Washington state to allow `dignity' deaths

[Contrary1]

This ought to keep the Fundie Freeps busy for a while.

"OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Terminally ill patients with less than six months to live will soon be able to ask their doctors to prescribe them lethal medication in Washington state.

But even though the "Death with Dignity" law takes effect Thursday, people who might seek the life-ending prescriptions could find their doctors conflicted or not willing to write them.

Many doctors are hesitant to talk publicly about where they stand on the issue, said Dr. Tom Preston, a retired cardiologist and board member of Compassion & Choices, the group that campaigned for and supports the law.

"There are a lot of doctors, who in principle, would approve or don't mind this, but for a lot of social or professional reasons, they don't want to be involved," he said.

But Preston said discussions about end-of-life issues between doctor and patient will increase because of the new law, and he thinks that as time goes on more and more doctors who don't have a religious or philosophical opposition will be open to participating..."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gEOj2lhkuVJCGiPp-q1UD2ehPnEAD96LDB1O0

[BlooInBloo]

1. Thank gawd Seattle dominates the state.

[WheelWalker]

2. And for Portland, too.

Ooops...meant that for you, BlooInBloo

[Ferret Annica]

3. This works very well in Oregon

In fact it is a classic case of doom, gloom and repeated frantic attempts to scuttle the voter's will by conservative religious nut cases being shown to be wrong and misguided.

[panzerfaust]

4. Euthanasia: A difficult issue

The main argument in favor that I see is that a person should be able to decide to end their own life; that those who help them to do so should not be punished.

This leads to what I see as the equally valid point that a family member should be able to end the needless suffering of another close family member (We do that for our pets now, in all states).

But what of those who have no close family members, or who are estranged from them?

And thus we arrive at what I see as the major argument against it: When does someone decide that someone else's right to death needs to be involuntarily exercised?

"Involuntary Euthanasia" exists, though not, I think, to the degree that "Involuntary Life" is inflicted upon some people by their families. "Involuntary Life" often seems to be to assuage guilt, or for monetary gain; "Involuntary Euthanasia" is mostly, I believe, to end responsibility, for revenge, or for monetary gain.

In the end, I do not know that doctors are the people who should be providing the means of death.

Doctors could make a prognosis as to the imminentness of death (a judgment often shown to be in error), but the actual provision of lethal drugs should perhaps not be something that doctors should be doing.

But, if not doctors, then who?

The idea of going to a State’s Department of Death seems to remove all dignity from the act.

[Libertyfirst]

5. It is always a pleasure to watch real adults act. Good for Washington.

[Contrary1]

6. What I am concerned about

is how insurance companies are going to react. Will they consider this suicide, and try to get out of paying on life policies, or is there something written into this law that will prevent them from doing so?

It's going to be interesting to watch this.

[ThomWV]

7. How would it work if we made it so simple you could do it at home?

Let us say that a law is passed that eases assisted suicide to this extent"

The soon-to-be-departed (SD) signs a release in front of a notary saying they want to bail out - its their choice and no coercion allowed, make strict rules for this part.

Name the assassin - very important. The day of the killing too. Once the permit has been signed off (and presumably paid for - by a real "death tax") let the assassin do it with a pistol shot to the head. Much cheaper and faster plus it could be done at home by a family member - why not? Who needs to pay the medical community to do exactly what it is not supposed to do?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. I'll be lying if I say this doesn't worry me.

Obviously, nobody wants to see the long, drawn out circus like we saw for Terri Schiavo where the intent of the individual was not to be kept alive artifically.

But once you move from "passive" acts (withholding medicine, treatment or other acts that would prolong death because it is the person's will not to recieve them) to "active" acts (i.e. euthanasia, mercy killing, doctor assisted suicide, etc.) a line is crossed in my mind. And I'm no "fundie freep".

[crimsonblue]

9. good idea.

This will lower health care costs for all of us. A huge percentage of health care costs are associated with end-of-life care. If we can let people who are in terminal pain, we should let them end their pain. This will have the added benefit of preventing addition months of costly death-slowing care. If I had terminal cancer, when it got to the point of being unbearable pain, I'd hit up a big bong and have them inject me with a coctail of psychotropics, narcotics, and sedatives. Fry my fucking body to death in a glorious euphoric moment.

[noiretextatique]

10. i watched several loved ones die from cancer

there is nothing humane about forcing people to die painful deaths. after seeing my sister go from a healthy young mother to being completely paralyzed by cancer in her spine and brain...in only two months...i totally support the right of the terminally ill to terminate.

[paulsby]

11. i had a tough time

voting for this.
it ultimately came down to that i don't LIKE the law (it gives me a weird uncomfortable feeling), but that i think that it's good policy and it extends a valuable right to those in need.

it was one of the hardest votes i had to make.

i am "glad" that it passed, but it still makes me uncomfortable.