Death With Dignity Initiative in Washington

If there are images in this attachment, they will not be displayed. Download the original attachment

Death With Dignity believers -- those of us who think physician-aid-in-dying should be legal -- are quietly rejoicing this week. That's because the state of Washington voted Yes -- 59% to 41% -- on Initiative 1000. The main opposition was the Catholic Church, as it has been in other states where the ballot initiative failed to pass. This time the Church had the actor Martin Sheen doing commercials that were effective, but apparently not effective enough.

Like the law in Oregon that was passed ten years ago, Initiative 1000 allows doctors to prescribe lethal drugs requested by competent dying patients who want the right to die quickly, when they choose. As in Oregon, there are many safeguards: among them, two doctors must confirm that the patient has less than six months to live and is mentally competent. The patient must request the lethal prescription verbally and in writing, witnessed by two people, at least one of whom is not an heir. The patient, himself or herself, must administer the medication.

This is not euthanasia. This is not Dr. Kevorkian.

What I would have given for such a law twenty years ago when I helped my mother die. My mother had ovarian cancer and it was killing her -- but in her view, not fast enough. My mother was a hard-headed, practical type who saw no sense in a miserable, dragged-out death. "I've had a wonderful life," she said to me, "but now it's over." Except, of course, it wasn't. Very sick and dying people often talk about wanting to die. What made my mother different from most of them was that she meant it. In fact, she insisted on it. My husband and I, with great difficulty, found a way. She died quickly, peacefully, gratefully. It all worked, but I knew while we were in the thick of it that this was no way to deal with a situation like this. First of all, we were amateurs. We had the (secret) help of a doctor, but he couldn't be there and the pills he told us to acquire were not easy for a very sick person to digest. (In Oregon -- and now in Washington -- the lethal medication is drinkable.) In addition, we could have been prosecuted for a crime. This was New York, but a family member or friend who assists in dying is breaking the law, even in Oregon and Washington. It's the doctor -- and finally the patient -- who must be in charge.

My mother didn't quite understand that she was asking us to do something that might be considered illegal and I didn't want her to know. The most important thing was to rescue her from life, where she desperately didn't want to be. Once she knew that a rescue was at hand, a change came over her. Her terror disappeared; she became calm; she became herself again. Her sister, who didn't know what we were up to, thought she was getting well. She wasn't getting well. She had simply regained control of her life, that is, of her death. At one point she asked me, "What do other people do who are in this situation?" I didn't have an answer, but the question stayed with me. Observers in Oregon have seen the same sense of well-being come over people who have received a lethal prescription. Almost half of them wind up not using it; last year only forty-nine people did. But, as a result of having the liquid potion in their possession, all of those people had a sense of control; they had peace of mind. As a one-time cancer patient, myself, I can imagine that everyone who lives in the state of Oregon -- and now of Washington -- has peace of mind as well, just knowing that if/when they need help to die, they can get it. That's why the law is important. That's why we in this movement are bent on getting other states to do the same. It won't happen quickly and in some states, like California, it has failed, which is not to say another attempt won't be made. But, for now, it has happened in Washington. And I, for one, in memory of my mother, am grateful.

Betty Rollin/Board Member, Death With Dignity National Center/Author Last Wish, Here's the Bright Side.

Comments

[TRex86]

Supporting physician assisted suicide should not be an article of faith for progressives. The Oregon and Washington laws are deceptive and dangerous. One need not be terminal to commit suicide nor does it require a physician. These laws exploit terminally ill patients to build a case for legalizing euthanasia--or making laws against it unenforceable. The Oregon experience--published annually for over a decade--shows that uncontrolled symptoms have NOTHING to do with requests for assisted suicide. Eighty percent of the victims of Oregon's law are cancer patients who are neither in pain nor disabled by their disease. They are fearful of what might happen in the future. This is not a legitimate argument for medicalized suicide. These are anguished people making a cry for help. Herb Hendin and Kathy Foley have published a careful investigation of the Oregon experience. It's not what the proponents make it out to be. Moreover, hospice and palliative care professionals have the skills to relieve the symptoms of dying patients. Putting a lethal overdose in the hands of a "terminal" patient is wholly unnecessary; having a doctor do it is bad medicine.

[MarkInEugene]

You have delivered your anti-right-to-die argument. Now let's hear why you insist that others adhere to your view despite making an immensely painful decision to the contrary. Grace us with your wisdom and benevolence that demonstrates why you prefer that the state decide for us. Please explain to those families experiencing the trauma of this ordeal why you feel others who don't even know the patient exists should have a say in overriding his or her decision.

For what possible reason do you want to interfere in the very personal life and death decisions of others?

