relatives and friends who made that decision when all else failed and these were NOT Lee’s mythical population of patients with six month to live, in pain but \unable to get help.
My objections are really simple.
First, I do not believe we physicians should be in the business of deciding who dies or administering death as an end in and of itself. Part of the disgust we all feel with the Tuskegee episode or with the events in Russia and Germany, is their misuse of physicians. That should not happen here and any relaxation of the rules needs to be taken because of a real need!
It may help Lee if I give him an exmaple of how things work now. If I propose a study in humans I need not only to show that it will not harm them but that it will do some good. The rules are very strict, even with terminal patients, and would prohibit any study that was intended to shorten life. In other words, I do not believe we could get approval as MD scientists to validate the cocktail Lee is proposing we give.
My second reason is that I am a liberal and oppose adding layers of bureaucracy that add to our health costs without improving care. There is, to the best of my knowledge, NO evidence that this “service” is in high demand. While it has been used in Oregon, the demand there is low and the outcomes may be no higher than they owuld be under existing means. Why add costs and bureaucracy when there is no demonstrated need?
Lee Says: “Who’s saying that Catholics can’t stand up for what they believe? What they can’t do is impose their beliefs on others who choose not to be affiliated with the church.”
They lobby for or against an initiative, that is not imposing their beliefs on others. That would be the same as you imposing your hemp laws or gay marriage on others.
Where is the church “imposing” their beliefs on others ? Because they come out and are against I-1000 ? If this is imposing on others, than any initiative or law initated by a group or the work against it would be imposing.
It looks to me that you are thinking that anyone not agreeing with you (and potentially having some pull with the voters) is imposing their beliefs on you.
But instead of seeing that they just do what they feel is the right thing (as you would do for any of your issues), you resort to coloring them with the mistakes and (underhandedly) claim they have no moral right in the issue. That’s just wrong.
8. Lee .. my house is mostly wood. As for apologees .. lets see .. which poster on this blog is most prone to calling folks “retards” “douchebags” etc?
We are all able tyo make mistakes. You have made a humdinger of one in this case. All that an apology would do is increase others respect for you.
@10 Gee Lee ,,,
read what you wrote here! It reeks of “some of my best friends are catholics!”
This ought to be a debate about 1-1000, not about whether the Church has the right .. and I would claim the OBLIGATION .. to speak out on moral issues.
Lee:
Instead of blasting the Catholic Church, and campaigning to allow people to kill themselves, why don’t you deploy your talents to encouraging better hospice care?
Think of what the $120,000 donated by ex-Gov. Chauncey, oops Booth, Garder to the I-1000 campaign could do to ease the pains and pressures that go with dying.
Think of the issues that could be raised, e.g. why HMO’s in Oregon refuse to fund experimental treatment for seriously ill patients, while offering them money to off themselves.
Now, that fits into my definition of progressive and constructive.
Seattle Jew says:
“My second reason is that I am a liberal and oppose adding layers of bureaucracy that add to our health costs without improving care.”
100% agree. You know SJ, these self-labels of Liberal & Conservative too often get in the way of common sense. Thanks for once again knocking down the barrier.
This is why I believe a 3rd Party will eventually rise from the cesspool……
One that is based on smaller, less costly, less intrusive government.
One that eliminates ALL bureaucracies that cannot cost justify themselves.
Good for you SJ!
@9 Joel
I hope you are not feeding the fire by citing the good things the Church does. The church has taken many strong stands that have been important to our shared history … it is hard to think of LK without seeing the faces of becollared priests (and becurled rabbis) behind him. At a time when Christian churches were fairly described as the most segregated place in America, the RCC stuck to tis non racist principles.
Is there a better model for progressives than Cesar Chavez? I have a treasure .. a little note from him where he explains his choice to be a civil rights worker rather than a priest. Or would Lee demean Chavez because he considered being a priest.
This kind of crap is no better coming from Ann Coulter or from Lee. In my opinion, it reflects a lack of ability to argue ones’ point from a logical point of view.
So OK, I admit it .. my closest friedn tin the worl is a Roman Catholic! I was once given last rights by a Father Jo! … I treasure the memeory of John XXIII. Now I must be a really bad guy!
16 Mr. C
My hope is that Obamism is real and we will see a reform of the Ds.
In your comment Lee, you spew:
“Pointing out that the Catholic Church has had an alarming problem with not only allowing pedophiles to hold positions of power within their organization, but also actively trying to shield them from the law, is not anti-Catholic bigotry. It’s the truth.”
It’s also true that Eco-Terrorists are allowed into the Progressive Movement which you would squeal about. It’s also true Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards is a lying, cheating bastard who continues to lie.
So what.
I am not a Catholic. But I do believe the Catholic Church has a responsiblity to take a stand on moral issues. You seem to be strongly implying they have forfeited this right & responsibility because they actively allow and allegedly shield pediphiles in the Church.
Didn’t Democrats attempt to shield John Edwards?
So does this mean the Dems no longer have a right to take positions on issues.
Lee, you are soooooooo far off base on this.
Your WEASEL-WORDED diatribe has been disrobed.
The KLOWN (Lee) has no clothes!
SJ–
“My hope is that Obamism is real and we will see a reform of the Ds”
Based on what you’ve seen of Obama so-far, I do not see how you can possibly believe that. You can certainly “hope” it though.
Listen, Obama is a Chicago-style thug in an articulate, youthful package. Look at Obama’s long list of questionable affiliations (Wright, Flager, Ayers, Rezko etc…….)
I can only “hope” that you will keep your eyes wide open and judge Obama by his past actions (which includes nothing noteworthy…unless you count favors to his fellow Chicago thugs to build dispicable slums, get a sweetheart deal on property for his house from Rezko and see his wife get massive salary increases after he became a Senator).
I’m afraid the Liberal in you SJ is giving Obama waaaaaaaay too much benefit of the doubt and not allowing you any critical thinking because he is Black!
@12
They lobby for or against an initiative, that is not imposing their beliefs on others. That would be the same as you imposing your hemp laws or gay marriage on others.
No, the equivalent would be if I forced people to use hemp or forced people to be gay because my religion says so.
Where is the church “imposing” their beliefs on others ?
Because they believe in an absolute when it comes to the sanctity of life, that one cannot choose to end their own life prematurely, and that they want to ensure that this is codified into our laws.
If this is imposing on others, than any initiative or law initated by a group or the work against it would be imposing.
It depends on what it is. Many initiatives are about economic issues, which is a different realm. Imposing taxes on someone is not the same as imposing individual morality. That crosses a line that, to me, is very fundamental to the principles that this country was founded upon, and why our founding fathers were very clear about the importance of separating church and state.
It looks to me that you are thinking that anyone not agreeing with you (and potentially having some pull with the voters) is imposing their beliefs on you.
No. Someone who tries to impose their beliefs on me is someone who is imposing their beliefs on me. It’s that simple.
But instead of seeing that they just do what they feel is the right thing (as you would do for any of your issues), you resort to coloring them with the mistakes and (underhandedly) claim they have no moral right in the issue. That’s just wrong.
