Washington State: Physician-Assisted Suicide Bill Being Considered

[Frodo]

Lawmaker wants to start discussion of physician-assisted suicide

By RACHEL LA CORTE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Following a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, a lawmaker here introduced a bill Thursday that would allow doctors to write prescriptions to help terminally ill patients die.

Sen. Pat Thibaudeau, D-Seattle, said she wasn't sure if the bill would even get a hearing because it's such a controversial topic to tackle during the short 60-day legislative session.

"It's important to begin the discussion about it," she said. "I believe it's a matter of choice. As our population grows older, this will increasingly become an issue."

Thibaudeau's bill, which would create the "Death with Dignity Act," would cover extremely sick people: those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.

The law would mirror Oregon's. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Oregon's law, the only one of its kind in the country, allows doctors only to write prescriptions for such patients, who must administer the drugs themselves.

Thibaudeau's 14-page bill requires that patients be competent adults who make an informed decision to end their life if they have a terminal disease. They must make a written request that is witnessed by at least two people, and two doctors must confirm the diagnosis.

"There are limited numbers, but there are situations where a person wants to make this choice," she said. "They should be allowed to make this choice."

source

And here is the link to the 'Death with Dignity Act' in PDF format.

[Emsworth]

Aye. I believe that every person has a right to life, but not an obligation to live. The state has no business telling people whether they should or should not commit suicide.

[© tweed]

Nay

[David S]

This is a good law. The decision to end one's life in this situation should be up to the individual and god, if he believes in god. But it should not be up to the state, and it should not be up to do-gooders who want to inflict their views on the lives of others.

What purpose does it serve for a terminally ill patient to suffer for weeks or months before finally dying, when that person would rather end it instead?

[David S]

Nay

Why not?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Unfortunately the wishes of the voters in Washington state are irrelevant on this matter as long a Logan is counting the votes in King county.

[© tweed]

Nay

Why not?

I'd rather err on the side of caution in situations like this.  When people can give consent to others to end their life that scares me.  Consider this hypothetical:

A certified medical doctor loses 200 grand on the Super Bowl.  He can't pay his bookie, so he decided to kill him.  Instead of just murdering him, however, he locks the bookie and his family in a room and threatens his families' life if he fails to sign a waiver to certify his murder.

The next day, the doctor proclaims the patient terminally ill, and the murderer kills the bookie legally.

--------

I realize all of this is EXTREMELY unlikely, but I'd rather not mess with issues like this.

[Emsworth]

Nay

Why not?

I'd rather err on the side of caution in situations like this.  When people can give consent to others to end their life that scares me.  Consider this hypothetical:

A certified medical doctor loses 200 grand on the Super Bowl.  He can't pay his bookie, so he decided to kill him.  Instead of just murdering him, however, he locks the bookie and his family in a room and threatens his families' life if he fails to sign a waiver to certify his murder.

The next day, the doctor proclaims the patient terminally ill, and the murderer kills the bookie legally.

--------

I realize all of this is EXTREMELY unlikely, but I'd rather not mess with issues like this.

Well, the Oregon legislature has wisely found a way around this problem. Under the assisted-suicide law, doctors are not allowed to directly participate in the killing of their patients. Rather, they can only write prescriptions: the patients must administer the drugs themselves.

[bgwah]

Of course!

[© tweed]

Nay

Why not?

I'd rather err on the side of caution in situations like this.  When people can give consent to others to end their life that scares me.  Consider this hypothetical:

A certified medical doctor loses 200 grand on the Super Bowl.  He can't pay his bookie, so he decided to kill him.  Instead of just murdering him, however, he locks the bookie and his family in a room and threatens his families' life if he fails to sign a waiver to certify his murder.

The next day, the doctor proclaims the patient terminally ill, and the murderer kills the bookie legally.

--------

I realize all of this is EXTREMELY unlikely, but I'd rather not mess with issues like this.

Well, the Oregon legislature has wisely found a way around this problem. Under the assisted-suicide law, doctors are not allowed to directly participate in the killing of their patients. Rather, they can only write prescriptions: the patients must administer the drugs themselves.

Hardly foolproof.  Force the patient to take the pill with a gun to his head, or his child's.

[Emsworth]

Force the patient to take the pill with a gun to his head, or his child's.

That could happen even without a physician-assisted suicide bill having been passed.

[© tweed]

Force the patient to take the pill with a gun to his head, or his child's.

That could happen even without a physician-assisted suicide bill having been passed.

Of course, but this bill makes it easier for a physian to do so, and enhances its legality.

[David S]

Nay

Why not?

I'd rather err on the side of caution in situations like this.  When people can give consent to others to end their life that scares me.  Consider this hypothetical:

A certified medical doctor loses 200 grand on the Super Bowl.  He can't pay his bookie, so he decided to kill him.  Instead of just murdering him, however, he locks the bookie and his family in a room and threatens his families' life if he fails to sign a waiver to certify his murder.

The next day, the doctor proclaims the patient terminally ill, and the murderer kills the bookie legally.

--------

I realize all of this is EXTREMELY unlikely, but I'd rather not mess with issues like this.

That's quite a stretch. The good doctor would also have to do away with the family to prevent them from testifying against him afterward. And as Emsworth points out the doctor does not administer the drugs. He can only prescribe them. There is also the requirement that the patient make a written request witnessed by two people and that two doctors must confirm the diagnosis.

[Emsworth]

Of course, but this bill makes it easier for a physian to do so, and enhances its legality.

The bill places an extraordinary number of safeguards: the request for the physician's assistance must be put in writing; at least two people must witness this request; two doctors must confirm the diagnosis.

A lot of things can make it easier, in some remote and highly implausible way, for physicians to kill their patients. Does that justify forcing terminally ill patients to drag out their painful lives longer than they wish?

[nclib]

Assuming there are enough safeguards in place, I would support this bill.

[Gabu]

Strong aye.