I am a 43 yesr old woman that is living with MS, recently I faced a harsh battle that left me unable to use the left side of my body. I belive people with illness should have the right to end their suffering. I have had MS for the last 16 years not knowing whats around the corner but, I don't blame others with Major illness due to my experience.

I truly believe this is a sad day for America! Who would have thought America would stand for the Land of the Free and Oh by the way I can know kill myself legally! It's crazy! There is so many things about this law that are wrong wrong wrong I wouldn't even know where to start. I am a nurse and this certainly isn't what I signed up for. I think America is starting down a very scary slippery slop. I hope we don't continue signing laws like this into effect.

Last month I suffered the loss of my beloved dog. He was so ill and suffering. I held him in my arms while our vet administered the dose which allowed Maxie to leave this earth in peace and with dignity. I have long believed that humans should be allowed to have the right to end their lives on earth with the same compassion. I applauded the passage of the death with dignity law and stand in full support of it.

Death with dignity.

I am against it in general. But what happens to the pills if the person desides not to take them and then passes away. Now the pills are available to those left behind to use for anything they want, even murder.

Re "death w/dignity" As a Christian I am opposed to this "suicide". Aside from that, I have a legal question: As physicians sign the death certificate as "natural causes", how does affect life insurance policies which usually do not pay for suicide??
After watching Upfront this morning and hearing the gentleman state he helped his mother die because of her Alzheimer's disease--I am appalled. My mother has late stage Alzheimer's and cannot feed herself nor talk. I cannot comprehendend thinking about "killing" her....!!! As individuals most of say that we "don't want to live that way" but this is "killing", not natural death. Disqusting to say the least.

I am very hopeful that the law will be expanded eventually. People are living longer because of advanced medical technology but what kind of life are they leading? We should have the personal choice to end our own lives. We treat our animals more humanely than we do ourselves. I've had 2 aging grandparents that would have benefited from this law and if I am ever in their position I would like the choice to end my life with dignity. They wished they would die daily.

I don't know where the critics are coming from. It seems to me that there are suffecient safegaurds in place to assure that someone can not be "helped along" by their heirs. It makes me wonder what their true reasons are for opposing this law.

My mom has been battling w/many illnesses for many years. She is currently in extreme pain every moment, but she is a trooper & continues to receive Dialysis to keep her alive. She can choose to stop Dialysis at any time & if she does the body will slowly poison itself - until she dies (this process may take approx 1 week). I believe, that when "she" chooses to stop fighting to stay alive.....it is a very humane option to give "her" the choice of how she wants to die.

Having just watched the Upfront show on the Death with Dignity Law, I continue to be disturbed at the biased reporting. The attorney Margaret Dore, who was interviewed on the show, is someone I debated during the campaign. Fortunately the audience that heard that debate had the opportunity to see Margaret Dore's hidden agenda. Those who watched Upfront didn't get that opportunity. Ms. Dore twists information in an attempt to scare the public. Fortunately voters saw through that. As she speaks of transparency, I find it interesting that she herself is not transparent. She hides behind a law degree versus being honest that her opposition to this law relates to her ties to religious leaders. Why not be transparent about that? At least then viewers would know that this is a person who feels her particular religion should determine the laws for every other person in the country. That belief is dangerous, goes against the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and does not come with safeguards. But I assume as an attorney, Margaret Dore should know that. Death with Dignity has safeguards and has been used in Oregon for over 10 years without a single problem. It is a well-written law and one that was long overdue. If Margaret Dore doesn't agree with it, she doesn't have to use it. Those of us that don't agree with her religious beliefs, have another option. I'm thankful to the voters of Washington State for being intelligent, critical thinkers who are not swayed by biased journalism.

It sure is a sad day when people can determine their own destinies.

