Linda Fleming: Wash. State Suicide Law Sees First Death

OLYMPIA, Wash. — A 66-year-old woman with terminal cancer has become the first person to die under Washington state's new assisted suicide law, an advocacy group said Friday.

Linda Fleming, of Sequim, died Thursday night after taking drugs prescribed under the "Death with Dignity" law that took effect in March, said Compassion & Choices of Washington.

The organization said Fleming was diagnosed last month with advanced pancreatic cancer. She would have had to have been diagnosed by two doctors as terminal in order to qualify for assisted suicide.

The group said Fleming died at home with her family, her dog and her physician at her bedside.

"The pain became unbearable, and it was only going to get worse," Fleming said in a statement released by the organization.

A physician prescribed the medication, but under the law, patients must administer the drugs themselves.

Chris Carlson, who campaigned against the law with the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide, said the death was "a sad occasion and it diminishes us all."

The new law was approved in November with nearly 60 percent of the vote, making Washington the second state in the nation with voter-approved assisted suicide legislation. It is based on a 1997 Oregon measure, under which about 400 people have ended their lives.

Story continues below

advertisement

Under both states' laws, physicians and pharmacists are not required to write or fill lethal prescriptions if they are opposed to the law. Some hospitals have opted out of the law, which precludes their doctors from participating on hospital property.

In December, a Montana district judge ruled that doctor-assisted suicides are legal. That decision, based on an individual lawsuit rather than a state law or voter initiative, is before the Montana Supreme Court, but doctors there are allowed to write prescriptions for life-ending drugs pending the appeal. It is not known if any have done so because no reporting process was in place.

In Washington, any patient requesting fatal medication must be at least 18, declared competent and be a state resident.

Two doctors would have to certify that the patient has a terminal condition and six months or less to live. The patient must also make two oral requests, 15 days apart, and make a written request witnessed by two people.

As of Friday, the state Department of Health has received six forms from pharmacists saying they have dispensed the life-ending drugs.

The state also has received five forms from individuals requesting medication to "end my life in a humane and dignified manner," and five doctors have completed forms complying with the rules of the new law.

The Health Department will report annually on the ages, genders and illnesses of the people who file forms with the state, but the individual forms people complete are exempt from state open records laws.

___

On the Net:

Center for Health Statistics, Death with Dignity Act, http://www.doh.wa.gov/dwda/formsreceived.htm

Compassion & Choices of Washington, http://www.candcofwa.org

Comments

[PlaceboStudman]

As someone who rallied support for this law from out of state, it saddens, and frankly sickens me to see all the petty bickering going on around here about whether this is right or wrong.

Whether it is right or wrong for you (as this is an individual's choice), the bickering is only glossing over that a woman has ended her life, and now the suffering transfers from her to her family, who are now coping with the heartbreaking loss of a loved one.

So while all of you go on and continue your petty bickering, I will be keeping this woman's still very much living family in my thoughts, and hoping their grief and suffering ends more quickly than her pain and suffering did

[kwinter]

I have no fear of death, I will admit to some fear of pain, though.
I'm an atheist and see this life as all I have, which makes it all the more precious.
If the time comes, when I am in a situation where the pain outweighs my enjoyment of life, and there is no reasonable hope for the situation to change, I hope there are means available to end my own life in a painless and dignified manner.
I have a living will, but there are too many situations where that will not help.
Why should it be the business of anyone else to decide I should not have the right to end my own life as I see fit?

[JohnFromCensornati]

Check out minsyn's recent comments for a horrifying story.

[kwinter]

"horrifying" is right ... so tragic!

[BabblingBrooks]

More petty bickering, I guess, but I find atheism a faith-based non-religion. That is, one can no more prove there isn't a god than prove there is. Logically then, said Mr.Spock, agnosticism is the only rational course. The correct answer to the question "Is there a god?" is "danged if I know!"

