Yes we should!
Reason, we do this for animals, how come we can't do this for our population?
I know when it comes down to it, most will try and use religious reason behind it, but that is NOT good enough in a mult-religous country.

I am voting YES on this! Becasue as a disabled veteran, I know that I have done my job for the United States and I have NOT need by society anymore.
Don't complex the problem with religion or what you think is good or bad, just try to think of the person who is suffering from the illness and how they would want to go.
Ex. I had a great-uncle kill himself when he was told he had brain cancer, the mess was more of a burden to clean up because he shot himself.
Why didn't we have this law so that he could have gone with the honor and pride that we remember him by (or at least most of my family), instead he took the only way that he could so that he would NOT be a burden to the family.

So now it is our turn to put this law into effect and keep an eye on it so that it is NOT abused!
Please vote yes on it so that we have less of a mess to clean.

Absolutely not! To allow the killing of someone, even if they request it, is 'playing God', pure and simple. The Sanctity of life is in God's hands, NOT ours! Being a senior citizen, and being a 'baby boomer' of the 40's, also is a concern. What an easy way to solve the coming influx of us elderly costing our 'society' so much money to keep us alive, by 'influencing' us to 'take our own life' for the good of the country and families. We never would've thought that society would be considering 'putting down' a human as we do our sick animals! We would've been appalled at the thought years ago, and today many of us are livid with this insane idea of 'assisted suicide'! There is a means of signing a document that is a law now, stating that no matter what, we don't want 'man' to use machines to keep us alive, if death is imminent. This document signed is all that we need to have! NOT a means to 'move things along' and be 'put to death' via man, instead of God! For God's sake, literally, vote against this insane idea of helping a patient to die! The meds today are sufficient to keep our love ones 'comfortable'. The opportunity to comfort a love one who is dieing can be a 'good experience',
as many of us have found out! NO to I 1000!

"The Sanctity of life is in God's hands,
NOT ours!"

If you have a horrible terminal wasting disease then God has already made the decision.
You are going to die - even with pain meds, you will also feel yourself fall apart in painful and sometimes terrifying ways.
If God didn't want us to make the choice, God could easily have NOT given us free will.

Stop trying to claim that you KNOW what God is thinking!
Let the dying do what they need to do.

Yes, we need this law. This is beyond politics, and personal choices. Not one of us has the right to decide how someone else should pass. I have watched a loved one die in severe pain and misery. As a very incredible woman, mother, grandmother, mother-in-law and community member, she deserved the right to decide how she died. Who are we to say someone in that situation can only die the way we choose? What gives us that right?

Vote YES on I-1000.

Nobody knows what sort of situation they will being at the end of life. If I am suffering, or losing control over my body, I want to be able to have the choice that I-1000 offers. I don't know if I would use it, but I want to at least have that option.

God or not...what if I feel God hasn't given me a purpose yet--should I simply cash it in?

Who is to determine what constitutes a horrible terminal wasting disease? A severely mentally and/or physically handicapped person? How long before "we" begin deciding who to relieve of their burden of life?

Death with dignity cannot be legislated. Is this not just asking for a repeal of attempted suicide being a crime?

We need a law in place. My father chose his time to die but it was in pain and horror...and not just for him. He chose to refuse all meds and food and withered away in front of his family. He may be beyond the pain now but my children and I still live with the nightmare that were Dad's last days.

Don't keep allowing this to happen. Set rules and such in place so this can't be abused or mis-used. Just don't deny it for those that have no quantity of life left so they can at least have a quality that they chose.

I first have to say how disappointed in how slanted this story was. Shame on KING5 and this host that apparently has been knocked down by Robert Mak's jock since he definitely cant hold it.

To add that "Gov. Gardner hope's to change the law after it is passed" is intentionally misleading and so repulsive that someone should lose their job.

I guess this person went to same journalism as the person who published (it was written by the reichert campaign) the smear article on Darcy Burner.

What is wrong with you people? If being a journalist is too hard become a blogger and leave this business to people who have some measure of ethics.

I didn't realize how much I missed Robert Mak until tonight.

People diagnosed with 6 months to live? Seriously? How many people do many of us know who were given months to live that are still with us?

Doctors are human, just like the rest of us. For patients to be allowed to ask doctors to assist them in killing themselves is wrong. This law goes against the Hippocratic Oath.

Palliative care that results in death is different. Treating pain so that a side effect is death is different. This law allows the active killing of a patient, not the treatment of an ailment.

We do not need this law at all! How is a person dignified by killing themself? My dad killed himself when I was younger. He was battling depression and decided to kill himself leaving behind two young children and a wife to clean up after him. Do I still love him? Yes. Do I think he was dignified in what he did? No! Sucicide is sucicide is sucicide. Assisted sucicide, Death with Dignaty, call it whatever you want, it's still killing yourself with someone someones help!

YES, YES, YES. This is about a choice, there are safeguards in place to ensure people are not making this decision due to uncontrolled symptoms such as pain or depression. It is human nature and comforting to know there is a road to take if the dying process becomes unbearable, most people will not take this road but knowing it is an option is a comfort and then allows them to focus on the life they have remaining.

I for one think we should have the right to make our own decisions. Keeping one alive when there is no hope is only for the doctors, hospitals etc to make money on ones suffering. God did not intend for us to be kept alive when we are suffering and are being kept alive by atrificial means. I watched my daughter on life supports for 29 days and her face starting to decay before her heart finally gave out. That was a sight I will keep with me to my grave. Was that right for you right to lifers?

YES! Thank you for your program. I believe (as I have since I was 13 when the movie "who's life is it anyway" with Richard Dreyfus aired, that you should have the right to decide your life. You should have the right to decide every part of your life in it's entirety, including the right to die with dignity! my vote is yes having watched this issue unfold personally with a loved family member who did eexactly what she wanted to do. Die with her dignity! It is the way I have decided I will go wether it is legal or not.

I-1000 would be a serious mistake. I-1000 would allow depressed people to be given lethal drugs. Families would not need to be notified that a loved one was considering assisted suicide. It fundamentally distorts the role of doctors as healers. The state of Oregon even ties it in with their rationed healthcare system, refusing to pay for some cancer treatments for low income people but offering to cover their assisted suicide. Yikes! How's that for a "choice"? I-1000 is a poorly thought through initiative that ignores the cost pressures in medical care and would end up putting huge numbers of people at risk.

Backers of this initiative have brought in millions of dollars from outside of Washington state to push their suicide agenda on Washington state voters. Most of their over 5 million dollars is from out of state and they have even brought in over a quarter of a million dollars from foreign countries. Millionaire supporters like Booth Gardner don't need to worry about the costs of health care, but most of the rest of us do. We have got to vote NO on I-1000.

I do not favor Initiative 1000. I think it is risky and can be abused. I would not want to be left out of a decision that my husband might make and want to spare me any details. It is just wrong. I am sorry 'Randy' wanted the commit suicide and couldn't. Why didn't they move to Oregon for a few months and let Randy get his wish to take his life?

Disclaimer: I have been actively speaking against I-1000.
1. This is a dangerous proposition that would prevent scrutiny of the practices of the doctors willing to write the prescriptions. Peer review is needed in order to make sure that the patients are actually receiving quality end of life care and would not be allowed. Instead the doctors will be legally protected from lawsuits and medical discipline.
2. All the so-called safeguards disappear once the prescription is written. There is no witness to ensure it is truly the patient's choice at the very end.
3. The advocates have failed to produce documentary or other credible evidence that the abuses in Oregon (reported in the press) have not occurred, despite their denials. The published data comes from the state, which collects it from the doctors doing this. Imagine the IRS accepting a tax return because the person filling it out completed all the required boxes. We don't know the truth because no one double checks.
4. How can they say that we don't know how often assisted death is happening illegally in Washington and other states but then claim it is happening four times more often than in Oregon? Such a statement begs a challenge by the interviewer and deserves proof.
5. By the way, we do know that Oregon ranks 6th in the country for elder suicide at 156% of the national average, according to the Oregon State web site. I hope Washington will not similarly promote a culture of choosing death.