I don’t doubt at all that they do what they feel is the right thing, but history is littered with groups who felt they were doing the right thing but weren’t. In this particular case, the Catholic Church is wrong to the think they are doing the right thing. Just as they are wrong to try to outlaw abortion, and just as they are wrong to try to keep homosexuals from marrying each other, and just as they are wrong to push for abstinence education (which doesn’t work) in our schools.
@15
Instead of blasting the Catholic Church, and campaigning to allow people to kill themselves, why don’t you deploy your talents to encouraging better hospice care?
I actually have written in the past about the difficulties that doctors face when it comes to palliative care in relation to the drug war. But I could ask the same of you. Why are you spending so much time shilling for a movement that desires to rob people of their freedom when you could be using your platform to raise these issues?
Think of what the $120,000 donated by ex-Gov. Chauncey, oops Booth, Garder to the I-1000 campaign could do to ease the pains and pressures that go with dying.
Nothing, because most of the problems there are at the federal level and relate to archaic restrictions on opiates, whereas the Supreme Court has already ruled that Oregon’s law CAN’T be superseded by federal law. That’s why Gardner’s money was well placed.
Think of the issues that could be raised, e.g. why HMO’s in Oregon refuse to fund experimental treatment for seriously ill patients, while offering them money to off themselves.
Those are important issues, but they are irrelevant to the importance of passing I-1000. In fact, laws like I-1000 can be very helpful for preventing insurance companies from coercing people into suicide because they bring the process more out into the open. Only in Oregon is this issue being raised, yet it happens in every state. Why is that?
@9
“The Catholic Church is the state’s largest provider of social services outside the federal government.”
Well that’s just great. I guess when you look at it like that we actually SHOULD allow some small group of religious leaders to use their interpretation of the bible to shape and drive public health policy regardless of facts. Stupid me and if I don’t agree….wait for it……I’ve got to be anti-Catholic bigot!
“Catholic dioceses have every interest and right to get involved in the I-1000 debate.”
That’s your OPINION, which as you do so often will of your opinions, that you are misrepresenting as facts. I personally believe that I have the right to your bank account and all the food in your fridge but that don’t make it right.
“Once again, your post reeks of prejudice and anti-religious bigotry . . . ”
See also “Canned responses from Joel if you refuse to accept the line of thinking that the Catholic Church because of all the great things it does should be spending millions of dollars to shape public policy via THEIR interpretation of the bible.
“of a sort that is somehow still acceptable in a movement that calls itself “progressive.”
Those are big words coming from someone who is trying to convince the voters of Washington state that our public health policy should be dictated by religious beliefs.
Me thinks you should spend more time doing research for your upcoming “anyone who doesn’t agree with me must be an anti-catholic bigot!” op-ed.
What an accomplishment it must be to now be using the same insane talking points as the President of the Catholic League and South Park episode target Bill Donahue.
Btw, when do you start throwing the word “Nazi” around to describe anyone who supports yes on 1000? Do tell!
@23 Keep Religion OUt of Moral Discussions …
Last time I heard this sort of crap I was reading Lenin!
If religion does not have the right to speak freely on moral issues, what the fuck rights do they have?
Maybe oyu want to go to the Soviet Era where those uniformed clods who believe in the three-in-one, interventions of saints, holy blood and host, etc, are allowed to get together and worship their fantasies as long as they do not encroach on the rights of secular society to do whatever the controlling powers or, for that matter the masses, think is right?
Who else’s free speech do you want to limit?
My wife and I are Catholic, she works in health care and I used to. We’ve also dealt with the deaths of all four of our parents over the last 13 years.
We and our friends have had a lot of discussions about I1000 over the last few months. I’ve had some concern since the Terri Schiavo insanity that we’d see some misguided (or misogynistic) legal maneuvering to interfere with the freedom to allow someone whose death was inevitable to just slip away without an excess of grotesque heroics.
On the other hand, she has a strong concern about the scenerio where Mr. and Mrs. Jones are clutching their durable power of attorney, thinking about what a pain in the ass old Aunt Martha has been for the last 20 years, and wishing the old bat would hurry the hell up and croak so they can peddle her house and take that Caribbean cruise. She started her career working in nursing homes, and she can tell you from her own experience that indeed that sort of thing does happen.
The experience in Oregon would seem to suggest that this measure would include reasonably adequate safeguards. However, there are plenty of unreasonable people, and however well a law is crafted, someone’s eventually going to figure out a way to thwart its intent. The continuing advance of medical science will continue to create situations where the choices aren’t simple, and I doubt the politicians are going to be able to add much to help anyone make wiser decisions, or to make the whole thing appreciably less unpleasant.
A lot of religion most likely stems from Man’s realization that we’re all visitors here, and that the departure of the soul leaves behind a worn-out husk and a load of memories and emotions, all of which we who are left struggle to deal with.
A Callenge
Is there some person here who can explain the logic of this? What it says is that passing a law that would permit insurance companies to encourage shortening the death
of a patient IMPROVES patient protection?
Lee for a “progressive” you engage in marvelous Orwellian Rovian newspeak. First you rename marijuana as “medcine” (a class that Is suppose then must include leeches, honey, moldy bread, foxglove, etc,, now you want to claim that offering an HMO the option of decreasing its c osts if a patient will just plkease die sooner protects the patient??
Or do you actually believe that in the current system, doctors are intentionally killing people to save the insurance companies money???
@26
Is there some person here who can explain the logic of this?
Yes, there is, but why should they? What evidence have you ever shown of being capable of comprehending logic?
If someone other than SeattleJew is interested in hearing this logic, just holler and I’ll do it. Otherwise, I’m not wasting my time.
again Lee, where are they forcing their beliefs on you? We vote for or against something, and we (or most of us) vote based on our moral and ethic standards. And if we win, we “force” our standards on to the ones who lost ? Or if we loose, are we forced by the others ? Again, you are not forced by the Catholic Beliefs, you are forced by the democracy you life in. Everyone as a vote, some loose, some win. You seem to have some strong fear about the catholic church and their power through their flock. But believe me, no one will come after you because you disagree, no one will dig in your past because you disagree.
Murder is illegal..(or in the words of the 10 Commandments) Thou shalt not kill.
In your words, that would be imposing someones beliefs onto others. Same with so many others laws who come out of the moral and ethic obligations we all have. If that is forcing…then by golly, we are forced just by the society we live in.
If I oppose Gay Marriage (to use a contentious issue and staying of “taxes”), but gay marriage becomes the law of the state….am I being forced to accept it and treat a gay couple the same way as a hetero couple ?
Is that “being forced” or is that “accepting the law by the majority of the voters? “
I remember seeing that on 20/20. The catholic church passed all those laws making it illegal to sell birth control. NOT.
Lee, please don’t impose your views on pot by doing anything that would further your cause. Otherwise you would be no better than the very people you hate.
You are so quick to find the faults in others yet clueless about your own?