[TRex86]

FYI, suicide requires no enabling legislation. There is no shortage of tall buildings, firearms, etc. Deputizing physicians to euthanize their patients is the problem. All the arguments in favor of this unnecessary "right-to-die" are profoundly naive and contradictory regarding the role of physicians.
Often the argument is that a loved one was allowed to die in agony because of physician reluctance to treat pain. This is a legitimate criticism of physicians, but how does it translate into giving them a license to kill? There is--and should be--no special training for physicians to "competently" end lives. It should never be in their job description.
As for physicians that support PAS the truth is that some of them are committing euthanasia and want legal cover. In Oregon, for instance, two well known physicians have had a hand in at least one half of the legal cases of PAS. Their willingness to end patients' lives isn't compassion it is counter-transference run amok. I would caution against the naive belief that physicians willing to engage in PAS are either compassionate or competent.

[Rimser]

To the organized mind, death is but the next great adventure -- Albus Dumbledore (compliments of JK Rowling).

[rjmiller]

As part of our constitutional right of privacy, the right to decide our own fates should be a simple guarantee. Unfortunately our legal system is too tied up in religious lobbying to allow anything logical like that to happen.

[LMPE]

As a lifelong Oregonian, I not only take pride in our Death with Dignity Act (the Netherlands in 2001 became the first country to legalize physician-assisted suicide), but the fact that it so irked John "I lost the Senate race to a dead guy" Ashcroft that he tried to repeal it. The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision allowing Oregon to keep the law (with both O'Connor and Kennedy supporting it) meant that not even the addition of Sam Alito could have prevented it! How do ya like them apples?

[LarBear]

Having Died and returned to my body, Death holds NO Fears for me... Organized Religion promotes Fear of Death, with a GOD waiting to judge us... That absolutely was NOT my experience... The only one who "Judged Me" was Me... Me evaluating my Life and mostly what Fear had cost Me....

Why would I Believe in a Biblical GOD??? A Father who would torture and burn His disobedient children in Hell for Eternity??? WHAT??? Only a very Emotionally sick Human Parent would do something like that in Temporary Insanity... So what Purpose does the Biblical God serve??? FEAR...

Fear to herd the sheeple into a Flock Religion can Control... Yes, Religion may speak of Love, and a Loving GOD, but in practice, Fear is used as the Herd Dog, keeping the Flock under Control... When People believe their Spirit/Soul is in Danger, they tend to react, NOT question... Core Religious Beliefs are a Powerful motivator... Organized Religion counts on that motivating Fear... Politicians clearly are grasping that Fact... Carl Rove gets it!

Did Spirit/ Soul exist before a sperm/egg united, or did that union create the Spirit/ Soul that animates the Body (Vehicle)??? If Pre-existing, that tends to say Spirit/ Soul, true SELF is already Eternal in Nature... IS that IS... Perhaps existed before the Material World was created...
Fear is about Control... Love inspires Power... Die Powerfully... Have no Fear of leaving your Vehicle behind...

[GrainOSand]

Quality of life is beyond that provided by a breathing and feeding tube. Life is more than survival. I read some of the other comments. I wonder why the GOP is so hypocritical. They are pro-life, but also pro death penalty. They are against euthanasia or dignified death, but in all other cases -- you are on your own. If I am on my own post birth and pre death, then leave me alone in the womb and on the deathbed. People are nothing more than kindling for the radical aspect of the GOP's fire of wedge issues. Meanwhile, real suffering, pain, and tragedy continue unabated.

The one place of legitimate debate I see concerning this issue is who determines what construes acceptable quality of life. I have known people who are physically well yet mentally they are spent. In the two cases of this, both people opted for suicide. One succeeded and the other did not. In the latter case, the individual continues to suffer and refuses to take medication. He is loathed to attempt self-termination again because of the sheer terror of his botched attempt. He would argue for the law of dignified death to extend to him. Thereby, we arrive at the slippery slope of this issue. How many able-bodied people would elect death if they knew they could do so free of pain due to death of spirit, of hope, of dreams...of all that life is beyond breathing, eating, and sleeping?

[caterpol]

An able-bodied person has the means to end their life, which is not so for many of the terminally ill. Hard to kill yourself if you can't get out of bed.

In your own example, the mentally unwell person has CHOSEN not to end his life, and despite his reasons, he does have the means.

So where's the slippery slope?

[GrainOSand]

The slippery slope is his hiring a lawyer and petitioning to extend the definition of quality of life if in the state where he lives if there were a dignified death law on the books. The slippery slope is what it always is -- "Where do we draw the line?" This is why I presented the question of how many would elect self-termination if they could be assured it would be quick and painless. Sure, an able-bodied person does have the physical means but perhaps is impaired mentally through fear from taking the step.

I understand the dignified death argument and agree with it, since I watched my father die a horrid death and when the hospital asked if we wanted life sustaining measures to be applied, I was the one that had to make the decision along with his sister. Yet he struggled on for several days after that decision. As one who believes in God and who was indoctrinated to believe that suicide is an unforgivable sin, it was a great leap for me to get to the point where I could accept that there are situations where the living should be able to choose to die. I find post commenting on this subject that what comes to mind is too lengthy and nuanced to discuss in this way. I hope I have somewhat clarified my meaning.