I-1000 would legalize assisted suicide and redefine suicide as a medical treatment.
It would allow doctors to order lethal drug overdoses to people with life-limiting illnesses, even if they are depressed. Nothing stops HMO’s and healthcare providers from using assisted suicide to cut costs.
I-1000 lacks real protection for people suffering from depression and mental illness.
People who are diagnosed with a life-limiting illness often become depressed. This depression is usually temporary and treatable.
I-1000 does not require assessment or treatment for depression. [I-1000, Section 6]. Because the waiting period is only 15 days, a suicidal "cry for help" could be met with a bottle of lethal drugs, instead of encouragement and treatment.

I-1000 harms spouses and families.
Under I-1000, a spouse or family member need not be told about the lethal overdose. [I-1000, Section 8]. Families might never know the truth of how their loved one died.
I-1000 endangers vulnerable people.
I-1000's backers promote it as being about choice and individualized decision making. But as written, I-1000 does not empower patients. It provides an incentive for health plans to cut costs by steering people toward assisted suicide. I-1000 does not provide adequate safeguards to protect women, minorities, seniors and people with low incomes
The people of Washington can already choose to refuse any medical treatment they don't want. They can already choose to receive good end-of-life and hospice care, excellent pain control, and the relief of discomfort. The people of Washington need quality end-of-life care, not the lethal drug overdose I-1000 prescribes.

Disclaimer: I have been actively speaking against I-1000.
1. This is a dangerous proposition that would prevent scrutiny of the practices of the doctors willing to write the prescriptions. Peer review is needed in order to make sure that the patients are actually receiving quality end of life care and would not be allowed. Instead the doctors will be legally protected from lawsuits and medical discipline.
2. All the so-called safeguards disappear once the prescription is written. There is no witness to ensure it is truly the patient's choice at the very end.
3. The advocates have failed to produce documentary or other credible evidence that the abuses in Oregon (reported in the press) have not occurred, despite their denials. The published data comes from the state, which collects it from the doctors doing this. Imagine the IRS accepting a tax return because the person filling it out completed all the required boxes. We don't know the truth because no one double checks.
4. How can they say that we don't know how often assisted death is happening illegally in Washington and other states but then claim it is happening four times more often than in Oregon? Such a statement begs a challenge by the interviewer and deserves proof.
5. By the way, we do know that Oregon ranks 6th in the country for elder suicide at 156% of the national average, according to the Oregon State web site. I hope Washington will not similarly promote a culture of choosing death.

What is it with Democrats and choices?
First they have the Abortion choice and now the Death with "Dignity" choice.
Wow I think that Democrats like passing these laws because they feel like they need to have a choice in everything!
Good Lord, what is this state coming to??!

Definitely, yes on I-1000!!!

I want the option of choosing to end my life peacefully and without suffering if I am ever handed a terminal diagnosis, and I want that for every other human being.

If your beliefs require that you suffer, well feel free, but please don't impose your beliefs on me. As human beings we have the unique ability to reason and we have the power to end our own suffering. Unfortunately, we don't yet have the legal right to do so.

Lin Mckay: Too bad you don't have a better relationship with your husband. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to move a dying person to another state for a couple of months. What the... are you thinking. Or are you???

Well, if people are just going to parrot campaign talking points (Ms. Rutherford, Mr. Gaines) then we should at least have both sides available.

VOTE YES

This choice should belong to the terminally ill individual. Government, religious groups and others should not dictate these personal decisions.

Independent studies of Oregon’s Death with Dignity law prove that the safeguards protect patients, prevent misuse and coercion, and allow mentally competent, terminally ill patients the option of a peaceful, dignified death. People with terminal cancer and AIDS would have the right to decide whether to end their intolerable suffering.

Washington’s Death with Dignity safeguards:

1. The patient must be at least 18 years old
2. The patient must be a resident of the state of Washington
3. The patient must be terminally ill - not disabled, but diagnosed as terminally ill
4. The terminally ill patient must have 6 months or less to live, as verified by two physicians
5. Three requests for Death with Dignity must be made (two verbal and one written)
6. Two physicians must verify the mental competence of the terminally ill patient
7. The request must be made voluntarily, without coercion, as verified by two physicians
8. The terminally ill patient must be informed of all other options, including palliative care, pain management and hospice care
9. There is a 15 day waiting period between the first oral request and the written request
10. There is a 48 hour waiting period between the written request and the writing of the prescription
11. The terminally ill patient's written request must be independently witnessed, by two people, at least one of whom is not related to the patient or employed by the health care facility
12. The terminally ill patient is encouraged to discuss their decision with family (not required because of confidentiality laws)
13. Only the terminally ill patient may self-administer the medication
14. The patient may change their mind at any time

The decision belongs with the patient and their family, and no one else.

WE truly must vote yes on I-1000, not only for ourselves but for those we don't even know. I witnessed a gun shot wound to the head by a man who did not want to die from his terminal illness in his home with his family. He wanted to spare them the tragedy so used his gun by the side of the lonely road where I found him. I have been with 2 family members who died of their terminal illness, both ending in opposite circumstances. We cannot say that everyone can be kept out of pain and suffering. I have seen that. We must vote to allow the opportunity for others or ourselves to choose. A gunshot to the head is not the way a human being who has exhausted all treatment to remain alive, should have to take, nor a bridge, nor a manipulative conversation with a physician, everyone facing end of life should be able to face their choices legally and with dignity. Please vote yes on I-1000 for those you love and for those whom you don't even know!

Each person should be able to decide when it is time to go. No one else has the right to make that choice for them. I think the law should be broadened so that those who who are afflicted with in incurable disability, such as Gov. Booth Gardner is, no matter what their expected life span may be, should also be able make this choice for themselves and obtain the medication they need. Further, if that person is not able to take the medication independently another should be able help administer it without any legal jeopardy for doing so.

I worked for four years with a volunteer whose husband faithfully drove her to board meetings across the state. We met again several years after she completed her service. She said, "I lost Sid last year." I expressed my sympathy for her lost, and she continued, "He killed himself." As the story unfolded, her husband had been diagnosed with brain cancer that was untreatable. One day, while she went to buy groceries, he wrote her a note in which he expressed his love for her and explained that he did not choose to inflict the long, painful death that was inevitable on her or himself. He shot himself while he was still in control.

I suspect that if Sid had had the option afforded by I 1000, he would have known that he was still in control and would not have taken the drastic step that he took. I view him as being courageous and caring. I think that he would have preferred to have had the choice that I 1000 offers.

I really don't even get this debate. its not like Oregon is some mystical far of country that we've only read about in books. You can get in your freaking car and drive there in just a few hours. they are no different than us and this has been the most studied health policy in the history of health policy and all the opponents have to say is "well something bad could happen." BOO! Be afraid, don't think! I think all of these right-wing religious nuts (the main spokespeople testified AGAINST stem cell research, contributed heavily to Sen. Rick Santorum who is a lunatic right-winger who took his wife's dead baby home from the hospital to meet the other children before they buried it) should stop trying to make my decisions for me and for US. I have had enough of these people and their moral arrrogance.

This measure is unnecessary as you are already allowed to kill yourself when you choose to do so in the manner you choose. You don't need to involve a doctor or the state in order to do it. There is plenty of information on how to go about it. It can be as "dignified" as you want to make it, your choice, and on your terms. It's already available, has always been available, and no one's going to stop you.
The main arguments are the ability to "choose", "control", and "dignity", none of which are threatened and all of which are in your control under these circumstances. Dignity is inherent in humanity, and not based on your ability for self care, independence, etc.
This measure is unnecessary, and based on fear. Decisions need to be based on reality and be rational, which is not what we are seeing here, as evidenced by the desire to redefine the term 'suicide'. Think about it.

Your show touched on many issues, yet missed the essential point: Does an individual have the right to make the choices about his/her life, including death? In a free society, how stunningly obvious can that answer be? I'm an RN, and I could show any of the opponents to this initiative that have even an ounce of compassion examples of exactly why this should have been law years ago. I'd love to see the opponents clean and treat the wounds and skin breakdowns caused by laying in diarrhea, or watch terminal patients suffering with intractable pain, or console the traumatized families watching their loved ones suffer. Martin Sheen says the patients need compassion. I agree. Too bad he shows none.