[Disdain]

I don't know everything about this poor woman circumstances but as deadly as pancreatic cancer can be, some people do survive and lead a perfectly normal life. My best friend is a very proud 7 year survivor. One month diagnostic sounds a bit premature to me.

[JohnFromCensornati]

It's no of your GD business when this woman wants to d-i-e!

[JohnFromCensornati]

None of your GD business

[Disdain]

You must be a prize to have around!

[jordan3189]

Why do we even hear about it then? Go to the suicide handbook, pick one, do it, shut up.

[JohnFromCensornati]

The opponents of this type of law like to force all sorts of roadblocks like requiring a mental health evaluation. It seems to me that this woman took the sane way out.
It's the people who donate to the pope that need to have their heads examined.

[BabblingBrooks]

I think the question to answer is "Whose life is it anyway?" If your life belongs to you, then the government has no reason to tell you what to do with it unless you are harming someone else physically or monetarily. This appears to be the liberal position.

Strange, then, that they can't see the same should apply to one's income or other fruits of one's life and labor.

It is a serious inconsistency in modern liberalism.

Of course, conservatives have the opposite contradiction!

Thus, we libertarians are the only ones correct on both issues. Of course, most libertarians refuse to take the Islamic supremacist conflict seriously, so that's the libertarian conflict. If one allows everybody to lose all their liberties because of some Ron Paulish view that we can't fight jihad strenuously, then libertarianism loses, too.

What we need are militant libertarians who want to kill terrorists.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"Strange, then, that they can't see the same should apply to one's income or other fruits of one's life and labor."

I do feel way, way more milit@nt about my life than I do about my money. I guess I'm strange that way.

[BabblingBrooks]

It's that "right to life,liber­ty,propert­y, etc." thing. The fruits of your efforts, your life activities, should be yours.

[Ajita]

"Strange, then, that they can't see the same should apply to one's income or other fruits of one's life and labor."

I am a liberal and believe in the right to the "fruits of one's life and labor". The problem is that sometimes things are not as black and white as that. The libertarian position is one of short-sighted idealism. People are born into different socio-economic classes, which affect the "fruits of one's labor". Libertarians ignore social inequality in opportunity, mostly because it is inconvenient to them.

Another reason is that libertarians assume that just because one is born intelligent and capable, it is morally right that they deserve more than others. This is another form of priviledge by birth and genetics.

The libertarian position is defined by Ayn Rand's famous "Selfishness is a Virtue".

The progressive position is that we are all equal in our capacity for joy and suffering. The object of civilized society is to overcome the pressures of living, together.

[BabblingBrooks]

You should note that 94% of wealthy people were NOT BORN WEALTHY. So, to satisfy your class warfare urges against 6% of people, you create rules to punish the 94% who gained their status in life by talent, hard work, skill, study, effort,etc.

Indeed, if someone has more talent, intelligence, or just works harder than someone else, they will do better. It's not a matter of "deserve" or "moral right." It's just reality!

The urge to make outcomes equal for everybody is one of those pernicious urges that creates much havoc.

I suppose then, based on your position, you would mandate that 5'4" orientals with no athletic talent should still have a quota and make equal salary on NBA basketball teams? Seriously? Do you not see that your equality urge is, at heart, ridiculous?

[Ajita]

Also being a liberal doesn't mean that you don't agree with some libertarian principles. Ever heard of socialist libertarians? Government has no right to tell me that I can't kill myself to end my suffering, if I choose to. Most liberals would agree with that. I don't see why you would think that liberals are in favor of preventing assisted suicides.

[BabblingBrooks]

Sure, I've heard of it. I rather clearly spelled it out already, didn't I. I just don't see why you choose to suddenly turn fascist and confiscate people's property once you stray from the social realm!

[rue]

It's only an inconsistency if one equates life with money, or If one equates life with privilege. If we lived in a classless society whose citizens understood the true meaning of "the pursuit of happiness," where CEO's didn't earn 300 times what their employees earn, where 20 to 25 percent of our children did not grow up in poverty, then there might be an inconsistency. What I find puzzling is how so many people of average income are so eager to protect the incomes of the wealthy, the politically connected, the privileged.