Priceless.
@28
again Lee, where are they forcing their beliefs on you?
Simple, if I have less than 6 months to live and desire to have a cocktail of drugs that allow me to end my own life at a time of my choosing, and the Catholic Church successfully keeps this illegal and prevents me from making that choice, then they have successfully forced their beliefs on me.
We vote for or against something, and we (or most of us) vote based on our moral and ethic standards.
Absolutely, but most of the things we vote for deal with the morality of a system, especially our economic system (how high our taxes should be, whether we build new transit) or our political system (should races be partisan or non-partisan). I-1000 is different because it deals with the morality of an individual. That’s the difference you’re not grasping.
Again, you are not forced by the Catholic Beliefs, you are forced by the democracy you life in.
In some ways, that’s certainly true, but the democracy that we’ve lived in has often been plagued by some very bad policies that were supported by a majority of people. Just because something happens democratically does not automatically make it right.
Everyone as a vote, some loose, some win. You seem to have some strong fear about the catholic church and their power through their flock. But believe me, no one will come after you because you disagree, no one will dig in your past because you disagree.
Excuse me? Look at the drug war. The drug war is not a result of just the Catholic Church (although they are strong supporters of it), but to say that no one will come after you for disagreeing on an issue of individual morality is shortsighted and naive.
Murder is illegal..(or in the words of the 10 Commandments) Thou shalt not kill. In your words, that would be imposing someones beliefs onto others.
What if I kill a spider in my basement? What if I kill someone in self defense who was about to kill me? ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a vague tenet of religion that does not form the actual basis for our laws on murder and manslaughter. Any idiot can figure out that killing an innocent person is wrong. This particular issue deals with when the value of the life being taken is being judged by the very life itself.
Same with so many others laws who come out of the moral and ethic obligations we all have. If that is forcing…then by golly, we are forced just by the society we live in.
It’s a simple rule when it comes to matters of individual morality. Live and let live.
If I oppose Gay Marriage (to use a contentious issue and staying of “taxes”), but gay marriage becomes the law of the state….am I being forced to accept it and treat a gay couple the same way as a hetero couple ?
No, you can still be as big of an asshole to gay couples as you want. That’s your right. You do not have to accept it, just as a racist didn’t have to accept the equality of blacks after the 60s.
@29
Lee, please don’t impose your views on pot by doing anything that would further your cause. Otherwise you would be no better than the very people you hate.
When I start forcing people to smoke pot, there’s a parallel here. Until then, you’re still a moron.
Jump, Marvin, jump!
I understand that some newer editions of the Bible have changed “Thou shalt not kill” to “Thou shalt not murder”. This is no doubt a great convenience to those denominations whose leaders have been so enthusiastic in their support of Bush’s war and more widespread use of the death penalty.
@31 Since Lee enjoys tweaking others, perhaps he will enjoy this too:
Yep. Just as if the church opposed your rights to keep black folks from eatin at your lunch counter. OOPS .. the Church did take that stand!
Aside from the typo .. I assume you meant ethical> ,,, somehow I REALLY doubt most folks are that good! I would bet that most foks vote out of received self interest? No>
Different from what? Lots of laws and referenda deal with individual rights.
Again, you are not forced by the Catholic Beliefs, you are forced by the democracy you life in.
In some ways, that’s certainly true, but the democracy that we’ve lived in has often been plagued by some very bad policies that were supported by a majority of people. Just because something happens democratically does not automatically make it right.
1. WTF does this have to your slurring the catholic church?
2. Are you now coming out against democracy???
Goddamn this is paranoid! Is lee really afraid that HE will persecuted by the Church?
31 Lee, if your doctor “gives you six months to live”, that’s an estimate, not a guarantee. I remember Art Buchwald passed away some time in the last year. He’d been diagnosed with something horrible, been told he had only a few months left, and checked into a hospice facility. As it turned out, he died several years later, after writing a couple more books, and checking himself out of the hospice to go on book tours.
Would your objective be to avoid suffering? I’ve passed about a half dozen kidney stones–not life threatening, but boy, do they hurt like a bitch. The fist time, I went in the hospital and they gave me huge doses of dilaudid, which sorta took the edge off of it and made me puke my guts out for several days. Other times I’ve just tried to go on with my life and ignore it as best I could, warning everyone I came in contact with that I was in a lot of pain and likely to be even more of an ornery bastard than I usually am.
If I was experiencing that kind of pain and knew for sure that I’d die at the end of it, would I prefer to just get it all over with? I’m not sure…you’d have to ask me then.
On the other hand, I was once about to be operated on for cancer, and there was a slight possibility that if it turned out to be a rare but really bad variety, instead of waking up with a small scar and a long life ahead of me, I’d be horribly disfigured, unable to talk or eat normally, and very likely to be dead within a year. I’m not sure how I’d have dealt with that one–Walt Crowley decided to tough it out to the end, and Roger Ebert’s still fighting like hell.
Would you be worried about being a burden to those close to you? Better make sure you know what their own feelings are about that before you take the responsibility on yourself.
@33 AF
FYI .. the Torah (what you are calling the bible) was not written in english and, AFIK, no one other than Cecil b. deMille has sought the authority to rewrite the torah.
giggles.
Wouldn’t be more rational to call I-1000 “physician’s right to prescribe suicide?”
Why put the burden on docs?
Why not license the undertakers to offer this cocktail .. imagne the adds:
“One Stop Final Shopping.”
“In by seven, out by five”
Or maybe hotels could offer combination deals, esp. thew hotels on Aurora.
Then again, this REALLY seems to me to be a lawyer type thing. We could have lawyers who specialize in expedted death licensing with any fees paid out of the estate.
@35
Lee, if your doctor “gives you six months to live”, that’s an estimate, not a guarantee.
I agree, but there’s no other way to really build a safeguard that prevents anyone from using this, and that’s required to have this pass. It’s certainly conceivable that a person can get the cocktail and then it later turns out that his condition improves. Getting the prescription is also not a guarantee that one will use it right away. They will wait until it’s clearer that death is imminent.
Would your objective be to avoid suffering?
That’s not my primary objective in supporting this, but it would be an expected result.
I’ve passed about a half dozen kidney stones–not live threatening, but boy, do they hurt like a bitch. The fist time, I went in the hospital and they gave me huge doses of dilaudid, which sorta took the edge off of it and made me puke my guts out for several days.
Sure, but you’re still kickin’ it and leaving good comments in this thread. This initiative is specifically designed to prevent people from seeing it as a general suicide option.
If I was experiencing that kind of pain and knew for sure that I’d die at the end of it, would I prefer to just get it all over with? I’m not sure…you’d have to ask me then.
Certainly. And whatever you chose to do, I’d respect that decision. The Catholic Church does not. That’s the difference here. And that’s not bigotry to point that out.
On the other hand, I was once about to be operated on for cancer, and there was a slight possibility that if it turned out to be a rare but really bad variety, instead of waking up with a small scar and a long life ahead of me, I’d be horribly disfigured, unable to talk or eat normally, and very likely to be dead within a year. I’m not sure how I’d have dealt with that one–Walt Crowley decided to tough it out to the end, and Roger Ebert’s still fighting like hell.
