The proposal is titled Initiative 1000 (I-1000) - The Washington Death With Dignity Act. Some excellent neutral detailed information can be found at Ballotpedia (who knew it existed?). It is being sponsored by a former Governor of Washington Booth Gardner after his experience with his father dying from Parkinson's disease. A poll in early August found 51 % in favor, with 26% opposed and the rest undecided.
This is not the first time Washington has voted on this issue. In 1991 the proposal was defeated 54-46%. The initiative is based on similar language from the Oregon Death with Dignity Act passed in 1994 and enacted in 1997 after many legal challenges including the Supreme Court.
Both sides claim to have multiple different groups behind them, but when I looked on many of the websites of the organizations and could not find ANY mention of the I-1000 initiative. So when you see the Washington State Hospice and Palliative Care Organziztion listed as opposing I-1000, they don't have any mention on the WSHPCO website. Same thing goes for the ACLU supporting I-1000. Nothin' on the ACLU site either.
Supporting Organizations
National Death with Dignity Center
Compassion & Choices
Opposition Organizations
Coalition Against Assisted Suicide
Not Dead Yet
Washington State Medical Association
Here are the main websites for supporting (Yes on I-1000) and opposing (No Assisted Suicide) the measure.
Dethmama links to some other discussions on the topic on her blog.
In some upcoming posts I will spend some time dissecting some of the op-ed pieces as it relates to care of terminally ill patients, because the essence of the argument for or against physician-assisted suicide has to do with caring for and being a terminally ill person. Since palliative medicine professionals have zillions of experiences with dying people you may be asked about your opinion about the Washington State Initiative so it may be helpful to look through some of the links to become more knowlegable about the requirements, background and reasons for support and opposition of this particular measure.
If you comment on this post, please keep it constructive and avoid any ad hominem attacks.
(My Standard Disclaimer: Pallimed, Dr. Sinclair and his current and former employers and states do not endorse or practice euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, but do encourage the open, non-judgmental discussion of these topics for educational and ethical discourse about this controversial area of medicine.)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0637300a-11ed-48ab-adf3-7f3e67467387)
7 comments:
I work in palliative care, and know that some of us prefer to "distance" palliative care from this type of initiative, since our work often is misunderstood to favor hastening death. But I think it is a personal matter for us too. I just moved to Seattle and I will vote yes to this initiative, because I want to ensure the right to exercise this option for myself.
Risaden,
Thanks for your honest opinion. I agree that it is a difficult situation for palliative medicine professionals to discuss legally hastening death with medications because of the already omnipresent misperceptions.
In fact I had to correct a physician in a clinical setting in the lats few weeks who made some flippant comment about 'this is a guy who could use some extra morphine, you know?' (And he/she sort of gave me this eyebrow wiggle like 'you know what I mean right?')
I told that doctor I did not think the patient needed any more morphine than was adequate to relieve his pain, and his pain was so well controlled that I actually decreased his long acting opioid.
Interestingly the initiative is claimed to be supported by the National Assoc of Social Workers, but opposed by the Washington State Hospice & Palliative Care Organization so that is an interesting conflict of professionals.
I have always wondered how Oregon Hospices handle this issue. Are there ones that say 'hey we don't participate in PAS' and others that say 'we do participate in PAS?'
I could see that impacting marketing even. Some people might chose one hospice over another based on how that hospice sees PAS in Oregon.
Oh and I am glad to see you posting on your blog again. I hope to see you posting more often.
Do you have any comments or feelings about the current Oregon "death with dignity act?" With the election upon us, it is clear that Obama is pro-choice and McCain is pro-life; does this influence your [or do you think it influences others] reason to vote for one or the other candidate? Obama has said that the decision he had made on the Schiavo case [to continue with the euthanasia process] was the worst choice he has ever made, could that also have an effect over how people may vote?
KCutie,
Thanks for the questions. We have blogged on the Oregon DWD act and the annual reports before. (2006 review here and the 2007 report here) You can also click on the tag for Euth/PAS to see all our posts regarding medically hastened death.
For clarification Schiavo was not a case of euthanasia (illegal in the US) but rather a a case of withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration via surrogate decision maker, a legal act in the US.
The candidates have not made medically hastened death a issue likely because it could be so polarizing, but one could look at it politically from many different angles: Pro-life, pro-choice is obvious of course from the abortion argument, but then you could talk about freedom from government intrusion into health care decisions of a capable adult, the role of doctors as healers vs. caregivers, the symbolic impact as a counterpoint to poor health care access but coverage, the role of palliative care in medically hastened death (supportive or opposed) and so on and so on. So I think it could be hard to look at this from one side.
As a paramedic, it will never directly affect me professionally. Personally, that is a different story. I hope not to be in that position.
As you stated, this does seem to be a very polarizing issue. What we need is to get people to see this from the patient's point of view. As with pain management, if they cannot understand the patient's pain, they do not see a need for pain management.
With a focus on the drawbacks of a terminal condition, maybe we can improve some of those conditions, at least to the point, where the patient feels that life is tolerable.
Too many on both sides seem to only look at the extremes that reinforce their polarized view.
Thanks for your insights RM. A mature and informed discourse is what the issue needs best.
Post a Comment