RE: I-1000...

[Q3JR4]

So I'm not a resident of Washington, but I thought I'd come into your forum and let you all know about a conversation that I recently had with a relative that does live in Washington.

She informed me a couple of weeks ago that she intends to vote republican in the next election (for sarah plain) and that was pretty much the extent of our talk of politics until a couple of days ago.

In the middle of our conversation she brought up a couple of ballot initiatives currently being mulled over by the people of Washington state. One of those was I-1000 the Death with Dignity Act. She was really conflicted about which way she would vote and even asked if not checking a box for that ballot initiative would invalidate her entire vote. I told her no, but did my best to convince her to vote for the act anyway.

I told her that a vote against the initiative would mean that everyone would be forced to live the last six months of their lives in pain and misery until death slowly took them. She knew this but something was still telling her that her vote would be a vote for death. I said that if, for example, my mother was dying a painful and drawn out death that I'd like her to be able to choose for herself how she'd like to go (was talking to my aunt so I'm sure this struck a cord). I emphasized the fact that if she voted for the initiative everyone's beliefs would be protected because no one would be forced into a course of action, but that those who needed that option most could still have it. In other words, you aren't voting for death but for the possibility of another way out.

After my schpeal she said with what I took to be relief in her voice, "I never thought about it like that."

Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know that I think you have one more vote for I-1000.

Q3JR4.
Doing his part to protect freedom of choice in all its forms.

[Suich]

1. Thanks!

Every vote counts! I have a hard time understanding why anyone would vote against this...

:shrug:

[strategery blunder]

2. Insurance companies.

A concern that I had about it was that insurance companies would use the law (if passed) to wriggle out of paying for palliative care. i.e. "We will not pay for six months of pain therapy, but if you wish to die now, we WILL pay for your lethal prescription so we can save money!" I'm cynical enough about healthcare in this country (until we get universal healthcare) that I could see this scenario happening.

In an odd twist, however, my household split votes over the initiative...I voted for it (this reservation was not enough to switch my vote to a nay vote), and my grandmother voted against it. One would think that the votes would have been reversed, but meh.

[cemaphonic]

3. I have considered this too, and I am pretty cynical about both insurance companies

and doing anything about the clout their lobbyists wield.

But, I think that if insurance companies literally started telling people to fuck off and die, all the lobbyist cash in the world wouldn't be able to stem the outrage over it. Plus, they would face uncertain legal challenges every time they tried to pull a stunt like this. Cheaper just to pay for the care, or better yet, stall and split hairs like they do now.