Assisted Suicide On Washington Ballot Initiative

[yongrel]

From the Free Turkey:
http://thefreeturkey.com/2008/10/31/assisted-suicide-on-washington-states-ballot/

This November, residents of Washington state have the opportunity to vote for something that actually matters, instead of the usual political name games. For the first time since 1991 a ballot initiative allowing physician-assisted suicide will be voted on, whose passage would make Washington only the second state in the country to allow the act.

As reported by the New York Times, the new law “would not allow doctors to administer the lethal drugs.” Instead, “it would permit them only to prescribe the drugs, which patients would give themselves, orally.” This is identical to the only other existing law, which was passed in Oregon in 1997.

Additionally, the initiative specifies that “two doctors, each making an assessment independent of the other’s, would have to determine that a patient had less than six months to live before that patient could receive a lethal prescription.”

What Washington is voting on is basically the further legalization of self-ownership.

Continue reading... (http://thefreeturkey.com/2008/10/31/assisted-suicide-on-washington-states-ballot/)

[axiomata]

Why do you need a positive law to "legalize self-ownership"? People should have the right to make decision of suicide and carry it out themselves. Why does government have to be involved in this process?

Additionally, even though I realize this law wouldn't require doctors to prescribe these drugs, people I know in the medical field take their Hippocratic Oath seriously and believe not "First, do[ing] no harm" would be corrosive to the field.

[yongrel]

Why do you need a positive law to "legalize self-ownership"? People should have the right to make decision of suicide and carry it out themselves. Why does government have to be involved in this process?

Additionally, even though I realize this law wouldn't require doctors to prescribe these drugs, people I know in the medical field take their Hippocratic Oath seriously and believe not "First, do[ing] no harm" would be corrosive to the field.

It's about repealing laws that have criminalized self-ownership. If Washington passes this initiative, they'd be decriminalizing, or legalizing, the action. Sorry if the wording was confusing. Suggestions for an edit?

As far as harm goes, I think it varies from doctor to doctor. In Oregon already, there are a substantial number of Doctors who feel that they are preventing harm by allowing their patients to end their suffering.

[Danke]

Yongrel, are you thinking of moving to Washington?

[yongrel]

Yongrel, are you thinking of moving to Washington?

I'm not terminal yet :D

[NewEnd]

yes on i 1000 in wa.. :D

[klamath]

Suicide should be Legal. Assisted suicide should not. Almost no one is bad enough not to be able to kill themselves. Next we will have is some poor teenager going through a hormonal fit saying they want to kill themselves and one of their (not) friends says "ok I'll get the chair noose and kick the chair out from under you!" Legalizing assisted suicide is opening up a huge governmental encroachment in who, how what when and where this can all happen and in the process set the legal course to government determined mercy killing. Leave the law at, another human being cannot kill another except in self defence.

[yongrel]

Suicide should be Legal. Assisted suicide should not. Almost no one is bad enough not to be able to kill themselves. Next we will have is some poor teenager going through a hormonal fit saying they want to kill themselves and one of their (not) friends says "ok I'll get the chair noose and kick the chair out from under you!" Legalizing assisted suicide is opening up a huge governmental encroachment in who, how what when and where this can all happen and in the process set the legal course to government determined mercy killing. Leave the law at, another human being cannot kill another except in self defence.

Very few individuals can prescribe themselves medication that would allow them to die peacefully and painlessly.

[klamath]

Very few individuals can prescribe themselves medication that would allow them to die peacefully and painlessly.

Then go after the prescription laws so they can, don't give someone else the right to kill.

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

From the Constitution Party Platform:

"We also oppose all government legalization of suicide."

[D.H.]

As far as harm goes, I think it varies from doctor to doctor. In Oregon already, there are a substantial number of Doctors who feel that they are preventing harm by allowing their patients to end their suffering.

Exactly. There are many doctors who want this law. To a certain extent they are doing it already. Doctor's "hasten the process" with IV's of barbituates to ease a patient's pain. A side effect of these is also a suppression to the respiratory system.

A lot of people don't know what goes on and have no basis to judge as they would be doing so due to ignorance and lack of experience with caring for family members that are terminally ill. It should be against the law that survivors last memories of their loved ones are of them crying out in pain and saying that they just want to die.

Some people want to harken back to the "old days" naively thinking that everyone just peacefully died in their sleep. The irony is the doctors were a LOT more heavy handed with the morphine back then.

[klamath]

Exactly. There are many doctors who want this law. To a certain extent they are doing it already. Doctor's "hasten the process" with IV's of barbituates to ease a patient's pain. A side effect of these is also a suppression to the respiratory system.

A lot of people don't know what goes on and have no basis to judge as they would be doing so due to ignorance and lack of experience with caring for family members that are terminally ill. It should be against the law that survivors last memories of their loved ones are of them crying out in pain and saying that they just want to die.

Some people want to harken back to the "old days" naively thinking that everyone just peacefully died in their sleep. The irony is the doctors were a LOT more heavy handed with the morphine back then.

Sorry but that doesn't apply to me. My family and I took care of my Father for the last three months of his life. He died in his own bed. The wonderful doctors dianosed him with terminal lung cancer and a non insured patient. They didn't even bother to prescribe oxygen until we asked. "Oh yeaw I suspose you could get him that." Every bit of medication for him we had to work to get a prescription for. He was in extreme pain with bed sores to the bone and unending slow suffocation. Still all this time an overdose of medication was within his arms reach and he could have ended his own life. A doctor preventing a patient from taking his or her own life is wrong but a doctor should not take a life.

