This really isn't a left / right issue. I probably will vote agianst it, unlike most of you. I have a hard time accepting a doctor killing someone. I have no problem with taking out a tube or denying care, but that is different then prescribing a death prescription. And, as Gregiore and the Democrats have made it clear, not agreeing to prescribe something is the same as inflicting your belief on another person. I think we possibly could see doctors forced to follow guidelines in the future and not follow their own belief system in the future. Mostly though, I struggle with the thought of the pressure someone who is terminal will feel to stop costing his family money and worry. How many people will decide to end life early rather than fight to the end, as the cost of fighting will be to hard fon their family financially and emotionally. Oregon's experience seems to indicate that the numbers will be low, but I am still nervous. I lean more towards freedom, so I understand where everyone is coming from. Not trying to convince anyone, just thought I would throw out a different view.

Krijack,

I appreciate that you shared your view. That's gutsy. I don't appreciate your view and see your view as the problem. This causes me to see you as someone who believes he has some right to insert himself between another WA citizen and his very personal decision about his terminal condition. Who but a monster or arrogant megalomaniac thinks they know better how to treat or not treat someone else's personal terminal condition? Or have any right to be a participant of any kind in this decision? Do you want to make sure the patient doesn't have a handgun in the house to use in lieu of drugs? This is kind of one of those who the fvck do you think you are kind of questions.

Let the doctor and the patient work this out. We're not asking you to accept a doctor "kill" someone. I'm asking you to butt the fvk out of the terminal patient's life/death. If the doctor doesn't want to assist, there is nothing forcing him to. This is a volunteer gig.

As far as prescriptions go, it's a medical prescription for a lethal drug to treat a terminal condition. And what's it to you if someone decides to end the financial drain on their family from attempting to treat a terminal condition? It's none of your damn business, is it? Remember, this doesn't apply to someone who has a bad case of the flu. The patient's reason or reasons are none of your fvcking business, so why won't you mind yours and stay out of his? Really, as you may infer from my tone, I flat don't understand the mindset that steers your view, and have a low opinion of meddling in that which isn't your concern. If you don't want the patient to end his life and end the misery that his family is going through, why the hell don't you go over and give him a hand with surviving his remaining days, since you seem to care so much about managing his end-of-life experience.

If you lean toward freedom as you claim to, I'd like you to act like it and vote for this measure and remove yourself from other citizen's personal business. Then if and when you are terminally ill and face your end of life decision, you can manage it however you want. And I promise you I won't do a damn thing to influence your decision. Lay there writhing in pain all you want if that's your thing. But be a true friend and don't make me do it your way. Fair enough?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Killing someone? So you believe that if a gun shop owner sells a guy a gun and that guy shoots someone with it, the shop owner is guilty of a crime? If not, please explain the difference.



How is it different?



So now we need a reason to exercise our own freedoms?



It indicates more than that. It indicates that all the horror stories about what will happen if I-1000 passes are patently false.

If you are voting "no" on I-1000, then you are most certainly not leaning towards freedom.

Docspud,

It appears we share some values. I value my money, having been poor much of my life, my income actually since I don't accumulate much. But I value some things more than I value the money, which I guess allows me some liberal values. I don't want to learn that I've committed the sin of the love of money. I'm OK with paying taxes to support the infrastructure that makes this country a great place to be. I don't like but accept that some of my taxes will be spent on things I don't value. That's the way it is with pluralism. The only satisfactory alternative is a benevolent dictatorship where I get to be the dictator, and I don't see that one happening.

Sg

See also.. Fishrangers post in the joke thread on 10/7/08.. applies here as well

Just heard Sheens spot on the radio.. So how much is the medical community forking out to have him spout this nonsense? Should'nt medical
professionals be more worried about helping those who can be helped? There was a movie about this stuff a long time ago..Richard Dreyfuss.."Who's Life Is It, Anyways?" Interesting watch, to say the least.
I believe the NO! on I-1000 folks are motivated by sheer greed, and nothing more..after all the longer they keep someone alive, the more they can suck from the lives of the relatives in the form of useless meds, treatments, hospital time, all of which are catastrophically costly. I liked Sheen better in Team America...We're Guards, yea, we're guards..

I voted for it but I wonder what it will cost for the shot or pill to end a life...10,000 or more?

Im voting no, because I believe it's just not right.

Getting old or watching a loved one waste is definitely not for the weak.
A lot of posts made comments about the cost of keeping someone terminally ill alive. I'm of the opinion, a human life should neve boil down to the almighty buck or be an inconvience.

I'd say it's more of a moral issue.This country should hang on to what's left.

That is an excellent question. I have pondered this a little bit and come up with a question myself. What do insurance companies think of this initiative? Will they or wont they want to cash in on life insurance policies? Seems like when this passes; they might have to shuck out a lot of money.

Been there, done that...I have had the experience of watching someone waste away, even had them ask me to provide them a length of rope to end their misery. At the risk of trivializing this issue.. may I say this.. Lets say you had a horse that worked tirelessly for years, plowing fields, hauling wagons, etc. Now lets say the horse is too old and feeble to enable it to do the very things it was born to do.. Like us, it has lived a long and useful life.. so is it worth the cost to feed it anymore, the time to make its last days more comfortable? Chances are the horse doesn't give a damn, it's tired and lived a useful life, and as a sentient being is ok with the life it's led, and is ready for eternal peace? Who are we to deny them everlasting peace? Ok so people are not horses, and horses are not people, but why should we deny anyone of their right to rest after a long and fulfilling life? Apologies to Stam, as I am sure this may have brought a tear to his eye.Willllbuuuurrrrr!!!!!