The arguments against death with dignity are mostly straw men and based mostly on religious objections. While we agree that life is precious, the ability to not be forced to continue on a horrifying downward spiral to death (often while consequently signing over an estate to hospitals and doctors) is an ethical choice that should always be left to the patient. The arguments against death with dignity also assume that keeping terminally ill patients alive fulfills God's will and completely bypasses the tenet that we are only here by God's will. Using that same tenet, it is also God's will to "take us at our time."

While the possibilty that a vindictive child could prematurely hasten a parent's death, doctors are smart enough to realize when a vindictive child is being an ally for themselves and NOT for the parent. If the straw man arguments had any validity, they would have surfaced in Oregon over the past ten years.

As far as the leftover pills straw man, if a hospital does not properly dospose of ALL leftover medecines after a patient leaves their hospital (by whatever means), that hospital should have its license yanked.

Robert Mitchum decided to end his own life by stopping his dialysis. Yet, no Right-To-Lifers were making the rounds on the talk shows decrying the depravity of his act. It is a decision in which no person outside of oneself should ever be able to make. If you do not want your parent or spouse to use this option, you can try to convince them to continue suffering. However, it is and always should be THEIR decision.

I just listened to Margaret Dore and I must admit she doesn't help her cause much. She is curt and appeared to make the interviewer look stupid. I don't think she said much to convince me of not supporting this law. Perhaps the death with dignity law does need some tweeking, but overall, I believe it is a good alternative to the torture of pain and suffering my Dad endured last october. At one point while we were changing his diaper, he said, "Just kil me!" I guess Ms. Dore hasn't had those experiences with loved ones.

Death with Dignity is a very deceptive term. This is assisted suicide. Who are you or anyone else to judge what the quality of someone else's life is? Isn't that a job for God? It is unfair to ask a physician who's job it is to heal to take part in taking a life. This is a dangerous moral precipice that we are on and the down hill slope is a slippery one.

Nancy--

I'm unclear how something Margaret Dore says constitutes biased reporting on the part of Up Front? Dore was presented as an opponent of the Death With Dignity Act. She is biased in the same way you, as a supporter of the act, are biased. When we had you on Up Front I don't recall you saying our reporting was biased -- nor should you.

Mike

I believe that most people fear death and will fight any idea that many of us realize it is part of life and it can not be avoided. But at least now people can at get help to face it with dignity. I am all for this law and voted for it.

I feel Alan Schauffler, the interviewer, was asking questions that were mostly implying a negative approach to the Death with Dignity law. His approach did not seem objective at all. There is a way of asking questions that are open ended, implying that your answer can be anything...but his seemed to be focused on negative evaluations. In the interview there was so much emphasis and concern about what the public won't know, rather than how these issues are private medical decisions for the patient and doctor and loved ones to process.

The primary benefit to this new law is giving each of us some control over our final days. There are many safeguards written into the law. The public has spoken, overwhelmingly in favor...that says something about how the majority of us feel.

As a parish minister, I am very close to these end of life decisions, and I cherish my parishioners having this new option for the rare occasion that it might be considered.

I am not sure what the purpose of this program was other than to bring up tired old arguments and inflammatory language ("kill", "suicide"). Alan Shauffler's biases are clear in the language he used, the clips of interviews he chose and the guests he interviewed. A significant majority of our citizens recognize that the Death with Dignity Act is a well-crafted, narrow law which will be rarely and cautiously used, as it is in Oregon. It has no effect on life insurance, there are prescribed means of disposing of unused meds, coercing someone to use the law is a class A felony. (Even the greediest heir can wait a few weeks - these are people who are very close to death.)

The interview with John West who says he helped his parents commit suicide did not add anything to our knowledge. He lives in a state without a Death with Dignity Law and helped a woman who would under no circumstances qualify under the Washington law. His use of the word "suicide" shows little understanding of the issue. Suicide, in our culture, refers to an impulsive, irrational, usually violent act by a person who wants to die. Using the Death with Dignity law to change the timing of death is a well thought out, rational decision by a person who would rather live but no longer has that option. This is not a choice between life and death. It is a choice between one kind of death and another kind of death.