I can’t say I know you that well, but I sense that you’d fight like hell too.
Would you be worried about being a burden to those close to you? Better make sure you know what their own feelings are about that before you take the responsibility on yourself.
This does remind me that my wife and I need to get our living wills in order. We vowed to do it after the Schiavo spectacle and never followed through. I’m definitely the kind of person who will not deal well with not having the ability to fend for myself, so these are things I’m certainly thinking about.
Thanks.
Once again, to reiterate what I wrote in comment #27, if you’d like to see me respond to any of SeattleJew’s insane ramblings, please feel free to highlight whichever ones. I don’t have time to wander completely into the web of crazy he’s spinning on this issue, and if he’s the only person with such a pisspoor comprehension of this issue, I really don’t care.
The timing of this is rather unfortunate, as indicated by some of the posts from those who take a dim view of Christianity, or are just plain down on religion, period. Can’t say as I blame y’all…we’ve had so much utter bullshit and virulent evil preached and practiced by some pretty despicable people, who seem to think it’s all OK because they proclaim they’re “doing it in the name of Jesus”, that it splashes the stain across all people of faith. Try to keep in mind, though, that we’re not all like Fred Phelps.
The right has always profited by division and infighting between factions on the other side, and has invested greatly in promoting such. They must take great pleasure in watching us do it to ourselves.
@40
My attitude towards religion is exactly the same as my attitude towards drugs. It’s not the right of a government or any other group of people to dictate to others how they should establish their own morality or how they can pursue peace of mind. Some people find their spiritual center through a rigid set of rules that’s focused around a faith-based belief. Some people find their spiritual center through expanding one’s mind through psychedelic substances. Some people do both. Some people do neither. None of this should be for government to decide. Only when someone’s pursuit of peace of mind encroaches on another person’s freedom does government need to be involved.
Lee-
You are in a deep, dark hole…
STOP DIGGING!
@42
What?
Yeah, everyone’s really tearing apart my arguments here…LOL.
Lee
Aha .. a new trick. When faced with logic, with a correspondent who will not be intimidated by your name calling, just stand aside.
Lets try some more:
Lee spews:
hmmmm …
should it be legal to advertise and sell a drug you know can harm others? Is it OK if you warn them?
I take it you are a big fan of big tobacco?
alcoholism has devastated may indigenous societies .. OK by you??? Of course the natives have the same rights you want for yourself or do they?
if I manufacture LSD, can I market it? Or does telling folks how wonderful schizophrenia can be interfere wioth
@43 Lee
All teasing aside, as a victim of your proclivity to be fowl mouthed. I have the right to say that your demeaning a good person like Joel reflects poorly on you and on this blog.
Frankly, I think you HURT your own causes. You want marijuana to be sold legally (so do I) but to get there you make up cock and bull stories baout people who badly need it not being able to get “medicine.” This does not help the effort to abolish a stupid law, it just adds credibiity to the nuts who make up stuff on the other side.
Same thing here. From what I can see, you have no knowledge of the extent .. if any .. of the need for the bill proposed by Gov. Gardner. So, instead of doing the work to see if his idea makes sense, you paint burning crosses on whoever disagrees with you.
Not impressive!
@49 artfart
great post.
You are echoing Obama exactly. If I use rigid tests of who my allies are, I will be alone.
Demeaning Joel and the church because they disagree with this issue is not smart BUT a parade of such behavior may result in the loss of an ally in causes Lee does care about.
I am at an utter loss to understand what problem Goldy or Lee has, what justifiable problem, with the church taking a stand on assisted suicide?
This reminds me of the villagers (hillary supporters) who say they will work against Obama because he has not paid off her debts or thge libruls who who, a few months ago, came out against Brian Beard for making positive comments about the surge,
We Protestants haven’t forgotten the Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake for being Protestants. We’d prefer to get along with everyone, but whether we can depends on how others treat us.
Liberals must arm! An armed society is a polite society.
My challenge still stands. If anyone regards anything said by SeattleJew to be coherent enough to be worthy of a reply, I will be happy to reply to it (possibly not until tomorrow morning, but I promise to get to it).
For the record, I am not prejuidicial towards the Catholic Church. While I am not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination, I was actually baptized a Catholic, and I would never try to deny someone their faith, or demean them for it. But let’s face facts: the Catholic church is way behind the times in a lot of ways. Being critical of Church policy is not being anti-Catholic. And while I believe that government should not be in the business of legislating morality, the various faiths and beliefs of homo sapiens sapiens should offer guidance, but not dictate public policy or the will of the people.
And as far as ‘death with dignity’ is concerned, I may have to deal with that issue myself in the near future. My wife, who I’ve spoken of before in these threads, while not being ‘terminally’ ill, suffers from a wide variety of autoimmune diseases that may not shorten her life per se, but greatly diminish the quality of life for her. There are ‘what if?’ questions that we may need to face, and while she may not have brought it up, I already know that she’s told me she doesn’t want to either suffer needlessly, or be a burden to the family.
She’s a Jack Mormon, and I’m a never-really-was Catholic. Why should a church neither of us follow have any say in how we wish to live or die?
Thanks Joe, we needed some more sober sanity in this thread. I wish the best for you and your wife.
49/50 I’ll second that. And, Joe…I hope you won’t be offended if some of us choose to keep you and your wife on our prayers.
Any church that’s into astronomy and astrophysics can’t be all bad. Heck, back in the early 1930’s, Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, introduced the idea of the ‘Big Bang’ origins of the universe, although it was Sir Fred Hoyle, a proponent of the ‘steady-state’ universe, who coined the term.
Lee:
By your ceaseless replies, you are confirming my greatest reservation about the self-described “Death with Dignity” movement — its cult-like self-absorption and total intolerance toward those with well-though-out disagreements.
@53 “cult-like self-absorption and total intolerance”
And you came up with that how?
Joel, if you feel like typing some more, I asked this question last night on the other thread:
Anti-Catholic bigotry? Sorry to go slightly OT here, but maybe this media guy Joel Connelly can explain to me how it is that the media jumped all over the church and its pedophile problem while now we have the Republican party and its pedophile problem and not a single media outlet or person has ever connected the dots and said, “Hey, the Republicans have a serious problem here.” Tell me, why is this subject taboo? It’s certainly lurid enough for today’s media, if not something to be informed about. Why the church and not the GOP?
If you ever decide to write about it, try thinking, “atmosphere of fear and repression = GOP”, and it’ll all start to make sense to you. If that doesn’t do it, try thinking “flys to shit”.
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/Pedophiles.html
@35 Art Buchwald
This was and is a very good example of why I-1000 should not be passed. Art Buchwald was in terminal renal failure. Patients in that state can be maintained for a very long time by aggressive dialysis and other therapies.
