This November the voters of the great state of Washington will vote on whether the government will lift its restriction on assisting others to kill themselves. Initiative 1000 is titled "Death with Dignity", its opponents have opposed such language instead opting for 'physician assisted suicide'.
I see two important aspects of this intiative.
1. Will it pass? This is where the semantics of the title will be much more important than it really should be. In general people are for 'death with dignity' more than they are for 'assisted suicide'. In 1991 WA voted a similar measure down 54% to 46%. Since that time society has moved more torwards accepting suicide. The changing mood of society combined with the more favorable wording will result in it being passed.
2. Should conservatives support it? Most definitly yes. Why? Three reasons...
a) Gregoire opposes it! :)
b) It is the limited government / less intrusive government position to take.
c) It is the pro-life position to take.
Okay... So I admit reason 'a' is a joke. Just because Gregoire is opposed to something is not reason enough to support it. A broken clock is right twice a day!
Reason 'b' I do not think it is debatebly but I am sure someone will surprise me.
Reason 'c' I think requires some explanation for it to make sense. If we value the right to life, then we must respect that it is each individuals life and they can chose to do with it as they chose. This is true even if they chose to end it. As an analogy... A key characteristic of ownership of property is that you can sell it. Conservatives would rightly protest a government edict that restricted us from selling our property. The same should be true with our ownership of our lifes.
Posted by tpahl at April 22, 2008 10:02 PM | Email ThisHowever, is your life really yours to take? From my religious standpoint the answer is no. Your life belongs to God. You are to live in a manner that glorifies Him. Declaring ownership of self--having "self" on the throne of your life isn't an option. When God promises to be with us in all things, cashing in our chips at our choosing isn't an option.
He who owns language owns thought. Changing language to clean up the morally unacceptable is still unacceptable.
I already live in a culture that glorifies death and violence, disguising what it actually is in pithy terms such as "choice" and "rights" Opening that door farther isn't acceptable.
The government of this state has recently forced pharmacists to fill prescriptions that violate their religion and morals. History teaches us that no matter how many "safeguards" are put into a law, no matter how many moral "choices" are there, the governmant can waive those overnight and inflict it's point of view in extremely punitive ways.
If you feel the need to kill yourself, there are numerous ways this can be achieved without forcing the rest of us to condone it. Please don't tell me that I'm inflicting my morals on you by refusing to be part of your "rights" to individualism, when you care so little about my rights to be free of human destruction as an acceptable way of life.
Posted by: Camille on April 23, 2008 07:57 AM
...That said, not everyone is of the same faith that I am, and it would be wrong for me both from a legal standpoint and a moral standpoint to legislate what they may do. Not only that, but would Jesus want us to force our religious beliefs on anyone? The whole basis of our faith is to willingly, voluntarily, believe... not be forced. To do so would make it worthless.
I think the real concern becomes this - once such a practice is accepted, could an insurance company ever 'encourage' someone to take that route rather than expensive treatments?
Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 23, 2008 01:46 PMAgreed! Not to mention what happens when the government decides you're a drain on "their" resources, such as we hear happening in the Netherlands.
Do not open this door! There is no such thing as built in safeguards. It will only be opened wider.
Posted by: Camille on April 23, 2008 04:42 PMYou also suggest that by passing I-1000 that government/society is condoning a culture of death. The government allowing individuals to do something is not equivalent to condoning something.
Andrew @ 2:
That is a real concern that people may try to persuade patients to kill themselves but that is not a reason to deny others the right to die with dignity.
Michelle @ 3:
Pro-life does not mean life must continue at all costs. It means that life should be protected from being wrongly taken. I-1000 does not stop life from being wrongly taken. Just like any other right, if you do not have the right to refuse, you do not have the right at all.
4
Posted by: Lysander on April 23, 2008 09:51 PMAre you sure?
Posted by: Michele on April 23, 2008 10:55 PMYes. Wrongly taken means taken against someones will. I-1000 deals with people that want to die.
Posted by: Lysander on April 24, 2008 05:38 AMOur right to liberty is the right to do whatever we want as long as we are not violating the rights of another person.
When a person commits suicide, they do not violate any rights of another person.
When a doctor voluntarily assists another person in committing suicide, the doctor does not violate the rights of any other person.
Therefore, if the government prevents a doctor from voluntarily assisting another person in committing suicide, the government violates the liberty of the doctor. By the way, the government would also be violating the right to freedom of contract with the patient, thus violating his or her liberty as well.
There are interesting arguments from a religious perspective that suicide might be immoral under certain circumstances, but such arguments can have no force in a secular government. Such arguments might suggest that we should attempt to persuade a person not to commit suicide, or to assist with one, but they do not justify using government force to violate liberty.