This law gives too much power to the doctors. Infallible doctors are not. There are doctors that will not have your best interests in mind.
I think the debate was slightly biased in favor of I-1000 from all the footage at the first, but to King5's credit they handled the debate portion well and chose someone for the opposition that could speak well - with good points - even without notes. And gave them equal time.
This is less about pain at the end of someone's life and more about being a burden on the rest of the family. Drugs can handle pain.
If pain and depression are treated there would not likely be the thought of suicide. Suicide is the definition of a person ending their own life by choice.
As noted this is a debate that goes across party lines.
This is bad public policy for the state to embrace suicide as the means to debatable benefit - and much possible abuse.
It would be a travesty for this to be the norm especially when a family member can decide without letting others know - and especially as more do it at younger ages.
Who can fully say that a cure will not be found within that six months for the terminal disease?

patty villa, would you care to elaborate on how it is that we "are already allowed to kill" ourselves "..in the manner that you choose."?

Do you have a recipe that you'd like to share with the rest of us or are you talking about sleeping pills, a revolver or jumping off the Aurora bridge?

Please clarify.

Also can you please describe how a very very ill person can pull this off?

Thanks!

I see by what has already been posted here that the Bible thumpers are alive and well on this one; and as usual they and their cohorts just can't seem to keep their own positions and opinions to themselves. They've just got "to save us from ourselves". They've been around with their carping since time started and they are in on this one also.
As a Viet Nam era veteran that presently is, and has been for years, in the situation of having survived many, many, major operations in order to keep my leg and at the same time have to fight full blown MRSA; and who will be undergoing another operation for neck fusion this 31st for vertebre intgrusion on my spinal cord that could make me a paraplegic; I really don't give a rats .... about what the opposition thinks or feels about this.
I'm the one that is going through the pain hell that I have 24/7 -- not them.
I watched the 7PM show this evening that King5 put on and I have some observations:
1.) It would have held much more weight if the two "in house" guest's credentials had been spelled out as to their credibility to the subject. As it was presented -- their was none, and those two people were just espousing their personal positions and prejudices -- with nothing given as to what their interaction with the two positions were.
2.) It would have been worth the time if they had been equal in strength as to putting forth their positions. The woman was way too submissive and quiet; the man just kept spouting his personal opinions with utterly no qualifying information or questions from either of the questioning people.
Look -- it boils down to this.
There are those of us individuals that are, or might be in the future, in the uninviable position of wanting to make a final decision pertaining to their own personal life so that they don't "go out" as a screaming blob. Then there are those individual that can't stand the idea that an individual has the right to think of completing such an action as I fought for the right to have many years ago.
The real question is this.
What is it that gives the second group the right to interfere in the rights of the first group.
Single answer -- they don't have any right at all.
So, with that; I hope that if King5 puts together another expose' like tonight; at least get two indivuals that give a semblense of being able to back up their positions with FACTS, not just ..... poor personal opinions.

I see by what has already been posted here that the Bible thumpers are alive and well on this one; and as usual they and their cohorts just can't seem to keep their own positions and opinions to themselves. They've just got "to save us from ourselves". They've been around with their carping since time started and they are in on this one also.
As a Viet Nam era veteran that presently is, and has been for years, in the situation of having survived many, many, major operations in order to keep my leg and at the same time have to fight full blown MRSA; and who will be undergoing another operation for neck fusion this 31st for vertebre intgrusion on my spinal cord that could make me a paraplegic; I really don't give a rats .... about what the opposition thinks or feels about this.
I'm the one that is going through the pain hell that I have 24/7 -- not them.
I watched the 7PM show this evening that King5 put on and I have some observations:
1.) It would have held much more weight if the two "in house" guest's credentials had been spelled out as to their credibility to the subject. As it was presented -- their was none, and those two people were just espousing their personal positions and prejudices -- with nothing given as to what their interaction with the two positions were.
2.) It would have been worth the time if they had been equal in strength as to putting forth their positions. The woman was way too submissive and quiet; the man just kept spouting his personal opinions with utterly no qualifying information or questions from either of the questioning people.
Look -- it boils down to this.
There are those of us individuals that are, or might be in the future, in the uninviable position of wanting to make a final decision pertaining to their own personal life so that they don't "go out" as a screaming blob. Then there are those individual that can't stand the idea that an individual has the right to think of completing such an action as I fought for the right to have many years ago.
The real question is this.
What is it that gives the second group the right to interfere in the rights of the first group.
Single answer -- they don't have any right at all.
So, with that; I hope that if King5 puts together another expose' like tonight; at least get two indivuals that give a semblense of being able to back up their positions with FACTS, not just ..... poor personal opinions.

This law gives power to the dying person, not to the doctors. It gives a willing doctor the ability to legally respond to a dying person's request for a prescription that would allow him to end his life hopefully at a time prior to experiencing excruciating pain and suffering.

I support INIT 1000 because it will support MY decision, when the time comes. My life.. my decision. It's that simple. For those who believe otherwise, do not exercise that option, but DO NOT restrict my options.

Yes on I-1000! All of this talk about God's wishes is irrelevant. In a country where we have separation of church and state, each religion is free to come up with its own definition of God's wishes. Then we can decide if we agree and act accordingly. As free citizens, we should be able to make our own health care choices. We have a right to be free in our persons, otherwise, we are like slaves, property of some other master. What right does the state or some church have to dictate how we should end our lives?

Hi Alex,
There are plenty of resources out there for people who desire to do this, not that I am a proponent, it's just that it is available information for individuals with varying abilities. I'm certain you've heard of the Hemlock Society for one. There are numerous books, publications, and with the advent of the internet, scores of places to peruse for this type of information.
People are not condemned to suffer great pain with the advances in palliative care, but if they are determined to take their lives, they can. People are able to make these choices.
Alex, Life is terminal. But it is a great gift. We need to make good decisions, love each other through tough times, and be there for one another in good times and bad, including the end if we are so lucky.

I have watched many members of my family die horrible deaths. I'm thinking especially of my 21 year old sister who died from ovarian cancer. That was 30 years ago and I still remember the outrage at a system that dictated that she had no choice.

I now have an incurable illness. I want to be able to choose. I will not go thru what my sister went thru before she finally died. I don't want that for me or my family.

My choice is already made. With or without being granted permission from the powers that be, I don't choose to live with endless pain at the end. The question then becomes, will society allow me to die on my own terms with dignity or will I have to pick some other less dignified method to accomplish my wishes.

I saw one of the anti-choice commercials that an elderly woman states that her husband was given a few monthes to live and lasted appx. 2 years. This with a smile on her face because SHE had more time with him. It's not about you, it was about your husband and the pain he was going thru. Not your choice but his. Seems selfish imposing your wishes on him.

I believe we have a soul and that we move on to an after life. While I love here and now, why would anyone want their loved ones or themselves to suffer the degradation of a long pain-full death, when we could be living painfree in the next?

Yes on I-1000!I think a person has the right to decide for herself and her family. My mother died of asphyxication from fluid that built up in her lungs as a result of mophine which she needed to battle the pain of liver cancer. Did God decide to give her this disease? Should it be left in God's hands to decide when she should have died? I don't think so. I don't want to go down that path. God gave us intellegience and free will. It should be my choice if I get a terminal illness. Even if it is not a decision you want to make, don't take the right to choose away from others who do not feel as you do. Please vote yes on I-1000 and let each individual decide for themselves.

I'm a physician. It's almost ghoulish, and maybe appropriate with Halloween just around the corner, that some voters might want to give me the right to kill them. Hospice already leaves enough medicines in the home to treat any amount of pain, anxiety and nausea. If you wish to take them to off yourself, the option is already available to you. There is no excuse for anyone dying in pain in this era of hospice and palliative care. Why do I have to be the one to "do the deed." There's lots of ways to kill a person that don't involve physicians. Have your family do it and let them clean up the mess. Leave me out of it. I want my profession to be one that relieves misery rather than kills patients. And I help that happen. Hopefully, most patients feel the same.

Justifying a yes-vote on this issue by equating us to animals? C'mon! We're more than just clever meat bags, Hunt.

http://www.noassistedsuicide.com/

"No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind" -John Donne. As a physician, these words haunt me as I think of my colleagues and patients who have killed themselves. And it undergirds why I oppose I-1000. We are connected. A suicide seems like a break in that connection, a person's desire to be an island. Folks, we can and will do better controlling pain at the end of life. We will NOT abandon you. I desperately want to help and to alleviate your suffering, but not to this extreme. Please, no.