Buchwald made the rational decision that he had enough of this, stopped his therapy and prepared himself to die. All of this was totally legal under existing law abut might not be if I-1000 was passed.
What happened afterwards is fascinating. Buchwald survived without kidneys much longer than anticipated. Was this a bad thing? Should he have been able to ask a doctor to shoot him to relieve the suspense of how long he was to live?
Personally, I side with Buchwald. He decided to die and told his doc s not to interfere. Joel and the Church, for that matter Orthodox Jews, might disagree but I see this as heroism. I fail to see how his life would have ended better under I-1000,
The Catholic Church is responsible for more death, destruction and general mayhem than any modern war. Whether it was the Inquisition or the pedophile problem or any of the other shit in between, there’s no doubt in my mind the world would be better off without this or ANY OTHER church.
@49 Joe
You misunderstand the initiative and the process.
First, the Church has no more or less influence on this the Lee’s pothead organizations or my (very liberal and I am sure pro I-1000) synagogue. We live in a democracy.
Second, I-1000 is not about the right to die, it is about regulating physicians right to kill patients. Currently they do not have that right. This provides the right and then regulates it.
To my knowledge no medical organization is seeking this right. Under current law (see my post above in re Buchwald) it IS legal for a physician to do all he can to assist any patient including one who is terminal. In Buchwald’s case, they (and he), decided to trade his comfort over his longevity. That sis fully legal.
If there is some pent up demand for I-1000 or if there a dozens of docs now being persecuted for helping melanoma victims with terminal pain, then Lee or his buddies should cite the evidence.
@56 “I fail to see how his life would have ended better under I-1000”
You inject Art’s values and your own. What about the values of others? Art chose to wait for the chariot. Some might want the freedom to make a different choice. I see I-1000 as providing that freedom.
By the way, I’ve been doing some reading about the history of the hippocratic oath. I’m looking for more material to read. Any links?
http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa040917-6.htm
@58 “If there is some pent up demand for I-1000”
How many people must seek freedom before it becomes a valid cause?
Lee’s bigotry reminds me of other groups that seems to feel they have the privilege to be bigots.
Remember post 9/11 all the French jokes? Why is it funny to treat one of the great world’s cultures to freedom fries?
As a Jew, I have found that I can easily pass as white. Being a good honkey, I have been invited to join clubs and then had folks whisper to me, you know we keep kikes and niggers and catholics out!
I also live some of my life in the black community. It is fucking maddening to listen to Dr. King;s “tribe” refer to Asians as slant eyes.
I enjoy the gay pride parades here and in SF, except for the mysoginism implicit in some transvestites and the despicable performances of nuns. How can any “progressive” tolerate such behavior.
Oh well, have you heard the one about two gay guys from Tacoma????
@61 It would help to know how you believe ‘not tolerating’ such behavior might play out. I don’t go to gay pride parades for the very things you mention. You do go. Would you say that you ‘tolerate’ the degradation of nuns? At least more so than, say, myself?
@59 …
Steve, I think I have not made my point fully clear. I support the right to die. If I want to die. If Buchwald said he preferred to tke matters in hos own hand then I would applaud his choice.
The issue here is changing what we expect of doctors. I do not believe a medical degree should ever be a license to kill.
Moreover, as far as I can see there is no evidence that I-1000 addresses a real need. The idea that a terminal patient is simply waiting for the grim reaper to show up when the big hand and the little hand come together in six months is silly. Folks in this stage of life are usually sick. Physicians work with such people t make decisions that in effect do choose to prolong or shorten life.
That siw hy I am skeptical of the need for this bill. I am not aware of any controversy over the current process. To my knowledge no physician is under indictment for murder.
OTOH, as written I-1000 could be interpreted as requiring large bureaucracy to step into these intimate moments. What good what that do?
So why do we need or want this law?
Maybe some billboards. They don’t have many words, that will make it easier for you to read. They also have pictures so your reading comprehension won’t adversely affect your understanding.
hahahahahahaha
@62 On Tolerating Bigotry
Hard question. Personally I speak out, as i do here and on my blog. I do not agree with laws that regulate such behavior, but I do think we shuld educate our children in the meaning of Dr, King’s speech so thjat it becomes as unAmerican to diss nuns as it is to use the words nigger or kike.
Jesse Jackson giot deserved hell for his hymnietown remark, I think Lee deserves a dose of the same mouthwash.
OTOH, I really think the time has come to tell Belltown jokes. There were these three college buddies who grew up in Laurelhurst. One of them joined a Biotech startup and moved to Bell town whiule the other two rose in the ranks at Boeing and Nordstroms. One day they met each other at a Free Tibet parade, …….
@59 I have a little knowledge of such oaths but do not know more than you about where to llok on the web.
“First, do no harm” is my favorite part.
1. this law does not offer patients freedom, it changes what a doctor is licensed to do.
2.There is no evidence that terminal patients NOW do not get help by the current mechanisms that permit physicians a wide range of choices, other than killing a patient.
3. By the standards of your last question, I would argur e that 1-1000 falls pretty low on the list of needed new freedoms, e.g.
a. right to stay hme with a new baby
b. right to trravel to Cuba
c. right to polygamy and polyandry
d. right to health care
e. right to an education.
f. right to drive at autobahn speeds.
g. right to retire securely
h. right of a soldier to change his mind (desert?)
oh yeh ..
i. right to use marijuan and other harmless drugs.
@63 “I support the right to die.”
We do agree on this point. Where we part ways is over access to a humane means of dying. I-1000 probably isn’t perfect and it’s a shame we need it, but it does provide access to a more humane way of passing than the present alternatives.
You know, it’s kind of like you’re saying that a woman has a right to an abortion but only if a woman goes to the back alley to get one. I’m not for abortion. A woman will abort when they choose, one way or another, whether I’m against it or not. As it turns out, I’m even more against having our nation’s women having to resort to coat hangers than I am against abortion. Like the woman determined to abort, a terminally ill patient intent on passing will certainly find a means to that end. To the woman would you say, “get yourself a coat hanger”, and to the terminally ill patient, “get yourself a .45”?
Lee,
You’re willingness to take this pissing match between you and SJ to the front page with an “Update” is droll. Sorry to say as an avid reader I’m inclined to scroll past your byline after this. For someone posting at the top, you allow your responses to get way too personal way too fast. Comments are comments, you’ve gone beyond that. Too bad.
@68 Not a good comparison.
I would not object to some other mechanism that allowed patients to procure suicidal drugs, up to an including licensed hospices that could provide surcease. Maybe pharmacists could do this or trainers. My caveat is with docs doing it.
That said, the alley abortions are a lousy example. Women DID seek such abortions, they were a real problem. If there are people who want this, I have not heard of evidence that they are driven to pith themselves with coathangers.
Fianlly, as a typical yuppie liberal (sorry I could not resist), Lee blithely dismisses the issue of misuse 0f the Oregon law to rid us of peskie poor folks who can not pay long term medical bills. Why wouldn’t Aetna encourage suicide as an alternative to terminal care? I can assure you that similar issues arose in the Navy when IO served and we were told to preserve life to “he” could get back to killing Viet Kong.