The time to argue the rightness or wrongness of this law is past. The law is now a fact of our lives. KING 5 would have done the community a far greater service had they have given us objective information about the law, its implementation and requirements and resources for further questions. Two excellent sources are the Department of Health (www.doh.wa.gov) and Compassion and Choices of Washington (candcofwa.org).

There was always a way to deal with this.... A person simply needs to stop eating and drinking and within a week they are gone. If a person is suffering, why don't they just stop eating and drinking? It is their option even before this law.

I fully support the intent of the law, and would not recommend expanding it further. There are loopholes and room for abuse with ANY law, since it is impossible for the designers to think of every possible way unscrupulous people could take advantage of it. As long as there are adequate controls and oversight, and adequate legal consequences for abusers....

Although I support this law I find it Orwellian that the proponents want to redefine the language. Knowingly self-administering a lethal prescription is suicide. A kind of group think that cannot tolerate examination is dangerous and serves the proponents of this act poorly.

It's ironic that we as a people can pass a law like this, but a women who is pregnant who goes into labor before 20 weeks doesn't have a right to ask for medication to stop labor, because it's not considered a baby.

I think that the law is a good thing. Freedom of choice, and all, but what I have perceived from the report, there is a LOT of fine print missing from the written law. I think it is absolutely necessary for the law's wording to be revised, and postpone the date it becomes active to do this.
As for making it possible for more parties to take advantage of this law, I think that is not necessary at this time. I think, to reduce uproar from those who are against this law, and to help keep it from getting voted down in the near future, it should only include terminal patients.

Stop eating and drinking for a week? Sure, add a week of horrible suffering with that, only to be force fed.

I have seen my mother currently living with about 7 years of Alzheimers. She hasn't been "mom" for those 7 years. Her dementia caused many physical fights with other patents and family. She caused my fathers broken hip by pulling him out of bed. Her 22 indoor cats ruined the house and my fathers lungs. Her health bills have created a lien on the family farm by DSHS. After she passes, the family will probably have to sell the farm...I mean give it away to DSHS.

For me, I refuse to live that life when I'm older. I will NOT be a financial, medical burden on my family. I will not enter that way of life knowing how it looks and feels Once I'm diagnosed, I will review current possibilities of a cure, then if not, take my own life. The same with terminal cancer. I have had a great life, I'm a retired Federal Agent, so I had some intelligence. This is humane, it is personal. I'd rather go out using this method and having my family have a memory of me as I am. And I'm sure the pills have enough significant individual chemical compounds to be identified if they happen to be found in someone else's death in a suspicious circumstance. All Religion aside, perhaps this is the way I was MEANT to go, if I go that way. I'm sure my mother, her dad and siblings would have wanted to go this way also. It's this, Smith and Wesson, or I-5. Isn't this more humane and less impact on the family?

I forgot to add just above: the Death With Dignity Law is not much different then pulling the plug on a person who has, unfortunately, become comatose, or is conscious but is a, I'm sorry to use this word, but a vegetable.
Also, as mentioned, a law like this has been Successfully working for 10 years now in Oregon.
Finally, I agree with Ron above, Alzheimers or dementia should have the choice, if they are of sound mind and body to choose for themselves (or have this law included in their living will).
Note To All In Favor Of The Law: since it is almost in effect, and you wish to take advantage of your choice, you may want to add this choice to your living will, adding a power of attorney to a trusted family member, if you come to a point where you cannot physically and mentally enjoy life, And become unable to communicate your final wishes.

Mike –

Thank you for your question. The biased reporting came in Alan Shauffler’s questions and comments that were manipulative rather than provide facts to the public. Here are several examples. In the lead-in, Alan used the term “kill themselves”. That is inflammatory and inappropriate. Alan Shauffler went on to say that our former Governor “suggested the law might change” with Alan later commenting about others wanting to extend the law further. That is not true; there are no plans to change the law. He asked Ms. Dore several leading questions, “Is that transparent enough for something this serious of a nature?” He intends to infer danger where none exists. He said the death “could be horrible”, again using a word that infers something that does not exist. To be unbiased, he might have asked how horrible it is that a stranger (Ms Dore) feels she has the right to make medical decisions or pass judgment on a dying patient she does not know. He repeated his question trying to elicit a particular response rather than let Ms. Dore offer her own comments. That is biased reporting.