Hi patty villa,

I know you mean well, but I get the feeling you've never been there. I have. My husband was on Hospice and under palliative care. I watched him die and I watched him suffer because the hospice nurse did not know what to do for him as he cried out in pain asking for help--there was nothing she could do for him. And she was an excellent nurse with alot of experience. He should have had the option of taking a legal dose of drugs to end his life before he reached that point. The drugs he had available for pain did not work.

It would have been very scary for us to have tried to come up with our own recipe or for him to try to kill himself by taking huge amounts of the oxycodone that was his pain killer. No doctor was telling us how much it would take to cause death.

And to CP the physician, you are missing the point. Nobody is asking for you to kill them. We are asking doctors who are comfortable with doing so, to be able to legally prescribe a lethal dose of barbituates to terminally ill patients who take the pills themselves. You are not required as a physician to issue the prescription and you are not being asked to kill anyone. Many doctors, nurses and hospice workers are supporting I-1000.

If only your profession could relieve misery. Unfortunately you guys aren't quite there yet on pain management and to imply that you are tells me you haven't really been present at alot of deaths.

The Get Rid of Granny Initiative
I-1000 would allow coersion by family to encourage suicide rather then spend more on medical bills. the first doctor would, of course, suggest others that would be sympathetic to assisted suicide. Doctor hunting is not addressed; vist five or more doctors until you get the two required doctor diagnosis of a fatal condition. Life is a fatal condition that will someday end in a fatality. The loop holes are too great, the law is too broad. Unless you wish to get rid of Granny!

patty villa said -
"There are plenty of resources out there for people who desire to do this, not that I am a proponent, it's just that it is available information for individuals with varying abilities. I'm certain you've heard of the Hemlock Society for one."

Right. Confined to bed in a supervised care facility. Weak. Unable to do anything for yourself. So you are going to send a nurse out to look up this stuff? Are they going to find all the ingredients to let you "do it yourself"? I'm sure that they will be happy to risk going to prison for you.

"People are not condemned to suffer great pain with the advances in palliative care, but if they are determined to take their lives, they can. People are able to make these choices."

Wrong again! Because of the helping hand of the DEA, doctors are under computerized nationwide surveillance when it comes to Class A drugs. Because of this, and the fact that no two people respond to drugs the same way - especially over time, the panacea of Perfect Palliative Care is a myth. Many doctors who have elderly and other high-pain-level patients have to UNDERPRESCRIBE pain meds for fear of being raked over the coals by the federal government.

Basically, your comments sound like someone who has never "been there".

I'll bet the insurance companies love this one. It will save them all kinds of money. Just refuse to pay for treatment (which could be expensive), offer this cheap alternative, and they have gotten that expense off their books.

And I'm sure that there must be at least one family member in some family somewhere in Washington who is so anxious to inherit that they would not help the suffering person fight to get the proper medical care in time to prevent their arrival at this option.

Absolutely NO!

I would like to encourage you to help oppose Initiative I-1000, the so-called "Death with Dignity" initiative. The very core of our stated mission is being attacked in this initiative, which would authorize physicians to take the lives of their patients with immunity and in secrecy. The desire for an end to suffering is certainly desirable, but to give the right to intentionally end life to your physician will result in loss of trust in the relationships between individuals and their physicians. I believe this creates a further conflict of interest for the physician which will make each of my patients wonder whether I am intending them harm or not. This initiative directly contradicts the Hippocratic oath I took upon graduation from medical school! The timing of your or my leaving this earthly existence is firmly in God's hands, and for me to think that I know better than He, is supremely arrogant. Each of us can get relief from physical pain with appropriate medications, and any who wish to do so can arrange to end their own life, without involvement from physicians. We should not authorize and encourage doctors to be accomplices in this decision. This Initiative is dangerous to patients, dangerous for doctors, and dangerous to the society in which the willful ending of life becomes an acceptable standard of behavior. In Holland, as well as in Oregon where such a bill was snuck in using a similarly deceptive title, "involuntary euthanasia" and support for assisted suicide instead of good palliative care by government payors have become commonplace. Please join me in opposing this inappropriately named initiative.

Vote No on assisted suicide. Please do your homework and read the materials on both sides of the argument. The Michigan Law Review article linked from the www.noassistedsuicide.com shows painstakingly acquired evidence that the Oregon Department of Health has chosen to protect their law and not their population by shrouding the outcomes of the suicides in secrecy and protecting suicide doctors from peer review. Read the text of the initiative itself and you will see that doctors prescribing suicide medicine are given highly unusual protection from prosecution if they appear to be acting "in good faith." Look at the initiative carefully and you will see that the supposed "safeguards" are not protective because they only make recommendations and not requirements, are full of loopholes. There is nothing in the law that says a patient actually is required to meet personally the physician who provides suicide medicine. Google the names Kate Cheney, Barbara Wagner and Michael Freeland and you will find examples of people who have been damaged by Oregon's suicide law. The escalating costs of medical care will cause insurance companies to pressure the sick and elderly into taking suicide medication. This has already started in Oregon. Also greedy heirs are pushing elderly parents to take advantage of the suicide law. They call this "Death with Dignity." The Oregon Department of Health does not seem to care since they have taken no action on documented abuses. Oregon's statistics are collected only by means of a simple one page checklist - collected only from the suicide pill prescribers. These statistics show an amazingly low failure rate of the suicide medication, less than one percent failure of the medication to cause death. The problem is that in Holland the very same dose of the very same medication has a government reported failure rate of 18%. That is not a problem in Holland, because doctors can use euthanasia to finish the death process. In Oregon and possibly Washington State, the patients who fail to die and wake back up are at high risk of complications such as brain damage, which makes them ineligible of continuing the suicide route, since American doctors are not permitted to finish the job with euthanasia. Who wants to take the suicide pill if they knew it had this kind of failure rate? The people pushing the suicide initiative are to a large degree Caucasian males who are not worried about dying a painful death. They have a need to control everything in their lives - but they have an 18% chance of totally losing all control. If they did the research carefully, they would not be so avid in their support. Doctors these days face pressure from many sides, pressures which could cause them to do things not in their patients' best interest. I-1000 would further their moral quagmire, and the trust relationship we have with our doctors could be greatly damageed. If we pass I-1000 we will face a new paradigm for medicine which will be extremely difficult to reverse. If you plan on retiring in Washington State and someday dying here, please do youself and everyone else a favor by voting NO on this dangerous initiative.

Please vote NO! As a physician, I took an oath that I would protect life. For me to participate would be unethical! Once we start to devalue life itself, the whole process becomes very slippery. The law in Oregon has been a failure. We DO have the ability to control pain and treat patients. We don't need to kill them.

I have tried to respond but it keeps being denied. It looks like my access is limited. It also looks like I've hit a nerve.
Markus, terminal patients are not considered an addiction risk and are not limited in the amount of pain medication they can receive. Speak to a palliative care specialist for more information, or a pain management specialist. The DEA is not involved in this issue. If the end of your life is your choice and you want control, then make a plan if you fear a certain type of death. Take control, make the plan. It is available to you and was available to your great grandma, if she wanted to make a plan herself before she ever got to the "nursing home scenario" you describe.
Alex, you should look into the info. I told you about before you dismiss it. And the doctor (CP) was correct in what he/she said. Their point was valid too. Don't make so many assumptions.
There, I hope that they allow this one.

I am a family doctor. In my 30-year career, I've helped hundreds of babies take their first breaths, and hundreds of my elderly or terminally ill patients have taken their last breaths. Often with the help of hospice, I've given medications and other treatments to relieve the pain, suffering, and depression that some patients face at the end of life. In many cases, I've been at the bedside as patients slipped away peacefully.

Some have told heart-wrenching stories of loved ones who have experienced horribly painful deaths. These stories should be a clarion call to cause us in medicine to work much harder to relieve the suffering and depression that patients face as the end of life nears.

But physician-assisted death by suicide is a poor solution to this problem. The desire to end one's life has always been a signal that has brought care and treatment from doctors, not assistance with their suicide. Suffering, depressed patients need care and compassionate relief from their pain and depression, not a prescription for suicide.