BTW, thanks for the thoughtful discussion. There is far to little of that on HA.
I’d never be offended if any of y’all prayed for my wife’s well-being. Or mine, for that matter. Given the mess of autoimmune diseases she has, one of which is even beyond the brightest minds in rheumatology at UWMC (the rest of them are sarcoidosis, fibromyalgia, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, multiple chemical sensitivity and asthma), it ain’t gonna hurt.
@76 “polyandry”
I had to look that one up! Not high on my list.
As for point number 3, it all depends on where you are in life. If you want multiple wives, I reckon that’s important to you. If you hanker to go to Cuba, well, that might be highest on the list. If you want your terminally ill mother’s desire for a humane death fullfilled, well, then that would be up there. How about your values? Do you give equal weight to the mother’s desire for a humane death to the desires of others for multiple wives or a trip to Cuba?
Further, you should already know for yourself as I do now that the Hippocratic oath has not been static through history. It has changed over the millinia. It is still debated. Its application in America as an oath taken by graduates has evolved, and in only relatively recent American history has it become a standard oath. So why isn’t it subject to further reconsideration?
In Oregon, there have been very few people who have taken advantage of the law, but the populace is very protective of that right anyway. Some have gotten the prescription and used it, some have decided not to use it and have given it back. End of episode.
In NO case has anyone been forced to take a cocktail of drugs to kill themselves. So the fear of The Joneses offing Auntie is baseless. Some doctors have chosen not to provide the service, and that is their right. Like abortion, if you dont want the cocktail, don’t get one. But why should you decide for me what I do? Why does the church and the government think it is any of their business??
Lee, I don’t see this issue needing to be about pediphelia at all. It has always been my understanding that churches maintain their tax exemption by staying out of ALL politics as a body. I know of Protestant churches that have run afoul of the law by having the minister stand in the pulpit and tell the congregation who to vote for. Actually collecting money and being very out front in their support of a bill is certainly their right, but I think they should give up their tax exemption for doing so. Just like the Protestants.
Earlier this summer, The Star Tribune carried the story about Rev. Gus Booth of Warroad Community Church who was urging his flock not to support Barack Obama for president because of his position on abortion. Booth is a delegate to the RNC convention in St. Paul later this year.
It’s not a freedom of speech issue. It’s a tax issue. There’s nothing to prevent any church leader from speaking politics. You just can’t get into endorsing candidates from the pulpit while claiming non-profit status from the IRS.
The IRS is investigating the United Church of Christ over a speech Sen. Barack Obama gave at its national meeting last year after he became a candidate for president. The IRS said “reasonable belief exists” that the circumstances surrounding the speech violated restrictions on political activity for tax-exempt organizations. The IRS said in a letter that it was concerned about articles posted on the church’s Web site and on other sites stating that Obama had addressed nearly 10,000 people at the event. The agency also said Obama volunteers had staffed campaign tables “outside the center to promote his campaign.”
And he didn’t ask them to pass the plate for money.
So, let the Catholic church work toward their beliefs. But they then need to pay taxes.
By the way, I was able to post all that without calling any of the rest of you “stupid fuckers”
or members of the Klan.
@71 You’ve both got my prayers, Joe. Best wishes.
@69 Aaron
Fir what it si worth, I do recommend you read the link. There is a certain consistency in Lee’s peculiar form of bigotry and willingness to make threats. In my case he has threatened to tell on me to the Muslim community, implying I think that I would be afraid of violence. He has made other, more direct threats. So much for rational discussion.
The sad thing about all this is that these are REAL issues. Marijuana, Lee’s favorite cause celebre, is not harmful. BUT Lee does his cause harm when he claims that marijuana protects people from cancer. Similarly, demeaning Joel and the Church is a hell of way to get folks to vote for I-1000.
Be good and Tx for the comment.
[Deleted – for obvious reasons]
@70 “My caveat is with docs doing it.”
Our disagreement narrows. Please refer to my post @72, third paragraph.
“If there are people who want this, I have not heard of evidence that they are driven to pith themselves with coathangers.”
Sorry, but I don’t quite follow you. Can you try again?
“BTW, thanks”
You’re welcome!
@73 Good post.
I agree that the experience in Oregon, so far, is that no harm has been done. OTOH, I am also unaware of any evidence that good has been done.
I do think you too lightly dismiss the potential for such a law to be misused. Money rules. If an insurance company has to choose between a terminal patients building up costs over six months and the price of this cocktail, I think they will choose the latter. Given the small use in Oregon, the point is for now mute.
Fainlly, it conspicuous that there is no agitation for such a law from my medical community. I think reason is that under current law, none of mya colleagues have had a problem. Terminal patients often receive drugs that accelerate death but as long as this is intended to relieve suffering and pain, there is no problem.
So what I see here is a law that satisfies a few folks given to crusades (sorry for the image) at the risk of leading to a fundamental change in our expectations of doctors and the possibility of opening one more door to mismanagement of care.
Seems like a bad deal to this skeptic.
70 Steve …
Prior to Roe vs Wade, there were many women hurt by obscene misefforts at abortion, The simile I offered was that the same caathanger used to scrape out a uterus could be used to take one’s life (pith) by inserting it up ones nose. To the best of my knowledge we do not have such a problem.
I would OF COURSE support any legislation that would ease people;s ability to make a rational choice about how to end life. I also see NO REASON to limit such a choice to terminal illness.
Just how we assure that such choices are made wisely is, however, not clear to me. I know people who have chosen death wisely and gently. How can we let that happen without the dangers offered by I-1000?
I have friends who can argue like there’s no tomorrow, cussing and cursing. When done, they have a beer and enjoy all that they have in common. I’m hoping SJ and Lee are like that – that they share common ground, know it, and take joy in it. Us poor saps only get to watch them go at each other. At least I hope it’s something like that for you guys.
77 “darcy”
Given the content you are obviously a sock puppet.
But, yes I too have issues .. bug ones with the church. However, I would NEVER suggest that someone vote for or against a candidate or an issue because he she or it is supported by the Church.
On the orther issues, do not misunderstand. I do think I-1000 has merit and woudl like t see some more meaty arguments than Lee offers to defend the legislation.
81 Steve ..
I hope that too. Lee is a good guy. He has well thought out ideas esp on the drug war and cares a lot about all folks.
I have offered to work with him on some shared issues but either he really does think I am a douchebag, or some such, or he simply resnts me objecting when I disagree with him.
I am more than open to sharing a beer or a cause.
@80 “Prior to Roe vs Wade, there were many women hurt by obscene misefforts at abortion”
I recall. That is, the mid to late 1960’s were my teen years. I still recall being thirteen and the impact of reading/viewing a Life magazine photo-spread article on illegal abortion. Good Lord! In college I was pressured to give a speech on euthanasia. I resisted, wondering, “What the fuck is going on with the youth in Asia?” But I later ran across a very good article, did more research and did the speech after all. I still pull a line or two as we discuss this issue. That was over 35 years ago. The issue’s been around a while.