John West’s situation would not be legal under this law. So to associate that with this law is biased reporting. When John West was introduced, Mr. Shauffler used the term “commit suicide”. If Upfront had done their research, they would know that a federal judge ruled that aid in dying does not fall under the definition of suicide and thus that term could not be used. Life insurance companies also understand the difference, which is why patients who choose this law have their life insurance paid. A judge determined that using that word in connection with aid in dying is intended to be inflammatory. Alan’s lack of respect and understanding of what that word actually means represents biased reporting. He went on to ask Ms. Dore if she had concerns that the law could be expanded. That was a red herring. There are no plans for that. He even went so far as to tell Ms. Dore where her concerns began to which she corrected him and said no that wasn’t where her concerns began. If telling your guest where their concerns are isn’t biased, I don’t know what is. He asked “Is there an opportunity for elder abuse?” Again, this is using a term to create fear without cause. The extensive safeguards and Oregon’s 10 year history have proven that is unfounded. If there had been one instance of even the slightest suggestion of any abuse of any kind in Oregon's 10 year history, KING 5 would most certainly have been all over that story. There hasn’t been.

And I must take exception with something, Mike. Alan has an obligation to report the news in an unbiased manner. Guests do not. A reporter has an obligation to inform viewers by researching and questioning guests’ comments versus making their own comments with the intent to sensationalize the news. I am a well-informed voter who did extensive research (both pro and con) before I made statements about the Death with Dignity law. I have only spoken the truth about it. But the untruth, unfounded fears and inflammatory statements spoken by reporters, such as Alan, constitutes biased reporting. There was a time when I enjoyed watching Up Front. Its level of professional reporting has changed.

This is my response to Nancy Niedzielski:

Whether I am religious or not does not change what our new assisted suicide act says.

Most importantly, the act does not require witnesses to be present at the patient’s death. This creates the opportunity for someone other than the patient to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent. Even if he struggled, who would know?

This situation is especially significant for people with money. A California case, People v. Stuart, 67 Cal Rptr. 3rd 129, 143 (2007), states:

"Financial reasons [are] an all too common motivation for killing someone."

In Oregon, the majority of people who have died under its act have been “well educated” with private insurance. In other words, they were people with money. Was it really their choice?

Protect yourselves: Don’t sign up for assisted suicide.

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

Hearing such brutual news is really a shoking one!

I think that "will" is an important point. Nobody ever says that God's "will" and our "will" are the same - and they are. Does God want us to remain silent and behold death as what will take place with uncertainty. Is uncertainty the will of God? No. It is only that we meet with him and be able to save our bodies and souls for the best.

It's wrong how they allow doctors to play god! Let the people rest peacefully. Suicide is not the answer. Please don't allow this to happen!!

Chad,
I never call anyone names, but for you I will make an exception. YOU are an idiot and a waste of the white space you used to type your message.
This world would be a much better place without people like you in it.

Mom has alzhiemers. at one point in her disease
she made the comment that this was not how she
wanted to die. That there should be some dignaty
at the end of her life". This was one of the last
coherent comments she's made. I'm want to be there for her, as she was there for me when I was little and needed her. no matter what! I feel that a person has a right to die with dignity.
I do not believe that I could help my mom to speed her death.

Mom has alzhiemers. at one point in her disease
she made the comment that this was not how she
wanted to die. That there should be some dignaty
at the end of her life". This was one of the last
coherent comments she's made. I'm want to be there for her, as she was there for me when I was little and needed her. no matter what! I feel that a person has a right to die with dignity.
I do not believe that I could help my mom to speed her death.