Nicely done, Knute.

I still baffles me why some people insist on sticking their nose into the most personal affairs of others. Who do these people think they are that they would deny someone else's decision to pull the plug after a losing battle with cancer, or dictate which activities are allowed in the bedroom?

Oh, that's right, they think they're representatives of God. The arrogance is astounding.

Knute - why are you so afraid of catholics that you go out of your way to be offensive to them?

I'm not catholic. They can't tell me not to use a condom. But I'm not afraid of them like you are.

Catholics have a lot of wacky ideas, but they're not wrong every time. I agree with them enough to vote No on I-1000. The writers of I-1000 should fix it and bring it back for a vote. I'm voting No until they fix it:

1) I-1000 does not require witnesses to watch the patient ingest the fatal dose. How are we going to know the patient chose to die that day?

2) I-1000 is dishonest. Doctors must lie on the death certificate. I'm OK with a hopeless patient killing themself. Why make a doctor lie about it? Let's keep statistics and de-stigmatize suicide for dying people.

Until they fix it, Vote NO on I-1000

This is a really nice article, Knute. Thank you!

I really appreciate your connecting the death with dignity initiative with reproductive rights work - because it shows a recognition of what is really going on here...

I do take issue with the characterization of Dan Savage's article ("uh, spirited and profane") - seems a little condescending of what is, at this point: simply called for. As someone with a horse (aka ovaries) in the game, I was really grateful for Dan's outrage. I'm for non-violence - but that doesn't mean I'm going to curtsy while these old-male-led institutions try to control my body.

For example nice and tidy snapshot of what McCain (and many who subscribe to pro-life leaders' logic) think of me:
1) Along with all women, I can comfortably and on national television be referred to as "the mother" AKA current or potential vessel for his seed
2) My health is questionable grounds for concern, so much so that the concept of me (the vessel) having health at all is in fact worthy of suspicion quotes
3) My fetus's health, on the other hand, is grounds for a crusade
4) I am a *coward* if I do anything but bring my pregnancy (no matter HOW I got it) to full term

I think his words reveal that his anti-choice position (whether at the end or at the beginning of life) isn't about law OR unborn children OR sacred life for him. It's about cum. It's about getting pesky ladies out of the way of his glorious semen and the glorious semen of men everywhere - a crusade he's happy to lead as self-ordained head daddy of the world. I think it might honestly be a point of real consternation for him that women have to be involved in making his babies. Oh daddy yer so crazy!

"
MCCAIN: Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything.

That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health." But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We'll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country.

But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it's vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we'll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we'll help take care of it.
"

I strongly support I-1000

Brett: re your point 2, it's probably worth repeating a comment I made on this issue last month:

It is true that I-1000 mandates that the underlying disease be listed as the cause of death, just as it is listed as the cause of death when high doses of morphine and lorazepam are given to irreversibly unconscious patients to "ease breathing and anxiety." I'd like to know more about this: Washington death certificates, unless they've been changed in the last eight years, list the immediate cause of death first, and then three lines below headed "due to, or as a consequence of." The underlying disease or cause is to be listed last. "Withdrawal of support" is a qualifying immediate cause, but would never appear alone. Does I-1000 really mandate that the immediate cause of death not be listed and only the underlying cause? All it says is "The attending physician may sign the patient's death certificate which shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death." I don't read that as mandating that the medication not be listed as the immediate cause.

The campaign puts it more simply at http://deathwithdignityfacts.com/default.aspx?ID=50: "The underlying disease is listed as a cause of death, consistent with standard medical practice. Deaths due to disconnecting ventilators or to palliative sedation are also listed on the death certificate as due to the underlying disease."

This doesn't sound like doctors being forced to lie at all.

I must say, though, that while I wholeheartedly support I-1000, I can indeed see the religious opponents' point of view. "Don't like it? Don't do it" is a little too flip for me. Surely if you feel that physician-assisted suicide or abortion are morally equivalent to murder, it is incumbent on you to not merely refrain from participating in those actions yourself, but also to do your best to stop others from doing so as well. "Don't like murder? Don't commit it" sounds ridiculous, but I assume this is exactly the issue for many religious anti-choice folks, and I don't know how much I can blame them for following their conscience, much as I am a fan of individual freedoms.

That having been said, I understand the position of Martin Sheen, who's been featured in recent anti-I-1000 commercials, much more than I understand the positions of Rossi and Gregoire. Sheen is an adherent of the "Consistent Life ethic," and not only opposes death with dignity, but abortion and the death penalty as well (though he's been on record as saying he wouldn't interfere with a woman's right to choose: "I will not judge anybody else's right in that regard because I am not a woman and I could never face the actual reality of it"). If Rossi and Gregoire's opposition to I-1000 is indeed based on their Catholicism, I can't understand their support of the death penalty.

But this is not about Catholicism or anti-Catholicism: it's about the right of the individual to make one of the most intensely personal decisions imaginable. That is a right I still have faith the majority can respect.

"The attending physician may sign the patient's death certificate which shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death."

It doesn't say anything about the "immediate" or "proximate" cause of death so it does make me wonder why they phrased it in that limited way. In spite of Brett's good and thoughtful reservations I will be voting for the Initiative .... I have seen too many medical miracles.

Prevent Elder Abuse: Vote "No" on I-1000

I am an attorney. I am disturbed by a continuing theme with
the media to discuss I-1000 in terms of religion. Articles like this feed
into the "religion card" played by I-1000's backers to distract
voters from the gross lack of safeguards and the half truths of their
campaign.

The biggest problem with I-1000 is that no witnesses are
required at the death. Without a disinterested witness, the
opportunity is created for an heir to administer the lethal dose to
dad without his consent. Even if he struggled, who would know? With
no required witnesses, I-1000 creates the perfect alibi.