This law has many problems: evaluation and treatment for depression is not required; someone who stands to gain through inheritance may serve as a witness to a request for suicide; there is no notification of spouses or families, so they may discover the body of their loved one next to the suicide medication prescribed by his or her doctor; death certificates will show no hint of the manner of death, as they would in any other form of suicide; and so on.

But mostly, it's simply bad law to put physicians in the position of helping their patients commit suicide. This isn't good for doctors, it's not good for patients, and it's not good for families. I'm voting NO on Initiative 1000, and you should too.

Doug said:
"I am a family doctor. In my 30-year career, I've helped hundreds of babies take their first breaths and hundreds of my elderly or terminally ill patients have taken their last breaths."

I notice you say only that you've been at the bedside of patients while they slipped away peacefully. Were you ever at the bedside of the 4 out of 5 people who don't slip away peacefully?

Since many, maybe most people with terminal diagnoses die at home, did you go to their homes and help them out in-person? It's odd, I never once saw a family doctor in the oncology unit visiting a patient and have never had one visit from a doctor (except for friends) in my home.

I would like to reiterate that doctors/physicians, just like everyone else, come from many religious and professional pursuasions, so just because they have MD behind their names does not make them authorities on dying, e.g. dermatologist, opthamologist, gastroenterologist, etc. And you don't know what their religious beliefs are.

Vote yes on I-1000 for compassion and peace of mind.

My aunt was given 6 months to live and died EIGHT years later. There was a time when she was depressed and scared and could have been persuaded to take some pills and end it all, but I am so glad that was not an option. Those 8 years brought great memories and shared loved and laughter that were priceless. How can you gamble away such precious time? Doctors dont always know how much time a patient has to live. Also, insurance companies (in Oregon) have denied some chemo therapies but told patients they'll pay for them to kill themselves!! (per Seattle times article a week or so ago). It's much cheaper to pay for one time drugs than to provide therapies and hospice care. If this initiative passes, it will allow insurance companies to do more of that and we know that it's all about money and the bottom line with buisnesses. The concern is that the message might eventually be "do us all a favor and stop being a burden on society, since you're dying anyway." If we offer this as an "option" what incentive will there be to improve on palliative care? I feel we should focus on impoving palliative care to have patients be as comfortable as possible and give them the ability to die with dignity without having to kill themselves.

For those that say yes to this, would it be for your benefit or for the person who you are saying yes to go ahead and end their lives? Would it be so that you can get what ever money is coming to you or so that you don't have to spend any money? How can anyone look at someone and say "I am going to end your life today?" We have enough of that going on with babies and now we want to do it to the sick as well. What are we saying about our society? Are we that shallow to think that the sick are not that important? Every moment is precious to those that are sick and to take those moments away, how dare you! Every creature is special and worth every minute of the life God gave them. He is the only one who should take it away.

If you don't want to use I-1000, then don't use it. But don't make that decision for everyone else in the state.

http://www.itsmydecision.org

http:www.deathwithdignityfacts.com

This is a personal decision, and terminal patients should be allowed to make it for themselves.

VOTE YES ON I-1000!

If you don't want to use I-1000, then don't use it. But don't make the decision for every other person in the rest of the state.

http://www.itsmydecision.org

http://www.deathwithdignityfacts.com

Terminally ill patients should be allowed to make this decision for themselves.

VOTE YES ON I-1000!

Those of us who ardently support I-1000 do not challenge the belief of those who wish to wait for death at the hour chosen by God or those who elect to undergo medical interventions to extend their lives, we simply want to give individuals who are terminally ill, with less that 6 months to live, the opportunity to have some control over the end of their life. The issue at stake is the extension of choice in the end of life issues for those who are terminally ill.

Death with dignity? The dictionary defines dignity as "the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed" This used to be the defintion for a person who displayed virtue. Virtues such as courage, fortitude, faith, and hope. Please recognize the initiative for what it is. It does not meet the definition of dignity.

Yes, absolutely! These are patients who are suffering terribly and are going to die one way or another within six months. Who are we to tell that patient what their final days will be like? Many have commented on God, the sanctity of life, etc. While you are free to make your own end of life decisions based on your value system, it is fundamentally undemocratic for one person's religious beliefs to control what is likely the most important decision a terminally ill patient will ever make.

Absolutely not!
Remember Jack Kevorkian, the so-called "suicide doctor" from Michigan in the 1990's? By his own admission he helped at least 130 people commit suicide with his "death machine". Yep, that's what he called it. He had his license yanked and was finally convicted of 2nd degree murder. The Jack Kevorkians of the world would have a field day if I-1000 would pass, and we couldn't legally stop them.

Let's consider insurance companies for a moment. My doctor and I have to fight with my insurance company every year for my cholesterol medication, and unfortunately this type of battle with insurance companies over meds is not uncommon. I can't believe for a moment that insurance companies will -- without a hitch -- cover the expensive meds needed to help a terminally ill person if assisted suicide is a legal medical treatment. The elderly and fragile will be pressured to "do the right thing". That is NOT death with dignity.

As for no abuse of the law in Oregon. Hmmm. Death certificates are falsified by law to not show death by suicide. Spouses do not need to be told if the death was by suicide. Records are sealed. There are no sanctions for doctors who do not report. How on earth could we possibly know if there is abuse!!!!

I-1000 is dangerously flawed. Vote NO!

Legalized assisted suicide will change everything. It will change us politically. Saying that it is only a personal choice is ignoring the fact that it will corrupt the practice of medicine for all of us in ways we cannot avoid.

At the brink of twilight of the era of failed Reagan libertarianism triggered by total collapse of our economy, that ignores societal costs by deregulating everything and letting the individual run wild, it is time to take a second look at "choice". Government by and for the corporation IS the problem, but government by we the people is the solution. It's about democracy, stupid.

I-1000 is fatally flawed. Like Oregon, no witness is required at the act of death, leaving open a host of abuses, such as coercing suicide without the patient's consent, i.e., murder. Who is to know? One more elder or less, or disabled adult...oh, well. Unlike Oregon, "self-administer" really means ingestion of the poison, according to the definition. Why not surprise dad? Who would guess? And the doctor has to list the underlying illness as the cause of death, so how can this law be policed? Those statistics that the Oregon folks use to say things there are peachy keen would not even be available in the new law. There would be immunity from lawsuits, giving hospitals and doctors another perverse incentive to steer victims of botched operations towards suicide. And the HMO's will love the idea that someone needing an expensive procedure can always kill themselves instead, at insurer's expense of course.

One man's personal choice means ultimately degraded health care standards for all of the rest of us. Vote NO on I-1000.

Ours is country of laws. I-1000 REQUIRES doctors to lie on death certificates. Besides throwing off medical statistics and the research derived from them, this requirement tells both doctors and patients that truth isn't important. Doesn't that bother you?

Remember something else.

If you want to kill yourself, why make our doctors do it for you? They really do not want to become Dr. Deaths or refer you to a death specialist who does not practice medicine. That changes their entire mindset, and lessens my health care.

Just contact the Hemlock Society (aka "Compassion and Choices". They will be happy to send you how-to books with complete recipeis, like they have been doing for years, like Jack Kevorkian did. Doing it yourself...isn't that the REAL personal choice you want? No permission required, no paperwork. You can still do it, and we won't object. The rub is only when you insist it be done by a doctor, who is sworn to save life. Why doesn't this make sense?

Remember something else.

If you want to kill yourself, why make our doctors do it for you? They really do not want to become Dr. Deaths or refer you to a death specialist who does not practice medicine. That changes their entire mindset, and lessens my health care.

Just contact the Hemlock Society (aka "Compassion and Choices". They will be happy to send you how-to books with complete recipeis, like they have been doing for years, like Jack Kevorkian did. Doing it yourself...isn't that the REAL personal choice you want? No permission required, no paperwork. You can still do it, and we won't object. The rub is only when you insist it be done by a doctor, who is sworn to save life. Why doesn't this make sense?

I am very disturbed by the Death with Dignity National Center. This is a political effort; not a compassionate effort. Read:

"We have spent the last year actively researching and collecting data to determine the state which is most likely to adopt a Death with Dignity law. Through these efforts we have identified Washington as the state most likely.... We, at the Death with Dignity National Center, are proud to provide our political experience and expertise to these talented and committed people of Washington."
[Death with Dignity National Center 2007 Report, p. 3]

They are "PROUD" to provide their political experience and expertise because WA state is most likely to adopt this law??? They are experts in promoting death - Last time I looked, this was called "murder".