Suicide is just an extreme form of self-destructive behavior. If we allow the government the power to prevent us from taking our own lives, then we are on a slippery slope to giving the government power to tell us what to eat and drink in the interests of our own health. It is the road to nanny state serfdom.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 24, 2008 10:19 AMSo let's take a look at this issue from a non-religious standpoint. I-1000 is not simply allowing a person the freedom to end their life. It permits a physician (who has an obligation to do no harm) to end that person's life. You might say, "well yes, with their permission." But let's be clear:
1) The proposed law does not require that the patient's family members be notified when the doctor is going to help a him commit suicide. (Read Section 8) The patient's family members might not be notified until after the patient is dead.
2) I-1000 has no safeguards for the patient after the prescription is written. It only provides for writing the prescription for druggs to commit suicide, not for what happens afterwards. There anre no provisions to insure that the patient is competent when the overdose is taken, that the patient is pressured into taking the drugs, or that the fatal dose was not given to the patient against his will.
3) Gives government health programs, managed care programs and HMOs the opportunity to cut costs by approving prescriptions for suicide. In Oregon (the only state where assisted suicide is legal), Medicaid pays for assisted suicide for poor residents under the category of "comfort care". The drugs for assisted suicide cost less than $100-far less than medications and treatments to make patients comfortable. (Libertarians would argue here that medical marijuana might help to alievate this problem--I'd gladly accept that before I'd accept killing the patient).
The initiative does not allow anyone to "coerce" or use "undue influence" to obtain a request for assisted suicide (section 20). However, nothing in the assisted suicide initiative prohibits physicians or others from suggesting assisted suicide or encouraging a patient to request it. By the time any litigation would take place to determine whether suggesting or encouraging was using his "undue influence" it would be too late. There isn't much deterent for doctors to use their "undue influence".
4) I-1000 lets doctors help menatlly ill or depressed patients commit suicide. A referral for counseling is only necessary "if, in the opinion of or consulting a physician, a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or physchological disorder or depression causing impaired judgement." (sec. 6) If the counselor determines that the patient's judgement is not impaired from the mental illness or depression, the prescription for assisted suicide may be used.
Even if a patient were found to have "impaired judgement," I-1000 does not prohibit a health provider, family member or other person from arranging for the patient to be evaluated by other counselors until one is found who would declare the patient capable of choosing assisted suicide. This has already occured in Oregon where it has been noted that "a psychological disorder -- senility, for example -- does not necessarily disqualify a person."
There are many other issues, but this covers a few of them. Bruce, the government doesn't prevent anyone from taking their own life, but doctors and loved ones have an obligation to. Contrarily, I-1000 authorizes doctors, caregivers and family members to violate another's right to life, at the very least, when it is against their will by not providing safegards.
The road you are suggesting we take now is the same one that gave us an IRS code consisting of more than three million words. In the process, the government winds up managing the intimate life events that are most important to us, such as our deaths.
The initiative is written. We can't change the words at this point. The question is, does signing this initiative so that it gets on the ballot enhance liberty and justice?
I think it does, on balance. The people should get to vote on it as it stands.
Will I vote for it in November?
Absolutely.
Because when my time comes, I want the choice. I want to be able to spare my family the expense of all the medical procedures in my last month of life, especially if I am in pain and not enjoying it. Especially if I have done what I need to do, and told everyone I love them. Because the end of my life is MY choice, not the danged government's.
It is MY life. Not yours. Not Gregoire's.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 24, 2008 12:54 PMI beleive i understood your question just fine. Perhaps you misunderstood my answer.
I-1000 does not allow any lives to be wrongly taken. The government still has the power to stop people that try to take others lives against their will.
In all your critique of I-1000 I do not see where you suggest that anyones rights are violated by this measure. Is there any rights you feel this initiative if passed would violate?
Please note that there are two of us with the named Michelle/Michele. So in my response, I wasn't addressing your question, nor was I the same person that said "you misunderstood my question". But I think you were addressing my (2 l'd Michelle) critique of I-1000 above. And I did explain how this allows doctors and others to violate someone's right to life. It has no effective safeguards against taking advantage of the incompetence or depression of a patient as explained above.
Posted by: Michelle on April 24, 2008 09:14 PMWhat is the "road" I'm "suggesting we take"? I'm only suggesting we reject I-1000. And what do you mean "safeguards don't work"? Are you against stop signs? laws against murder? safeguards against election fraud?
Posted by: Michelle on April 24, 2008 09:19 PMAs for Governor Gregoire, she does not have a position on it. She won't oppose it, but she won't support it either. When she initially made it seem as if she would oppose it, I called her a hypocrite at HorsesAss and she clarified her position.
Posted by: thehim on April 26, 2008 09:47 PM