I hadn't really thought of the insurance aspect of things. Some life insurance policies don't pay out on suicides. I don't know if that would affect things, but it might.

Listen, the financial impact on relatives IS a factor, whether you want to face the fact or not. I don't have the answer to the problem, but don't deny that it is a problem. Unless I completely lose my marbles when it comes time to close the door, I want the door to close all the way....not just part way and slowly get drug through the crack.

I've seen death both ways.....quicker is better, by far. Morphine and other drugs can keep you sucking oxygen without a coherant peep, but that isn't my idea of living.

I mercifully shot an old dog who went down with cancer and couldn't get up and was lying there crying. It was at night on a weekend. You tell me if I should have waited until a vet could make the trip out to give him the shot.
I think "No damn way" am I going to make my old friend wait. I patted him on the head, told him he was a good boy, and shot him. I cried like a baby and couldn't even talk to the wife for a while.....but I know it was right.
When it comes my time, I hope someone is around to do the same for me, or to allow me to "pull the trigger" if I am able.

My 2

I signed the petition to get it on the ballot and will vote for it. My 87 year old neighbor asked me to sign it and told me the story of her husband's pain and suffering.
Slab that was quite a story about your dog. I had a buddy put down last year but it was a weekday and I live in the city so the vet had to do the dirty work. Man that would have been very hard for me to do but I'll give you kudos on it.

I recommend you watch or live with a family member or friend who has Stage 4 terminal cancer.

Watching someone wither away and die due to a terminal illness is NOT health care. It's pure pain and agony for all parties involved, INCLUDING their doctors.

What is cruel is not letting them end their life the way they see fit. If they want to ride it out, so be it. If they want to end it now via assisted suicide, so be it.

But to deny a terminal patient that ability is downright barbaric, especially in a first world country in the year 2008.

I agree with Parker.

Until you've been there, you don't know.

What's worse is the burden of the patient knowing that, if they take things into their own hands and kill themselves with more conventional methods, their life insurance policy, which they've been paying for their whole lives, won't pay out.

Have a nice day.

I don't think that's true.

I believe all the polices *have* to pay out - it's just more of an issue of when. Also, it's a matter of how long you've had your policy before deciding to bite the farm. I bet most polices will state that you will have had to have your policy for "x amount of time" before a payout can or will occur.

Suicide might delay the payout to years, instead of days, weeks, etc, but I believe if you've had the policy longer than their given probationary time, they eventually will have to pay out.

A good friend of the family ate from the barrel end of a shotgun and his wife eventually received his life insurance policy. He'd had it a long time, so duration from when the policy began wasn't an issue.

I think one would run in to trouble in they got a policy then offed themselves the next day, week, etc.

As always, for those who have LI policies and are considering killing yourselves, please READ and REVIEW your policies first.

Wow - there's a public service announcement you don't see that often!

So while the medical bills roll in, the costs of the funeral and serices roll in, and all the daily bills roll in, the insurance sompany leaves you swinging in the breeze during the "probationary period" before they pay out?

Comforting to know.

It's a situation that should be remedied.

Watching a patient whither away and die from cancer is a terrible thing to go through, those that haven't walked in those moccasins don't really have a clue as to the pain and suffering these family members go through.

I am very conflicted about this issue. I really wasn't going to reply to anything, as it is such a precarious issue. But, after going over why I feel the way I do, I still am agianst it.


1. I will always be cynical of a society that has no problem micromanaging every aspect of an individuals life, but suddenly backs off on the issue of abortion and now (I think it will pass) assisted suicide. Drug laws, restrictions on types of treatment, seat belt laws, prostitution, but suddenly enlightenment. It is a slippery slope.
2. While there are safeguards in this provision, it appears the medical community is largely agianst it. Other doctors who might be for it may decide that they will not be involved for various reasons. In the end, it will become known among those who want to know who it is that will sign off on the required paperwork. This does leave a wide door open for abuse. Not every doctor is legit. I was listing to a writer for High Times talk about getting a prescription for medical marijuanna in California. When he it was his turn to see the doctor the nurse noticed he looked nervous. She told him not to worry as she had never seen anyone get denied. The doctor sat him in a chair and asked what his problem was. He said he had a weak back. The doctor asked for how long - he answered for a week back. The doctor smiled and filled out the prescription.

3. While I appreciate the story of the putting down an animal, we are not animals. The left has been trying to get us to buy into that one for years. Like it or not, abortion was the start of this issue. When does life become a life of value (no question it is alive in abortion, just a question of when it becomes a life with human value) and when does it cease to be one of value? Just like some people and doctors had no problem with late term abortions, there are also people and doctors who have no problem with expanding the definition of a life that is not worth living. When Palin was chosen, there were calls on the radio from people bashing her for allowing her son to live. They truely felt she was a horrendous person for not aborting him.

We have had this very law in Oregon for over a decade now.
It seems to be working well, although some religious types seem to forget it's optional.

Fishhog,

If you think it's just not right, then you don't have to do it! Where do you get the right to legally prevent me from deciding whether it's right for me? You can decide your morals, but I don't want you deciding my moral beliefs, OK? If you believe in personal freedom, you cannot oppose this initiative. Finally an issue so black and white a conservative should be able to understand it.

Sg