[kojirodensetsu]

I wanted to vote yes on this, because I think suicide should be legal. But reading the arguments against it changed my mind. They stated something like insurers could deny insurance to terminally ill patients and just say "take the death pills and leave us alone."

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Then go after the prescription laws so they can, don't give someone else the right to kill.The right to kill with consent. I don't see what's wrong with that.

[klamath]

The right to kill with consent. I don't see what's wrong with that.
I am sure parents of a teenage daughter or son that asked to be killed in despair over a breakup would be quite happy to kill without consent the person that did it.:mad:

[HOLLYWOOD]

From the Constitution Party Platform:

"We also oppose all government legalization of suicide."

Well that's against the Liberties of the U.S. CONSTITUTION. So much for the Right To Privacy too, eh? The Constitution party has quite a few contradictions to the CONSITUTION.

for the other posters:

initiative specifies that “two doctors, each making an assessment independent of the other’s, would have to determine that a patient had less than six months to live before that patient could receive a lethal prescription.”

LESS THAN 6 MONTHS TO LIVE... assessed by 2 doctors

[klamath]

Well that's against the Liberties of the U.S. CONSTITUTION. So much for the Right To Privacy too, eh? The Constitution party has quite a few contradictions to the CONSITUTION.

for the other posters:

initiative specifies that “two doctors, each making an assessment independent of the other’s, would have to determine that a patient had less than six months to live before that patient could receive a lethal prescription.”

LESS THAN 6 MONTHS TO LIVE... assessed by 2 doctors

The constitution calls for a jury, normally of 12 to sentence a person to death.

[yongrel]

The constitution calls for a jury, normally of 12 to sentence a person to death.

This isnt about punishment for a crime, this is about a personal choice to die. The only sentencing is done by the suffering patient.

[D.H.]

I'm not sure if everyone read the blog. Here is the last part;

"The act of assisted suicide, while tragic, is a final assertion of one’s power. In death, the terminally ill take back the control of their lives that has been lost for so long. They aren’t held hostage by their sickness anymore, for they may take their lives into their own hands. This isn’t a place for government to intervene; criminalizing only lessens liberty and increases suffering. The individual must decide for himself, and he must be able to decide for himself.

After all, it is only appropriate for the human life defined by freedom to end in choice"

I don't know why anyone would disagree with this particularly from a standpont of individual liberty.

Klamath, thanks for sharing your story. You understand and know all too well that these are personal, painful situations within a family that should remain private. Just as I would not question your father's choice no one should question mine if I choose not to live in pain.

This is not directed at you but a general statement; I am tired of living in a nanny state. From cradle to grave others can't mind their businss and want to tell people what to do. No party that supports the Constitution should have this in their platform - I am not illiterate, I can read the Constitution. It's bad enough we live our lives with people trying to legislate their personal views upon the individual but I will be damned if I have them hovering over my death bed too.

[PatriotOne]

We can not have terminally ill people taking their own lives before the medical industry has had the opprotunity to take every last bit of accumulated wealth of the individual by superficially keeping them alive. That's just crazy talk :eek:.

[literatim]

I wanted to vote yes on this, because I think suicide should be legal. But reading the arguments against it changed my mind. They stated something like insurers could deny insurance to terminally ill patients and just say "take the death pills and leave us alone."

Definitely a strong argument against legalizing it. I know similar stuff has happened in other countries. In socialist countries, they urge old people to kill themselves so they won't be a burden on the welfare system. Something similar actually happens in America without the consent of the person. It's called Hospice, old people are killed time and again by increasing their medication to extreme limits to have them die off quickly.


We can not have terminally ill people taking their own lives before the medical industry has had the opprotunity to take every last bit of accumulated wealth of the individual by superficially keeping them alive. That's just crazy talk :eek:.

Most terminally ill people are covered by insurance or by some state or federal medical plan. This is why socialists want to legalize this.

[klamath]

I'm not sure if everyone read the blog. Here is the last part;

"The act of assisted suicide, while tragic, is a final assertion of one’s power. In death, the terminally ill take back the control of their lives that has been lost for so long. They aren’t held hostage by their sickness anymore, for they may take their lives into their own hands. This isn’t a place for government to intervene; criminalizing only lessens liberty and increases suffering. The individual must decide for himself, and he must be able to decide for himself.

After all, it is only appropriate for the human life defined by freedom to end in choice"

I don't know why anyone would disagree with this particularly from a standpont of individual liberty.

Klamath, thanks for sharing your story. You understand and know all too well that these are personal, painful situations within a family that should remain private. Just as I would not question your father's choice no one should question mine if I choose not to live in pain.

This is not directed at you but a general statement; I am tired of living in a nanny state. From cradle to grave others can't mind their businss and want to tell people what to do. No party that supports the Constitution should have this in their platform - I am not illiterate, I can read the Constitution. It's bad enough we live our lives with people trying to legislate their personal views upon the individual but I will be damned if I have them hovering over my death bed too.

I guess I would have to read the actual proposed law. It all hinges on the word assisted. If you read my arguments I never argued against someone having the right to take their own life. I totally agree with that right. What I do not agree with giving another person the right to assist. What exactly is assist? That is a pretty wide open word. If it is leaving a lethal dose of medication within reach that is one thing. Hooking up IVs with the full intent to kill the patient that is another.

[axiomata]

I guess I would have to read the actual proposed law.
http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/Pages/OnlineVoterGuideGeneral2008.aspx#ososTop