Washington state voters need to be fully informed regarding Initiative I-100 (I-1000), a physician-assisted suicide ballot measure.
I have been a cancer doctor at the medical school in Portland , Oregon for the past 41 years, caring for thousands of patients. I have also extensively researched, written and spoken regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the past 14 years.
The following illustrates some of what I have experienced:
After the legalization of assisted suicide in Oregon , a woman in her mid-50s living alone was referred for my evaluation and recommendations. She had a relatively early cancer in the low rectal area that I felt had a very good chance of cure. However, upon learning that she had this cancer, she developed a hopeless feeling and saw no reason to live. She had decided to refuse treatment and wait until she became terminal, and would qualify to die under Oregon 's new physician-assisted suicide law.
Although she initially refused any treatment, she decided to return to discuss her situation. After three weekly counseling and informational visits with me, she decided to receive the recommended chemotherapy and radiation. The treatment was successful, her cancer disappeared, she did not require surgery, and she had normal bowel function. I continued to follow her for many years. About 6 years later I saw her in a restaurant and she came over and gratefully exclaimed, “You saved my life!” If I had been an assisted-suicide doctor, I could have initially agreed with her desire to refuse treatment and waited until she became terminal so she could die from assisted suicide. Her life was saved and quality of life maintained.
Patients' Rights: The legalization of assisted suicide does not give any new rights to patients. But it does legally protect doctors who write prescriptions for lethal drug overdose.
Life-support Technology: There is a constitutional right to consent to and refuse medical treatment. You can not be forced to be on life-support. Declining life-support and/or treatment, and stopping life-support are very different than assisted suicide or euthanasia.
The LDS Church 's official statement on “Euthanasia and Prolonging Life” includes: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life, and is therefore opposed to euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Such a deliberate act ends life immediately through, for example, so-called assisted suicide. Ending a life in such a manner is a violation of the commandments of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe that allowing a person to die from natural causes by removing a patient from artificial means of life support, as in the case of a long-term illness, falls within the definition of euthanasia.”
Assisted suicide's so-called “safeguards” are like an unhinged gate that cannot be closed.
Washington state's I-1000 measure is based on the Oregon physician-assisted suicide law. Oregon has had 341 reported assisted suicide deaths from 1998 to 2007. The so-called “safeguards” in Oregon 's assisted suicide law are not always being followed. Patients are supposed to be within 6 months of dying, yet many patients have lived as long as 40 months after registering for assisted suicide. Patients are supposed to be mentally capable, yet a patient with psychiatrically-documented dementia obtained lethal medication after she and her family “doctor-shopped” for another opinion. A patient who already had possession of the lethal medication was later determined to be mentally incompetent and was placed on involuntary hold in a mental ward. There is no protection for the depressed or mentally ill. Depression is an important factor in suicides.
Yet, in 2007 none of the 49 patients dying from assisted suicide in Oregon were referred for a psychiatric evaluation. The Oregon law is for Oregon residents, yet there are published reports of people moving to Oregon with the sole intent of using Oregon 's assisted suicide law. The lethal overdose is supposed to be self-administered and taken orally, yet there are reports of others administering the lethal drug to patients, and reports of the drugs taken via surgically-placed feeding tube.
Proponents of assisted suicide erroneously claim that assisted suicide legalization has improved end-of-life care in Oregon . There has been improved end-of-life care in Oregon , and similar improvements have occurred in other states that have not legalized assisted suicide. Many states do better than Oregon in this area. The latest data ranks Oregon 9 th , not 1 st as assisted suicide proponents claim, in Medicare-age hospice-utilization.
Pain management has deteriorated in Oregon . After fours years of assisted suicide in Oregon , there were almost twice as many dying patients in moderate or severe pain or distress, as there had been prior to Oregon 's assisted suicide law being used.
Our health care resources should be used to improve end-of-life care with improved access to pain control, palliative care and hospice services for the severely and terminally ill of our society. We should not be legalizing physician-assisted suicide.
I encourage Washington citizens to inform themselves of the dangers and harm of legalizing physician-assisted suicide. Information can be obtained at www.noassistedsuicide.com. I also encourage financial support to that organization in helping spread that message to the public. Inform your family and friends regarding this life and death ballot measure issue.