“I know people who have chosen death wisely and gently. How can we let that happen without the dangers offered by I-1000?”
I thought then as I do now, that at least a couple of physicians should be involved in the decision. One point of I-1000 I completely disagree with is the psychologist being involved. Psychology was a major in school. No thank you.
If you’re easy to flatter, I’ve stayed late at the office on a Friday night to have this discussion with you. But I’m going to leave soon, no offence.
Lee’s Addendum …
I really do not see any relevance to this thread other than lee’s passions. Even if I were a bigot, that would have nothing to do with Lee’s misuse of the Church here.
He reminds me of one reason I voted for Rossi last time. Gregoire, who is a mud fighter, slung charges at Rossi because he is a devout catholic. I investigated those charges to the best of my ability and was unable to find evidence that Rossi had any intent to impose his views on abortion on anyone. So I voted against the mud thrower.
This time they are both in the slime pit. I will vote for Gregoire because i really do think she is competent and because I am irritated at Rossi’s lack of action vs. the Naziism in Clark Co. I would love to see an Obama like candidate come here and take Rossi and Gregoire out to the shed.
Lee, my bottom line here is that I strongly resent anyone’s using the sort of bigotry you showed to make a point. I would take exactly the same stand if someone here dissed Frenchmen or Mormons or … yes boobela, muslims.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing the Church, or the mosque, or the synaguogue, but conflating sex abuse with the defense of life is simply wrong.
Just think for your self man .. do you really want to demean the memory of John XXIII and Cesar Chavez??? Maybe as an Obamite I ought to vote against him if he, forfend, chooses Joe Biden (a catholic?). how about those brave nuns and priests of the liberation movements in South America?? Father Berrigan .. GASP GASP ,., they too represented the Church mingling in our affairs.
If you really think Joel and the Church deserve your invectives then you ARE a bigot. Hopefully like most of us, you made a mistake.
The flattery is much appreciated (grin).
Join me for a beer at DL!
@53
By your ceaseless replies, you are confirming my greatest reservation about the self-described “Death with Dignity” movement — its cult-like self-absorption and total intolerance toward those with well-though-out disagreements.
Excuse me, Joel, but I’m countering the arguments that have been made here with logic. You’re correct that I care about this issue a lot. You can believe it comes from a cult-like self-absorption or you can believe that I’m an extremely principled person who cares about civil liberties. I sense you know me well enough by now to know which.
Reminds me of the time lee threatened to knock food out of my hands because I said fat people should pay more for health insurance.
@69
You’re willingness to take this pissing match between you and SJ to the front page with an “Update” is droll.
Well, I’m sorry if you feel this way, but I’m frankly tired of SJ’s bullshit, and it goes way back. He’s actually the only person who was ever banned from commenting at Reload, and he was banned for lying about things that my friend Steve (aka Boss Tweed) was saying in a comment thread. He does it deliberately whenever he needs to cover up the fact that someone has pointed out an error in his facts or logic. And yes, if you doubt me, please feel free to email me so that I can show you examples.
Sorry to say as an avid reader I’m inclined to scroll past your byline after this. For someone posting at the top, you allow your responses to get way too personal way too fast. Comments are comments, you’ve gone beyond that. Too bad.
Well, I don’t take very kindly to being called a bigot, and that’s why this got personal. Even though several people in this comment thread accused me of bigotry, I only threw that accusation back at SJ (because, he is a bigot).
Again, I’m still offering up to anyone here who wants me to address anything that SeattleJew has said that you think is a valid rebuttal. He and I have discussed this repeatedly in earlier comment threads, and I’ve determined from those talks that he does not have either the knowledge of this (or Oregon’s) law or the ability to really grasp the complexity of the issue. However, if there are specific points that he’s made that you think are pertinent, I will be happy to address them.
Obviously SJ has made you look at yourself in a way you don’t like.
If what he said didn’t have any truth you wouldn’t be so upset.
@91
If what he said didn’t have any truth you wouldn’t be so upset.
OK, Sigmund Freud. Some of us actually take pride in the fact that we don’t allow prejudices to color our views of people.
Jump, Marvin, jump!
@81
I’m hoping SJ and Lee are like that – that they share common ground, know it, and take joy in it.
We used to be, but he’s gone a little too overboard recently and I’m done dealing with him. His continued willingness to misrepresent my views (and continually accuse me and others of bigotry without any proof) is completely unacceptable.
Lee, well said!
Yelling Loser Boy SCUM, any of your family Catholics? Jo mama maybe? Guilt by association – were your words.
It seems like SeattleJew is saying that right now, “death with dignity” is being carried out in an informal, unregulated way, with doctors prescribing high doses of pain killers at the request of terminally ill patients. The stated intent being to alleviate pain but with everyone knowing full well that the patient will die as a result. It is my understanding as well that this kind of thing happens all the time. To me that is a really interesting part of this debate. Do we end the charade and let people be honest about this thing or are there risks in making official government policy here — risks like the kind SeattleJew and others have pointed to with regard to insurance companies taking advantage of the situation? Is the informal system working well or is the combination of an aging population along with far better means of extending people’s lives leading to so much more demand that we need to begin to formalize this? Personally, I come down on the side of giving people more choices and I think on the whole, I-1000 protects and expands an important right. OTOH, I just implied that I-1000 may be a way for society to cope with the problem of having a lot of dying people laying around. Some of the Catholic literature on the topic says that suffering is part of life and I agree with that. And that kept me from signing the initiative until the last possible day. But ultimately I decided that I think people have the right to say whether they have suffered enough and it’s not for me to demand that they hang in there indefinitely. BTW, since it has been deemed that defending one’s position is evidence that one is wrong, I may not do so, proving that I am right. QED.
It appears the only clear conclusion that may be drawn from this thread is that if “Marvin” wished to commit suicide, a goodly number of the other participants would be more than happy to assist him.
[Deleted – choose a different moniker and your comments will stay up]
@96 Oh, I would be so very happy to assist. The last words he’d hear in this life would be, “Die, you an America-hating, commie-fascist goatfucker!”*
* Ann Coulter style humor
As said by some 50+ year old adult.
I’m shocked you’re so old steve. I expected you to be much closer to my age.
In all seriousness, what’s wrong with you?
@95 Good Post!
Your opinion and mine are not far apart. I suspect what divides us is personal experience. I have worled as a physician and taught in a medical school for a long time. I know first hand the burdens these situation cause. I have never had a colleague was not affected by death of a patient.
At the same time I have seen many bad effects of legislation that was meant well but went awey and again I have seen this first hand.
Let me give you an example. When I was a resident we were expected to work as many hours as needed until the work was done. This ancient practice was challenged by residents who argued reasonably that such long hours were both unfair to residents and led to mistakes in pt care. The result is new work regulations that limit the length of the resident work day.
All this makes sense, except for one thing. When I was a resident each resident considered herself or himself as personally responsible for the patient. You would never leave a patient’s bedside in the midst of an acute crisis and often one would stay in the hospital, on call, just in case Mrs. O’Brien needed you.
