A looming battle in Washington state over efforts to create a right-to-die law for the terminally ill is a personal one for two men leading it, both of whom are ill. Fighting for the measure is a former governor who wants the freedom to exercise such a right; fighting against it is a former press secretary who can’t imagine anyone wanting to.
Proponents are wrapping up a petition drive to put Initiative 1000, the proposed Washington Death With Dignity Act, on the November ballot.
The initiative would let a doctor prescribe lethal drugs to patients given less than six months to live. Oregon is the only state with such a law, which the Supreme Court upheld in 2006.
Booth Gardner, 71, who served two terms as a Democratic governor in Washington, has Parkinson’s disease and has declared this his “final campaign.”“There are people like me everywhere who are coping with pain — they know that their next step is death,” Gardner said in an e-mail interview. “When death is inevitable, we shouldn’t force people to endure agonizing suffering if we don’t have to…”
“We have all made tough decisions throughout our lives, and we should be trusted to make tough decisions about the end of life,” he said. “It’s about autonomy, personal choice and respect. I was in control of my life. I should be allowed to be in control of my death.”
As usual, those who confuse ethics with morality, counter science with superstition – march in lockstep with their culture of divine death versus an individual’s right to choose to order their own life. Or death.
Bobbo, and if all that’s required is for the doctor to prescribe a drug? Or a pharmacist to stock it?
For that matter doctors are required to get abortion training in New York.
#41–Mike==gibberish. But guessing at your meaning==doctors have to interact with and provide personal services to their patients and provide followup. Pharmacists merely move boxes of medicine around on the orders or someone else.
Whatever you think is the same, is far outweighed by the differences.
Funny how the same people who oppose this law are the ones that support killing people involuntarily i.e. wars and executions.
Anyone on here that argues that religious interests have no bearing on people’s opinions of this law is delusional. I don’t understand why religious groups are so insecure in their beliefs that they feel the need to impose the rules they set for themselves on everyone else.
Noel said: “I don’t understand why religious groups are so insecure in their beliefs that they feel the need to impose the rules they set for themselves on everyone else.”
Or logical inconsistency for that matter. I think it’s because at some level many religious people think that belief (which is unassailable by argument) is above the law. So Americans hear “one nation under God” there are two different viewpoints.
It’s much easier outside the US where there isn’t so much skeptical deism built into our laws and culture. The founding fathers brand of religion left interpretation open to wood nymphs and religious extremists alike.
#43 – The Angels will say, ’twas for certain poor shepherds in fields where they lay..
>>I don’t understand why religious
>>groups are so insecure that they feel the need to
>>impose the rules they set for themselves on
>>everyone else.
Don’t impose your rules on me, and we’ll both go home happy.
God bless.
#43 “Funny how the same people who oppose this law are the ones that support killing people involuntarily i.e. wars and executions.”
FYI – Executions are voluntary in the U.S. If you murder s/o you are volunteering for your own execution.
#46-Patrick,
Yes, because no one has ever been wrongly executed.
#47 – “Yes, because no one has ever been wrongly executed.”
Correct. Unless, you know of a case nobody else is familiar with…
#48-Patrick,
There have been quite a few executions to be followed by exonerations determined by DNA evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution
Religion is not mentioned in the story so I don’t understand the harping on religion and bible thumpers.
Doing something fervently in the name of a cause is not restricted to religious extremists. A most prominent example would be wearing a lapel flag pin to prove your loyalty. Another would be thumping for your favorite neo-con.
#49 – LOL! 2 entries from Wiki! ROLF. Link the actual court rulings. There would also be TONS of news articles…