Family members often have their own agendas and may also
have financial interests that dovetail with a patient's early
demise. The majority of patients who have used the Oregon Act were
"well educated" with private
insurance. http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year10.pdf In
other words, people with money.

Was it really their "choice?"

Twenty-one states have rejected similar
measures. http://www.dredf.org/assisted_suicide/Failed_attempts.pdf.
Let's join them.

Prevent elder abuse. Vote "no" on I-1000.

Margaret Dore
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
www.margaretdore.com
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154
206 389 1754

I am quite angry at Mr. Burger for his windy and convoluted attempt to first erect and then knock down a straw man in the Assisted Suicide Initiative debate, or perhaps I should say an army of straw men.
This is not a Catholic issue. I am not a Catholic and I do not adhere to any such Catholic dogma in my opposition to I-1000, and I find many others are of similar views. I do not think it is necessary to evoke religion, although here I think that the Catholics are spot on and deserve our respect, not Mr. Burger’s utterly blasphemous contempt. Religious leaders of all sects have many very thoughtful things to say about ethical issues that command our attention.
I hardly ever use the word “blasphemous”, but Mr. Burger’s idea of sexually assaulting someone’s God really is too much even for me.
Assisted suicide is a bioethical issue, not a religious one. I oppose it because of solid practical problems as well as moral ones. The fundamental idea that Mr. Burger invokes is familiar to everyone that has read, and thrown away in disgust, the sophomoric libertarian tracts of author Ayn Rand, which have just been mercifully swept away forever in dramatic fashion by the economic events of the past month. Finally, Atlas has shrugged off these outdated notions and the ridiculous towering edifice has crashed under its own weight, God help us.
If there is any religion to be found in this debate, it is the Libertarian religion adhered to by the advocates, not the opponents. It says, “indulge whatever the individual wants, and fuck democratic society at large if they don’t like it”. It is a very simpleminded religion and requires a great suspension of disbelief and cognitive dissonance to worship it. Even an oracle as revered as Alan Greenspan historically renounced these ideas last week in referring to the policy of market deregulation and free market fundamentalism. Thank you very much, but we want our democracy back now that these ideologues have screwed things up.
The reasons are obvious. If your decision to end your own life did not infringe on my rights, there you would get no argument from me. But it really isn’t that simple. As former Gov. Spellman wrote in a recent opinion piece (“I-1000 could remove personal choice”, at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/384326_spellman22.html), there are important social costs for everyone, costs that have been explained quite well by now. Quoting Gov. Spellman, “once implemented, assisted suicide will [not] remain merely a ‘personal choice,’ isolated from not-so-subtle coercions of everyday life and magically protected from health care rationing.”
If you don’t want to kill yourself -- yes, then don’t -- but if you do, leave my doctors and his institutions of medicine the hell out of it. Let my doctors concentrate all their energies on curing, not on clutching the poisonous adder of Kevorkianism to the bosom of our medical profession. Kevorkian was a pathologist that never practiced medicine and never saw or examined any patient, but had a medical license that he used to offer death prescriptions to people that simply wanted to commit suicide. This is the grotesque distortion of the practice of medicine that all this leads to.
Do it yourself! The Hemlock Society will show you how – they already have books on it like Final Exit that they will send you. Isn’t it strange that they want the doctors to do it for us now? That is the ultimate personal choice, and you don’t need anyone’s permission to do it, or follow any red tape. Nobody is denying you that personal choice. Just stay the hell out of my doctors’ offices! And stay away from my God!
As Dr. Charles J. Bentz, clinical associate professor of medicine practicing in Portland that has dealt with depressed patients requesting suicide, has recently stated in a Seattle PI editorial recommending against I-1000 in Washington, "…my opposition is based upon the adverse influence that doctor-assisted suicide is having on patient safety, trust, and quality of care… Washingtonians need to learn the real lesson from Oregon's doctor-assisted suicide law. Despite all the so-called "safeguards," numerous instances of inappropriate selection, coercion, botched attempts and active euthanasia have been documented in the public record…. and now nurses are taking matters into their own hands without physician involvement." Dr. Bentz also spoke critically of the breakdown in crucial patient trust and trust between doctors.
We all have to respect social costs in our everyday lives, and we do not complain about them, because society is a better place when we do. We don't throw trash on our lawns or play our stereos blasting at midnight. We don’t rob banks or 7/11s. We are obliged to be good neighbors and not inflict our asserted autonomy on the entire system, or require us doctors to betray our 2500-year-old Hippocratic standards of patient trust just for a few who insist that we doctors commit their suicides for them.
One persistent factual error that everyone seems to make deserves pointing out by someone, somewhere, because it creates a false feel-goodness for some lawyers that just is not so. Contrary to Mr. Burger’s announcement, the US Supreme Court has not yet heard a case that reviewed the constitutionality of Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law. The precise question of doctor assisted suicide as a liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment remains unsettled. In fact, the last time that the Court visited the issue of assisted suicide was in Washington v. Glucksberg (521 U.S. 702 (1997)), it was ruled that a right of passive withdrawal of feeding was constitutional, but the active murder of an allegedly incurable patient was not. (That distinction has itself been criticized by prominent legal scholars as being inconsistent and arbitrary). The case usually referred to by advocates as “clearing” Oregon’s law, Gonzales v. Oregon (546 U.S. 243 (2005)), did not. It was decided on other grounds. The Court ducked the central issue by deciding the case on federalism grounds, and not on the merits, namely whether the federal Controlled Substances Act could be applied to bar use of the “medications” used under state law. Thus, Glucksberg stands as the controlling authority, and it holds that assisted suicide is not constitutional. Maybe the Court will revisit Glucksberg, but so far it has not done so.
In other words, be smart and vote NO on I-1000.