As of 10/10/08, the "Yes on 1000" committee reported receipts of $3,274,877. This is the fourth highest all time record for money raised in support of any initiative campaign in Washington State.

What a sad state of affairs that this money wasn't used to help the homeless, impoverished, abused, and neglected individuals in our state.

Vote "NO" on I-1000.

Alex - you seem to have more knowledge about death than Dr Doug with his 30 years of medical practice. What is your backround in witnessing the dying process? Where did you get your information that only one in 5 patients die comfortably? Have you read the article in the Journal of Palliative Medicine, 2004, volume 7, pages 431-442 that shows that families of dying Oregonians reported significantly higher levels of pain in their dying family members after assisted suicide became legal? Are you aware that most of the Oregonians who used assisted suicide did so because of control issues and were not concerned about pain?

Danielle and Ilona, The problem of patients dying in severe pain is a crucial issue. The question is how do we best solve this problem. Palliative medicine specialists tell us that we today have the expertise to control the pain of these patients through medications and if nothing else works, general anesthesia to allow the body to rest and recuperate to the point that medications can work. Some patients die because of the high levels of pain medication and anesthsia provided, but the motivation was to care optimally for the patient, not terminate the patient.
The best solution to the pain problem is to require that all doctors caring for the terminally ill be adequately educated in pain management and that they be held responsible for providing inadequate pain relief. I-1000 does nothing to improve quality of medical care at the end of life.
I-1000 is a potential solution for severe pain at the end of life - but at what cost to society. This is not just a matter of indiviual choice. In Oregon only a small fraction of people used the suicide law to cope with pain. OHD statistics show most of them did it for control reasons. The problem with suicide is that it does not just affect the person who dies. It has an often severe impact on those left behind.

We are not voting to defeat I-1000 because we want to stand in someone's way of doing something that affects only that person. I-1000 requires the involvement of the medical profession - an involvement which is far-reaching in its effects. Doctor-patient relationships will be damaged for everyone, not just those who use I-1000. Everyone will become sick or elderly one day and will be affected by financial pressures to cut insurance company costs. In Oregon Barbara Wagner June 3, 2008 Eugene Register-Guard already received a note from
her insurance company that they were refusing to pay for her cancer treatment - BUT THEY OFFERED INSTEAD TO COVER THE $50 NEEDED TO PAY FOR HER SUICIDE MEDICINE. Barbara did not ask for suicide, but she was affected by those who voted to have this option available. Kate Cheney was coerced by her daughter to die by assisted suicide,by a prescription written by the medical director of her insurance company.

We will all be affected by the new healthcare paradigm that will ensue if I-1000 passes, and this will be a change that will be very difficult to reverse. This is not just a matter of restricting another persons access to another means of pain control at the end of life.

“Sunnie” Elaine T. Gordon, Ph.D.

Opponents of I-1000 need to know:

Euthanasia would remain illegal under I-1000. This law does not allow for doctors to make a decision to end a patient's life. Only the patient themselves can make that decision, and only the patient may self-administer the medication.

The safeguards ARE working. We can look to over 10 years of experience in Oregon to see that there has been no pressure on vulnerable groups. The Oregonian newspaper recently wrote that "the safeguards appear to be working."

While opponents claim I-1000 would require doctors to falsify death certificate, in truth, I-1000 follows standard medical practice. Just as when doctors discontinue an artificial respiratory support or kidney dialysis, or help someone die by continuous sedation, the underlying disease is legally and accurately the cause of death.

I-1000 is about personal choices, not economics. There isn't a single case of coercion in the ten year history of Death with Dignity in Oregon.

Yes! Pass I-1000. I am a senior citizen and I want the freedom to control my death when the time comes.
Those of you with religious constraints don't have to use it! But don't control my life with your religion.

Sunnie Elaine Gordon said:
“Sunnie” Elaine T. Gordon, Ph.D.

Opponents of I-1000 need to know:

Euthanasia would remain illegal under I-1000. This law does not allow for doctors to make a decision to end a patient's life. Only the patient themselves can make that decision, and only the patient may self-administer the medication.

The safeguards ARE working. We can look to over 10 years of experience in Oregon to see that there has been no pressure on vulnerable groups.

Sunnie, You forgot to mention the title of the article you found the information about Oregon safeguards. It is found in in the September 20th The Portland Oregonian Editorial Board article is named "Washington state's assisted-suicide measure: Don't go there." The article goes on to say, "Oregon's physician-assisted suicide program has not been sufficiently transparent. Essentially, a coterie of insiders run the program, with a handful of doctors and others deciding what the public may know. We're aware of no substantiated abuses, but we'd feel more confident with more sunlight on the program."

The credibility of the Oregon Health Department statistics on assisted suicide has been thoroughly destroyed by an academic journal article in The Michigan Law Review June 2008 entitled "Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Medical Perspective"by Herbert Hendin and Kathleen Foley. http://www.spiorg.org/publications/HendinFoley_MichiganLawReview.pdf
Please read news articles in Oregon on Kate Cheney, Barbara Wagner, and read information on Michael Freeland, and you will see what Oregon Health Department statistics are hiding. The safeguards in Oregon - just like I-1000 safeguards- are written in politically polished language that obscures the fact that these safeguards are only recommendations, not requirements, and are easily circumvented so are to create unacceptable risks to vulnerable people.

Before you vote “yes” on I-1000 you might want to think about this story out of Oregon. A woman in Oregon has cancer and uses their version of DSHS. She had exhausted all typical treatments without successfully beating the cancer. So, she asked to try some experimental treatments – none of which could offer more than to extend her life. She received a letter denying her payment for the treatments. However, they were willing to pay for the drugs that would be necessary to end her life. They were within their right to deny treatment that was expensive with no hope for cure, but had overstepped their rights by offering to help her kill herself. This particular story made the news. Makes me wonder how many don’t. Once the door has been opened, we might find that we have opened Pandora’s box. I’ll be voting “no” on I – 1000. Compassion shouldn’t kill.

I'm voting NO on I 1000. This initiative really bothers me for a number of reasons.

These 'hot topic' initiatives ALWAYS come up dearing presidential election cycles. Last time it was gay marriage, this time assited suicide. These emotional power plays are used by Republicans to try and cause the Christians to respond in shock and line up with their presidential ticket.

Suicide is wrong. I hope enough of us will agree on that this election while still voting for a president based on issues that a president actually WILL be required to take on this term. Abortion, gay rights, and assisted suicide you can bank are not going to be taken on in a serious way by any president Democrat of Republican this term while som many other imediate problems like war, finance, and healthcare are looming.

No we should not. I am voting No.

Don't be fooled. It is a whole lot cheaper to kill you than keep you alive and give you good palliative care. Money talks, the health insurance companies will ultimately make this decision. Not people, especially those who are poor or have no health care plan. I don't want money to become the issue over when I die or when any of my loved ones die.

We need to teach our doctors and nurses better ways of taking care of pain at the end of life. I have seen it done successfully with my father and my mother-in-law.

NO doctor can ever be sure how long someone will live or not live. 6 months to live is a joke. They just don't know.

I-1000 requires a lie on your death certificate. It must state that you died of the disease you were diagnosed with, not the leathal overdose. There will be no good way to track how many people have died due to I-1000. The records will be hidden from the public.

Your spouse, partner, or family members, do not need to be notified.

A beneficiary can be one of your witnesses. I would like to believe in the goodness of my fellow human beings but this scary.

I have experienced death in my family as a time of forgivness, healing and reconciliation between the patient and family. I-1000 would take those precious moments away.

There is no need for I-1000, The drugs are available over the counter. Go ahead and take too many if you must. But don't make this a burden on others.

Please vote NO

If the stakes were not so perilously high, the protestations of assisted suicide supporters that “outside religious leaders” are “trying to impose their values” on Washington voters by helping to oppose Initiative 1000’s attempt to re-define killing would be laughable. The values which these “outside religious leaders” are accused of “imposing” are those same values which have been protecting human life for millenia. If there is any “imposing” going on here, it is on the part of heavily- monied interests both in and out of state seeking to radically revise our existing law to create a zone for legally-sanctioned killing of sick, vulnerable human beings.
Among a multitude of troubling features of this measure, the mandated lying about the immediate cause of death and the veil of secrecy created should set off alarm bells for those who study history. In the 1930’s German death certificates of mental patients murdered by their doctors routinely listed “pneumonia” as the cause of death.
These are troubled economic times. Does anyone seriously believe that I-1000’s decorous “safeguards” against abuse will stand while medical costs are rising faster than the cost of living? And what precisely did former Governor Booth Gardiner mean when he suggested that I-1000 was only a “first step”? How long will it take for this “right” to die to become a “duty” for patients who lack the financial means to pay for their care?