[BabblingBrooks]

Life, property, fruits of labor--I don't see the inconsistency or see why the left wing turns fascist and totalitarian when it comes to one's success in life.

[MathIsTruth]

I'm having a little trouble following your argument.

First of all, it's not intrinsically obvious that a person's life is philosophically interchangeable with a person's stuff.

But it also seems like what you're referring to is taxation. Given that governments can't run without money, it seems that what you're talking about is being 100% anti-government. Which to me would be anarchy.

I have no doubt that I have mis-represented your perspective. I'm just saying that you've given such a terse description of your perspective that it doesn't seem to make any sense (to me).

[BabblingBrooks]

I would surely agree to some reasonable form of taxation--it is just the fascist totalitarian version which punishes people for success that I object to. I'm not one of these crazy anarchists. Liberals, to me, seem rather socially anarchic and fiscally fascist. I prefer a reasonable libertarian approach to both.

I am for the FairTax plan of Linder-Boortz, myself, but could hear argumetns from other folks.

Sorry my point of view is hard to understand. Keep trying.

[lhsouthern1988]

i think the law here in washington has the 2 dr to just make certain all the i's are dotted . Here is my county the pro life hospital system had a monopoly on the doctors who practice here and it will force patients to go to either south to vancouver or north to tacoma . I think there is going to an underground railroad sort of thing to guide patients to friendly doctors who are not threatened with the loss of their hospital privaledges if they participate.

[tploomis]

The law, while moving in the right direction, is unnecessarily restrictive. Why should a person be terminal before being allowed to kill himself? Why do two doctors need to certify this? Why is this restricted to Washington state residents? People who want to kill themselves should be allowed to do so. It's not anybody else's business whether this is the right decision for those people or not. They make their own decisions and we should respect that.

[JohnFromCensornati]

In a word: Je$u$.

[MamaBird62]

This is "doctor assisted" suicide. That's the part that is regulated, as it should be.
You are free to kill yourself anytime, but if you want professional help, those people have to be protected by the law.

[tploomis]

Wow, your right! I'll hop right on it!

[LMPE]

Here in Oregon we passed the first such law in the country. John Ashcroft challenged it (presumably because he lost to a dead guy in Missouri).

[AlwaysRightLeftist]

"Chris Carlson, who campaigned against the law with the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide, said the death was 'a sad occasion and it diminishes us all.' "

It's really sad that she wasn't forced to suffer!

[JohnFromCensornati]

Well, we can all pray that Chris has unbearable pain when her time comes so that she won't be diminished.

[jaschrod]

The fact that Chris wants to speak for all of us by saying It diminishes us all, shows that she is the kind of person that believes none of us have the right to decide anything about our own lives. She knows it all.

[lazercat2008]

And Thomas Paine thought you could not have it both ways.

[zakwouldhave]

I wish the family the best. I also didn't know this law existed in Washington and Oregon. As long as the law is crafted well this is a compassionate result.

[fiorastar]

It has worked well for many years now in Oregon. There was quite a fight to prevent it from becoming law, with those against saying it would lead to a "slippery slope" where we would all start using euthanasia as a way to kill off anyone who became a burden to us. Reading too many science fiction stories, I think. The law was crafted very well, including a requirement that the attending physician confirm that the person is terminally ill and is not suicidally depressed. If it is approved, the person is able to then get a prescription for life-ending drugs, with instructions for how to use it, and is then able to use or not use it as that person sees fit for themselves. There are many other constraints to make sure it is not used inappropriately.

After many years, it has been noted that most patients who are approved for this do not end up using it--but just the ability to know it is there for them should they need it makes their final days easier.

[LorettaSingbiel]

There was quite a fight to prevent it from becoming law, with those against saying it would lead to a "slippery slope" where we would all start using euthanasia as a way to kill off anyone who became a burden to us.

