| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Euthanasia Come to Washington State |
| 2008-11-05 |
| Voters in Washington State gave a clear answer yesterday to a thorny ethical question: Should a doctor should be allowed to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to a dying patient? A state measure known as Initiative 1000 passed by a margin of 59% to 41%, making it legal for doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication for patients with less than six months to live. As we reported last week, the law is packed with provisions intended to limit the practice. Patients must make two separate requests, orally and in writing, more than two weeks apart; must be of sound mind and not suffering from depression; and must have their request approved by two separate doctors. Doctors are not allowed to administer the lethal dose. Backers of the bill, including national right-to-die organizations and a former Democratic governor who has Parkinson's, raised $4.9 million to support it. Opponents, including several Catholic organizations, raised $1.6 million to fund their fight, the Seattle Times reports. In Oregon, the only other state with a similar law, some 341 patients have committed physician-assisted suicide in the 11 years the law has been in effect, the New York Times reported last week. |
| Posted by:Beavis |
| #12 100 mph into a bridge abutment --- Catholic suicide. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-11-05 22:33 |
| #11 There's all sorts of ways to do it without involving me and my profession. Unfortunately, some actually do this by drinking and driving. It gets treated as another DUI death when it is a suicide. How do you tell the difference. The nastiness is when they take someone else out in the process. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-11-05 21:41 |
| #10 Logical sequel to setting the living babies of failed abortions aside to die. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-11-05 19:50 |
| #9 You do NOT need euthanasia to have a death that is dignified and decent. Hospice services in our area do a pretty decent job of being there for a person who wants to die with dignity. They don't engage in euthanasia. As said earlier the physician doesn't need to bring about suicide as did Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Best not to become the Soylent Green society. Life gets cheapened. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-11-05 17:01 |
| #8 I'm an ICU doc. I also take care of ALS patients. I know about the issues. You do NOT need euthanasia to have a death that is dignified and decent. Careful, compassionate doctors and nurses in the various hospice programs around the country handle these issues all the time, and they don't euthanize anyone. When a person demands euthanasia he/she is either 1) clinically depressed 2) hasn't yet worked through the stages of grief with dying and/or 3) hasn't been educated by their doctors on how pain and suffering can be handled. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-11-05 16:37 |
| #7 of course they pay for the cheaper option, is that hard to fathom |
| Posted by: Lumpy Claque7564 2008-11-05 16:10 |
| #6 There was an ad about this featuring a woman in nearly Oregon who's insurance would pay for 'termination' but not for 'treatment'. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-11-05 15:39 |
| #5 ask an ICU nurse what they think |
| Posted by: Lumpy Claque7564 2008-11-05 15:36 |
| #4 Sorry, I voted for this; after seeing many terminally ill patients (not as many as Dr. Steve, admittedly, but enough to make my decision) wither away and lose all dignity, this provides them an option. there is no mandatory offing clause, and i am satisfied with the safeguards in the bill. whether the slippery slope describes becomes reality, i guess time will tell. i do not see any evidence of that in Oregon, and they have had this for several years now. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2008-11-05 14:39 |
| #3 As a physician I'm truly angry about this. It's simple: when I walk into a room to see a patient, I always want that patient to see a healer wearing a white coat and not an executioner wearing a black hood. Physician assisted euthanasia blurs that line. It will become blurred more by those who advocate (as they did in the 1930s) that the old, infirm, and disabled have a 'duty' to get out of the way. And we all know where that leads. Tu3031 makes a valid point (in his usual snarky way :-) -- if you're really committed to ending your life, you don't need my help as a physician. There's all sorts of ways to do it without involving me and my profession. You want to off yourself, go ahead, but I'm not going to help you. This isn't about people needing 'help' to end their lives: it's about validation. They want it to be 'okay'. Tomorrow they'll want it to be a duty. The day after that they'll be making judgments on you and me about who should live and who should die. Welcome to the new world. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-11-05 12:59 |
| #2 "I'm elated," said former Washington Gov. Booth Gardner, who filed the initiative and was one of its biggest campaign contributors. Gardner is battling Parkinson's disease, though Parkinson's is not considered a terminal disease that would qualify under the initiative. So...whaddya waiting for? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-11-05 12:34 |
| #1 Not a bad idea. Recommend a plastic bag over Seattle. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-05 11:30 |