From Dr. Sherwin Nuland's, "How We Die," Chapter VII Accidents, Suicide and Euthanasia: I have seen too many people die in suffering, too many families tormented by the deathwatch they must helplessly keep, to think that my own clinical observation is somehow a misapprehension of reality. The last weeks and days of far more of my patients than Osler's one in five have been overfull with a plethora of purgatory, and I have been there to see it. With deep sedation or the blessed respite of terminal coma that comes to some at the end of a difficult struggle, the actual hour when the heart stops is indeed often tranquil. Many do, in this way, avoid a tormented passage; but many others are in physical and mental distress till nearly the last moment, or even at the last moment. There is a nice Victorian reticence in denying the probability of a miserable prelude to mortality, and it is what everyone wants to hear. But if peace and dignity are what we delude ourselves to expect, most of us will die wondering what we, or our doctors, have done wrong.

By and large, dying is a messy business. Though many people do become "unconscious and unconcerned" by lapsing or being put into a state of coma or semiawareness; though some lucky others are indeed blessed with a remarkably peaceful and even conscious passage at the end of a difficult illness; though many thousands each year quite literally drop dead without more than a moment's discomfort; though victims of sudden trauma and death are sometimes granted the gift of release from terror-filled pain-conceding all of these eventualities-far, far fewer than one in five of those who die each day are the beneficiaries of such easy circumstances. And even for those who do achieve a measure of serenity during separation, the period of days or weeks preceding the decline of full awareness is frequently glutted with mental suffering and physical distress.

Too often, patients and their families cherish expectations that cannot be met, with the result that death is made all the more difficult by frustration and disappointment with the performance of a medical community that may be able to do no better-or, worse yet, does no better because it continues to fight long after defeat has become inevitable."

Dr. Nuland is a surgeon and surgery professor at Yale. I am not suggesting that he would be a proponent of I-1000, only that he describes the suffering of most at the end of life.

Passing I-1000 will not change "abuse." Abuse is outside the law, with or without I-1000.

Terminally ill patients can have a long road of physical pain and mental anguish. Passing I-1000 could allow them some relief. Please vote Yes.

All of this has happened before:

BERLIN, DEN 1. September 1939

Reichsleiter B o u h l e r und
Dr. med. B r a n d t

sind unter Verantwortung beauftragt die Befugnisse namentlich zu bestimmender Ärzte so zu erweitern, dass nach menschlichem Ermessen unheilbar Kranken bei kritischster Beurteilung ihres Krankheitsszustandes der Gnadentod gewährt werden kann.

Adolf Hitler

Translation:

Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen] of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death [Gnadentod].

Adolf Hitler

I-1000 gives physicians too much power. Even with the two physician requirement and two written consents by the patient, secrecy from family and secrecy from the medical record are deeply disturbing.

Vote no on I-1000.

No - this initiative heads our nation in the wrong direction. Many of the responders have given great arguments against Initiative 1000. I agree with much of what is already been said and am voting "NO".

Assisted suicide degrades the medical profession by removing the foundation of all their ethics: the 2500 year old tradition of doing no harm which came from Hippocrates. Take note: this founder of Western medicine was Greek, lived 500 years before Christianity, and was famous for separating medicine from religion. It’s ridiculous to say that objecting to assisted suicide is just a way of foisting religion on people. Are we about to find out the hard way why Hippocrates considered “doing no harm” crucial to humane medicine? I am voting NO on I-1000!

Reprinted from the Weekly Standard, article by Author/attorney/bioethicist Weslet J. Smith: (found online at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/003dncoj.asp?pg=1)

The key test came in late 1938 when the father of "Baby Knauer," an infant born blind and missing his leg and part of his arm, wrote Hitler requesting permission to have his child "put to sleep." As described by Lifton and other historians, Hitler was quite interested in the case and sent one of his personal physicians, Karl Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. Brandt's instructions from his Führer were to verify the facts of the baby's condition and, if found to be true, to assure the child's doctors and his parents that if he was killed, no one would face punishment. The doctors in the case who met with Brandt agreed that there was "no justification for keeping the child alive." Baby Knauer soon became one of the first victims of the Holocaust.

Hitler later signed a secret decree permitting the euthanasia of disabled infants. Sympathetic physicians and nurses from around the country--many not even Nazi party members--cooperated in the horror that followed. Formal "protective guidelines" were created, including the creation of a panel of "expert referees," which judged which infants were eligible for the program.

Beginning in early 1939, babies born with birth defects or with congenital diseases were euthanized. Their doctors would admit these unfortunate infants to medical clinics, where they would be killed. The practice quickly became systematized. Regulations made it mandatory for midwives and doctors to notify authorities whenever a baby was born with birth defects. These cases would be reviewed by the euthanasia referees to determine if the children were eligible for euthanasia. Those deemed killable were usually dispatched via an overdose of a drug, most typically a sedative called Luminal. The euphemism of choice for this murder was "treatment." Most, but not all, of this killing was done in secret.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE that throughout the years in which euthanasia was performed in Germany, whether as part of the officially sanctioned government program or otherwise, the government did not force doctors to kill. Participating doctors had become true believers, convinced they were performing a valuable medical service for their "patients" and their country.

Eventually, the "success" of the infant euthanasia program led to the infamous "T-4" project in which adult disabled German citizens were mass murdered. Hitler eventually canceled the T-4 program in the face of public protests but that didn't matter. From around 1943 until a few weeks after the end of the war, some doctors went on a eugenic killing rampage. Known today as "wild euthanasia," during the later war years German doctors killed any patient they pleased, often without medical examination, usually by starvation or lethal injection.
...........................................

Germany had instituted protective regulations by a panel of doctors and experts, too! People just got used to doctors murdering patients over time, and the doctors and nurses got used to it, too. And look where Germany ended up. When it started, most people thought it was compassionate, too. Because the program operated in secret after it started, there were no protestors. Nobody looked ahead far enough to see what could happen.

Vote NO

I am voting NO on I-1000. Protect the vulnerable: minorities, immigrants, physically disabled, mentally disabled, the elderly from becoming victims of this law and the next law that will come after this one (Booth Gardner mentions this as a first step.) Sometimes we have to give up what we want to protect the rights of those who cant protect themselves. In this case we don't have to give up a right though...its still legal to commit suicide. Think about why at least 12 disabilities groups are against this (http://www.noassistedsuicide.com./supporters.html). They are AFRAID, and rightly so. No on I-1000. thanks!

Vote NO.
I-1000 is about money.

I am an attorney. I will be voting "no" because I-1000's provisions are a recipe for elder abuse. You can read I-1000 for yourself at at http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1000.pdf.

I-1000 allows someone with a financial interest in your estate to help you apply for the lethal dose. That person is even allowed to witness the request form and talk for you. (Sections 3, 22 & 1(3)). This person could be your adult child or a new “best friend.” Would it really be “your choice” with him standing there to urge you on, incidentally securing his inheritance?

The bigger problem is that I-1000 does not require a witness at the death. See: I-1000's entire text. This creates the opportunity for an adult child or a new “best friend” to administer the dose without your consent. Without a disinterested witness, who would know? I-1000 would give the perfect alibi.

Prevent abuse of yourself and others. Vote “no” on I-1000.

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

The role of a physician should be to prevent as much as possible, cure when we can and provide comfort when we cannot cure. Physicians should not be in the business of dealing death. It is a shame that some people suffer because of inadequate care in their final days; if any regulation is necessary it is to see that anyone who is suffering is afforded compassionate, supportive care and comfort.

I am particularly disturbed by the comment near the top that we do this for our animals, why not for us? My wife and I recently made a decision to put our pet of 13 years down, due to widespread cancer. It was painful but necessary because we couldn't communicate with Cookie (our dog) nor provide the comfort she deserved. But it was also technically easy. As we went through the process I thought how easy it would be to decide the fate of other people (with or without their consent) if we start down the path of assisted suicide. This is the wrong way to go.