How about the PHONY "right-to-lifers" addressing the INCONVENIENT TRUTH that the "healthcare" insurance companies are KILLING off anyone who becomes a burden to their bottom line!

[Oonagh]

A death with dignity. When my dog was old and ailing I had a vet give him a shot and he went into the eternal sleep... When my father was terminally ill he struggled to die .. a death without dignity.

[JohnFromCensornati]

My father *chose* de@th w/o dignity. I don't understand it at all.

[pmhunter]

I have progressive Multiple Sclerosis. My husband has quite a burden on him already, and I have not yet progressed to the point where I can do nothing for myself. He's amazing, never complains, and works so hard. If assisted suicide was a choice in Florida (where I live) and without the restrictions of having to have a 'terminal' illness, I would probably choose to die once I become completely dependent to spare him the burden of caring for me, spending all our savings, etc.

[PlaceboStudman]

It may be an uphill battle in florida, but you can check out http://www.compassionandchoices.com to get you or someone you know started on developing a state Right to Die chapter

[QueenMaeve]

I wish you the very best. My cousin's wife is battling MS right now. Try to keep in mind, though, that if he's anything like my cousin, he doesn't see it as a burden. Love, allow yourself to be loved, and do what's best for you.

[pmhunter]

Thanks for the replies.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Don't give up your life, just yet. There may be a cure for MS within your lifetime. Hang in there.

Consider looking for assisted living facilities or help at home so that you do not feel that you are such a burden on your husband. I would imagine that he feels it is his privilege to love and care for you.

[DocSyracuse]

I am so sorry you are going through all of this. I will pray for your health.
I hope you have access to an excellent neurologist who has expertise in MS- and it's always a good idea to get a second (or third) opinion of treatment options.
Best Wishes

[paulalex]

"Chris Carlson, who campaigned against the law with the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide, said the death was "a sad occasion and it diminishes us all."

I wonder what Chris is going to do now that people can do what they want with their own lives, stand outside abortion clinics?

[AlwaysRightLeftist]

That quote stood out to me as well.

[rockyjoe]

My mother died from pancreatic cancer and it is indeed an extremely painful disease. The really clumsy and awkward way this was handled by the hospital only prolonged her agony by several weeks. Eventually they raised her morphine drip until she died of respiratory failure. I am convinced they "put her out of her misery" -- but without being able to tell me that was what they were doing. It was the right thing to do, but they couldn't explicitly tell me that was what they were doing at the time. I only wish this law had been in place 19 years ago! But euthanasia goes on all the time in hospitals, just by other names....

[racetoinfinity]

That's a salient point.

[YankinCanada]

I can tell you from my chats with a close friend who's a post op head nurse that it happens all the time. Be at peace.

My mom came home to die after her cancer came back after 6 months of chemo. It took 12 days and was gruesome. There were needles in her room and I was tempted to do it but afraid because I didn't know which ones and afraid to ask. If it becomes my time due to cancer, I'll forgo all the cutting and chemo. I'll make my good byes and go quickly.

[CR46]

We brought my mom home to die also, and even as an RN I could not make that choice legally and my mom wouldn't let me endanger my future. I wish this law had been there for my whole family, my mom suffered so much that last year, that after 8 yrs it still brings tears to my eyes to think about it.

[ahoyhoy]

Yes. They did this for my Granny, who had cancer throughout her body before it was discovered. My Granny had been a decades-long employee of that hospital, and my mother also worked there. My step-father was an RN. The doctors told them exactly what they were doing, and my mother and step-father completely agreed. There was no attempt to hide anything about it. So, you are right. It's common practice.
Even morphine eventually stops working, and the only way to escape the pain at last is to take a fatal dose.
I hope someone cares enough about me to do this if I am terminal and suffering.

[DocSyracuse]

I've seen this done in a number of cases, and it's not discussed much. You make an excellent point.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Of course it does, but they make people suffer terribly first and then *they* decide when to do it.
Wrong.