In Our View: Following Oregon

By None, The Vancouver Columbian, Jan. 14, 2008

Death-with-dignity issue surfaces here as Gardner presents initiative

Oregon's 10-year-old Death With Dignity Act - twice approved by voters - has survived numerous legal challenges and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The assisted-suicide measure has many provisions and requirements, but essentially it allows terminally ill people to end their pain and suffering by taking their own lives under a physician's supervision.

The act requires proof of mental competency, physicians' signatures, witnesses who would not be heirs, and waiting periods.

Should Washington state adopt a Death With Dignity Act? We believe so, but first ponder this question: Should voters be allowed to decide? Of course they should, and that's why former Gov. Booth Gardner deserves praise for launching the "Washington Death With Dignity Initiative." He and other volunteers need about 225,000 signatures to get the measure on the November ballot.

Opponents of assisted suicide continually decry the envisioned slippery slope of widespread suicide. Reality, though, is based not on fear but on statistics: In 2006 there were 46 assisted-suicide deaths in Oregon, or fewer than 1.5 such deaths per 1,000 people. Since 2002, the number has averaged about 40 per year in the state, with no significant increase.

Washington voters rejected an assisted-suicide initiative in 1991, but three developments have arisen since then:

The passage of time. It could be that in these intervening 17 years, public attitudes about death-with-dignity issues have changed. We say it could be, because we don't know. Putting the matter on the ballot is the best way to find out. If it fails, we'll respect that verdict.

Unlike 1991 voters, today's voters have Oregon's 10-year track record, and the clearing of numerous legal hurdles, to observe as they make up their minds on the issue.

Gardner's initiative differs from the 1991 measure because it would not allow doctors to administer lethal drugs on behalf of patients who could not do so themselves.

Gardner possesses a profound persective on pain and suffering. He has had Parkinson's disease for more than a decade. The disease is incurable, but is not considered fatal, so Gardner would not qualify for the Death With Dignity Act. But, as he said this week, "I just feel very strongly that I ought to have control over my life. I hate to lose control. That's just my nature, and a lot of people feel that way."

But not, apparently, Gov. Chris Gregoire, who earlier this week said she would have difficulty supporting Gardner's proposal. Later in the week, Gregoire said she would not actively oppose the initiative: "It is not my place to impose my morality on others." That stance is admirable. It indirectly speaks to the wisdom of a Death With Dignity Act, and the autonomy that it bestows upon one who seeks - solely on his or her own volition - to stop the pain of a certifiably terminal illness.

Death with dignity is an option, and nothing more. Those who want to pursue that option - independently - should have that right.

Email this page to a friend Share on Facebook Share on StumbleUpon Print this page