Why is it always the religious freaks that feel the need to dictate what we as a society deem to be freedom of choice. It should be an individuals choice. If I am terminal and in pain why should I suffer so you can feel justified in your GOD's eyes. FU. If you don't believe in it, then don't do it, period. The argument that the elderly can be coherced or forced into it is BS. It still has to be determined by a doctor that you have less than six months, and they still has to write the prescription. No one should hold power over another to determine the couse of their own life. For all you self righteous people out there, find something else to do.

OK For all of you who keep putting religion and stating NO on this issue, I would like to day one thing.

When the next person takes their life by any means I want you to go and clean up the mess!!!

All I stated was that I didn't want another family to have to clean up what I had to when I was young!

Do not be fooled. This is not about religion or self righteous people dictating the lives of others. This is not about the right to die. This initiative is about the right for physicians to prescribe life ending medication. This is a right physicians must not have. It WILL be abused. Health care should be about therapy, support and palliation and not about causing death. There is a tremendous amount in the medical literature about the high susceptablility of vulnerable populations to coercion by physicians, even unintentionally. Terminally ill patients are vulnerable patients. This issue needs to be addressed another way. It corrupts the committment and calling of physicians.

Do not be fooled. This is not about religion or self righteous people dictating the lives of others. This is not about the right to die. This initiative is about the right for physicians to prescribe life ending medication. This is a right physicians must not have. It WILL be abused. Health care should be about therapy, support and palliation and not about causing death. There is a tremendous amount in the medical literature about the high susceptablility of vulnerable populations to coercion by physicians, even unintentionally. Terminally ill patients are vulnerable patients. This issue needs to be addressed another way. It corrupts the committment and calling of physicians.

I-1000 is dangerous, deceptive, and discriminatory. As a Family Physician for over 20 years, I concur with the Washington State Medical Associations strong stance against it.

It endangers people since it fails to provide adequate safeguards against those with depression or dementia. There is no requirement for a mental health evaluation before a suicide pill is prescribed. None of the 49 patients who were doctor assisted in their suicides in OR in 2007 were referred for a psychiatric evaluation. Also, it neglects the known unreliability of doctors' predictions of life expectancies of patients. I have a patient who has had unresectable lung cancer for at least 3 years. She is happy and active . Were I-1000 in effect she may have felt socially coerced to give up and die.

It is deceptive in rewording the act of physician assisted suicide. No matter what it's called, it is still assisting in a murder.

I-1000 discriminates on an arbitrary "six months to live" line. Legal challenges to this could arise and make physicians agents of suicide for any other individual, as it is in Holland. There euthanasia is legal to age 16.

Would you want to see a doctor who would kill you for a fee? I-1000 would keep secret the names of the doctors who prescribe suicde pills. Doctors don't want this. Neither should patients.

Please vote NO on I-1000.

I-1000 is dangerous, deceptive, and discriminatory. As a Family Physician for over 20 years, I concur with the Washington State Medical Associations strong stance against it.

It endangers people since it fails to provide adequate safeguards against those with depression or dementia. There is no requirement for a mental health evaluation before a suicide pill is prescribed. None of the 49 patients who were doctor assisted in their suicides in OR in 2007 were referred for a psychiatric evaluation. Also, it neglects the known unreliability of doctors' predictions of life expectancies of patients. I have a patient who has had unresectable lung cancer for at least 3 years. She is happy and active . Were I-1000 in effect she may have felt socially coerced to give up and die.

It is deceptive in rewording the act of physician assisted suicide. No matter what it's called, it is still assisting in a murder.

I-1000 discriminates on an arbitrary "six months to live" line. Legal challenges to this could arise and make physicians agents of suicide for any other individual, as it is in Holland. There euthanasia is legal to age 16.

Would you want to see a doctor who would kill you for a fee? I-1000 would keep secret the names of the doctors who prescribe suicde pills. Doctors don't want this. Neither should patients.

Please vote NO on I-1000.

I vote NO. 3 reasons.

1) The suffering human will pass away on it's own terms when they are ready. When our victim has found his/her closure in life. It is a syndrome recognized as 'permission to die' by those who work in hospice, etc.. Basically, one goes naturally when hey are ready to.

I have seen this syndrome for myself and have had it verified by many. Let nature take it's course. Human Nature just obstructs nature.

2) 'Suicide' is the operative term here. Suicide is always a decision that goes down to the last microsecond, no matter how well planned it may be. Whether the gun is down your throat with your finger on the trigger or you are standing on a ledge 30 floors up, looking down, the decision to 'do it' or 'back out' goes down to the microsecond.

I was appalled to find that Oregon's method of assisited suicide was perscribing 'reds' (barbituates) to swallow if you feel like kicking the bucket. If one is up walking around well enough to swallow a bunch of pills, then wait an hour to 12 hours before they kick in, that sure gives our patient enough time to question his/her actions. Too late. You took the pills.

Only if the method of death were as instant as a gun blast. Say have a 'death team' come in and hook the patient up. Part of the criterea should be the patient be so sick that they are not ambulatrory. Being able to walk around and swallow pills on your own is not close enough to death for me.

Hook the patient up, have a bit of a waiting time under normal conditions (TV, a family member or friend, etc.). If they want to die, so be it. They hit the button and be gone in seconds with the proper chemical used. If they back out, good! They have the chance to.

Death by 'reds'. Terrible. Gives the patient a long time of self doubt to invade the mind.

3) Genocide by commerce. Oh yeah, coersion of the all mighty dollar turning hospitals, hospices into 'death mills'.

I have seen some statement of "that hasn't happened in Oregon", etc. DON'T BE STUPID! Of course this will happen.

Overall, not enough thought has gone into this Initiative. It is basically very unregulated, written in a way that seems regulated. Example: just like laws pertaining to our financial institutions.

NO is the vote. End of story.

DM

Douglas Mays said-
"If one is up walking around well enough to swallow a bunch of pills, then wait an hour to 12 hours before they kick in..."

Wow, I never knew that patients had to get up and walk around to take pills. Thanks for that keen insight.

You're right, death with dignity is so wrong. I think every family should have to spend all their waking hours with a family member who is slowly dying. In the last days (or weeks) the family can get to see their loved one drift in and out of partial consciousness, moaning, gasping, writhing. That's WITH pain meds, by the way. They can experience the joy of smelling that "death breath" that comes as the immune system and organs start to shut down and bacteria starts multiplying throughout the body. No matter where you are in the room, it's that rotting meat smell that you can't really miss - or avoid. Then there are the skin lesions (sores) that often start forming early on and become severe as the body continues to break down.
It's a joyous thing seeing how long a person's heart will keep beating even when so much of the body is falling apart. Too bad the family will never really know if their loved one is in pain or not. Let's hope not, even though so many things would indicate otherwise. The sad part is that the stronger a person's heart, the longer it can take them to die.

That's just some of the heartwarming experience that the patient, and family, would miss out on if the patient took the "easy way out". Patients who want to be able to control when they die are just selfish bastards. They are cheating themselves and others out of these wonderful experiences.

Mark,
Death isn't pretty, but it is a promise. It is a guarantee. It's the one thing that you can count on. So why do you want to force the responsibility onto someone else for your personal choice? Why do you want it to be the responsibility of a doctor to get you the poison? It's your death, it's your choice, it should be under your control.
So Take Control. Stop complaining about the unkind stings of death and make a plan that you can live (and die) with. Don't force it upon someone else to do the deed for you (yes, I know it is up to the individual to actually take the drugs).
The information is out there for you. Plan ahead. It's not a matter of "if" but "when". According to "Alex" most people will die in pain and therefore need these drugs to do themselves in.So you and Alex should sit down and do your homework, get your plans together, and be prepared so that you don't need to force this down anyone else's throats. It's a private issue, a personal choice after all, so keep it that way. Take care of it yourself. Be responsible for your own actions.
And yes, I've read the initiative, I know what it says, and I know where the loopholes exist in Oregon. I also know there are cases that show that the Oregon law doesn't perform as flawlessly as they want you to believe. There are huge cracks in the program. The emperor has no clothes and they are afraid to say so very loudly.