Sincere regards

[MarkInEugene]

Thank You Washington and Oregon!

Thank you for being the most conscious and civil states in the union on this issue. It is a crime to force people to die long and painful deaths! It is forward thinking, courageous and wonderfully satsifying to see these states do what's really right. Why it has taken so long for humanity to free itself from this taboo is reprehensible!

This is humanity at it's very best....enlightened, caring, wise and intelligent.

[Oregon Ivy]

Maybe some day the entire US will become as civilized as our beautiful Pacific Northwest states. We have friendly, compassionate, caring environmentally responsible people here (for the most part) and I love it.

[maggieblue]

Nobody deserves to die in pain. It berates me to see that people have such small tunnel vision that they cannot see the suffering patients go through. I wholeheartedly believe in Death with Dignity. If we can do it for our pets, why can't we do it for ourselves if we so desire?
"Right to lifers" need to keep their noses out of everybody else's business. It is not like we would force death with dignity upon them. This is a CHOICE, not a mandate.

GO WASHINGTON!!!

[oregondaisy]

I watched my aunt die of cancer and many times wished she would put her religious dogma aside and take advantage of the merciful law, though I never did voice my thoughts to anyone in my family. Sadly, she didn't and the last month was so excruciating that she would hoard her pain medicine so she could take enough at night to allow her to get just a little sleep. She died in agony, and i was the most gut wrenching thing I have even seen in my life.

I supported and voted for the Death with Dignity Act here in Oregon and voted against the repeal of the law. Luckily the Supreme Court ruled that the law would stand and protected our rights to have control over our own bodies.

I really can't wrap my head around the logic that says it's HUMANE to put and animal out of it's misery, but ANIMALISTIC to help a human out of their misery. Where is the humanity in that?

[Tom Payned]

We also put people on death row to death with lethal injections. The Pro Lifers have no problem with that. But make it someone you love, who is pain, who is going to die soon anyway, has asked for help and suddenly, its against God's will.

[oregondaisy]

I completely agree.

The arguement I usually get is that "It's not up to us to play God and make his decisions." Well, I am not a religious person at all but my response is "If I am terminal, then hasn't God already made the decision?" There usually isn't a response.....

[Tom Payned]

As an Oregonian transplant, who moved to Oregon in part because of the death with dignity act, I hope that Washingtonians do not suffer the problems we had here in Oregon. The people of Oregon passed the death with dignity act in 1994. As I have a mother who has (at that point) survived 5 different types of cancer, I had promised her each time she agreed to undergo surgery and chemo, that if she asked, I would help her leave her pain.

Church groups and right to lifers, who had fought against the 1994 law, pressured the legislators that we didn't know what we had voted for so 1997, a measure was put on the ballot to repeal it. This time, the death with dignity act passed 60% to 40%.

That wouldn't be the end of it however, Republicans who used to care about state's rights, decided we were children and the Feds needed to school us. Bush and CO tried to repeal it, but the 2005 Supremes said no.

A little known fact is since being named Attorney General Ashcroft in 2001, focused his energy on two issues, death with dignity and our medical marijuana. These two issues were a lot more important than battling terrorism. Maybe if he'd spent his time reading the field memos from MN and AZ 9-11 could have been averted. Good job of prioritizing. More people died on 911 than in the 14 years of our death with dignity act.

[CamJam]

I'm a native Oregonian, and have personally seen four in my family die a very slow horrible death of Cancer. There are others in my family that did as well, but I did not see them die away a bit more day after day. But none ever considered (that I know of) considered the Death with Dignity route (2 have passed away since this passed) Of the two I am thinking of, I believe they would have opted doing this, but wouldn't because of family members.

And I'll never forget how Ashcroft and Gonszales really had it in for Oregon, as well as others in the Bush Administration. It is odd though how Oregon voted to pass this, but then in 2004 prevents gays from getting married and has the constition re-written. Maybe I find it strange because I was born and raised in Portland, Oregon..

What Betty Rollin went through with her mother reminds me of that one movie I watched some years back (naturally I cried). It came out in 1998 starring Meryl Streep and Renée Zellweger called "One True Thing"

If I were faced with the same as my family has, I am positive I would seek Death with Dignity.

[kellygrrrl]

if I ever get a confirmed terminal diagnosis -- I will move to WA or OR immediately.

[Tom Payned]

I don't know about WA new law, but you have to be a resident of Oregon before you can avail yourself of our law. One of the biggest concerns, which never came about, was that Oregon would become a magnet for the dying. This as not happened of course, but we've not really spelled out what determines a "resident" for the death with dignity act. However, to get a resident hunting or fishing license, you have to prove you have had an address/residence for at six months.

[Fenderbender]

Indeed, this is a very important law, and I too, wish it were available to my mother twenty-one years ago. She died a horrible and painful death from cancer. It was bloody, painful and ugly. No person should have to go through what my mother did at her death... no one. I live in the State of Washington and I did vote for this initiative just for that reason. Death with Dignity.