There are many obvious benefits to that approach, benefits that I appreciated when I was a patient. Now, the approach is, of necessity, a team approach. There are good things about being cared for by a team but the effect on personal responsibility and the level of doctor commitment to patient is not .. IMO .. good.
So, my argument with this legislation is that we ought not to make new laws when we do not have4 evidence of a problkem with the current system.
Let me finally comment on your way of seeing the terminal events that elad to apatient’s dieing. I realize that it is very easy to see this as ome sort of under the table pretense. Perhpas it sis sometimes, I do not know. But when I have particpated as a patient or as a physician, there has never been a willi9ng effort to end life. The focus has laways been on the patient’s comfort.
Bottom line, I would only vote for I-100 i9f I was shown data that there were a sizeable number of cases where this would solve rather than make problems.
Funny thing about how intersting a civil pocnvrsation. without bigotry and name calling, can be.
@81 Lee
Again. who have I fkaseky accused of bigotry? You?
@95
It seems like SeattleJew is saying that right now, “death with dignity” is being carried out in an informal, unregulated way, with doctors prescribing high doses of pain killers at the request of terminally ill patients. The stated intent being to alleviate pain but with everyone knowing full well that the patient will die as a result. It is my understanding as well that this kind of thing happens all the time.
That’s all basically correct. The one issue that I-1000 supporters would have with what you describe is that it isn’t terribly “dignified” if it has to be done with a wink and a nod while hidden under the false pretense of palliative care. People want to be able to use a cocktail of drugs specifically for this situation. This is what Oregon has, and people take advantage of it for the reasons I’ve described. If there was no need for this, then no one in Oregon would be getting the prescriptions. We know that’s not the case. It does provide for an avenue that people want, that’s currently not available in Washington.
Do we end the charade and let people be honest about this thing or are there risks in making official government policy here — risks like the kind SeattleJew and others have pointed to with regard to insurance companies taking advantage of the situation?
As we all already agree, doctors already quietly assist patients who desire to end their lives early, therefore the risk that insurance companies drive people towards that outcome already exists in all 50 states. Above, I asked why it’s only become an issue in Oregon. The reason I pointed that out is because it demonstrates that when you take issues like this and bring them above the table where they belong, the misfeasance within our insurance system comes out in the open as well. While SeattleJew mistakenly sees this as a drawback to I-1000, the experience in Oregon actually shows it to be a benefit.
Is the informal system working well or is the combination of an aging population along with far better means of extending people’s lives leading to so much more demand that we need to begin to formalize this?
There are a couple of factors that are leading to why we need to formalize this. One of them is that the federal government has gotten far more involved in these types of doctor-patient relationships over the years. A number of palliative care specialists have actually been sentenced to prison because they’ve been duped into providing large amounts of opiates to patients who then re-sell it to addicts. It’s also true that modern technology is also extending life out to where people live with terminal illnesses far longer than they used to.
Personally, I come down on the side of giving people more choices and I think on the whole, I-1000 protects and expands an important right.
I think that’s a succinct explanation that I agree with.
OTOH, I just implied that I-1000 may be a way for society to cope with the problem of having a lot of dying people laying around.
I don’t see how it could be. I-1000 requires that a person request the prescription. Coercing someone will still be against the law. If doctors are willing to euthanize people in violation of the law, it doesn’t really matter whether we have I-1000 or not. I find this to be a common misconception about the initiative. It doesn’t encourage doctors in any way to be more inclined to end their patient’s lives prematurely.
Some of the Catholic literature on the topic says that suffering is part of life and I agree with that. And that kept me from signing the initiative until the last possible day. But ultimately I decided that I think people have the right to say whether they have suffered enough and it’s not for me to demand that they hang in there indefinitely.
Thank you for that. And that’s really all that people like me are asking when it comes to evaluating this initiative. People can have their own religious beliefs that guide them, but we all need to respect and honor religious beliefs that we don’t personally agree with.
BTW, since it has been deemed that defending one’s position is evidence that one is wrong, I may not do so, proving that I am right. QED.
When you defend your position as thoughtfully as this, you sure as hell aren’t wrong. Thanks.
Lee
Again you are dissing perfectly good people! On whatt basis do assert that doctors are now killing people ‘with a wink and a nod?’ How many medical death conferences have you attended??? Have you ever sat by a bedside as a loved one struggled with the end of life and the doctors had to make decisions of this sort?
I am sure I am boaut to hear some vitriol directed at doctors for being selfish, evil mindd people. Most doctors I know will do all they can to help their patients. I have nursed a bumnber of friends througgh hard timnes when they have had to deal with these situations. There problme was not your law (which may make rela legal issues) but the all to real ethical challenges. The image of a wink and a nod does great injustice to a very difficult decision.
I suspect this position reflects your ignorance of how things actually work. Someday you may want to attend a medical death conference and see just how much folks care and really, really try to do the right thing.
If this is a problem that needs solving surely there is real evidence someplace .. you know of your wink and nod docs being charged with murder??? Without that this seems to me to be misguided.
Rather than dissing the RC Church, Joel Connely, me or docs, why not put your effort toward finding data that support your argument?
I would certainly favor this legislation, or something like it, if you could show me evidence that the current system is not working.
To all,
one thing that is very funny about all this is that I gave often been accused of the kind of bigtry toward the Church Lee is accused of here. Why? I think the antisemitism of the catechism and the action of Pious IX and Pious XII are directly responsible for the terrible events of 33-45. I also hold the Chirch responsiblke for the exoulsions from York and Spain and for kmuch of the horrors of conquest and slavery in the New World.
I believe the Church was briefly a better Church ub=nder John XXIII and it has slipped back a notch or two under the current pope.
I personally beiieve the Church needs to to do for the world what John the XXIIIrd did for my people … apologize for past misdeeds and ask in the sake our shared humanity whether there are ways of making restitution?
Nuff said. BUT, waht sort of fool would I have to be to geenralize from these bas=d aspects of the Church to deny all of us the befits we get from the Church;s good deeds?
Howsa about putting evidence where your words are:
Is there any such data? Do we know the racial, social class, income levels of people getting this cocktail?
Once again, if anyone considers any part of SeattleJew’s last three comments to be worthy of a reply, point it out and I will be happy to address it. As long as he continues to grossly distort what I’m saying (see the beginning of comment #103 for the latest example), I will not be responding directly.
On that same note, is anyone else unsure about my logic leading up to the excerpt from comment #105? If so, I’ll explain further.
And one more thing, I’ve posted up at EffinUnsound another example of why I don’t discuss this directly with SeattleJew. It’s really not much fun arguing with someone who is so often arguing against himself.
Run to your blog and make your points.
Run lee, run.
hahahahahaha
@108
Run to your blog and make your points.
Um, yes. That’s what blogging is, dumbshit.
Jump, Marvin, jump!
@92 Le
Even Marvin may say thew right thing sometimes.