<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Several years ago, Physician-Assisted Suicide was made legal by me and my fellow Oregonians by process of popular vote.

[b]<font color = "red">1994, Measure 16, Death With Dignity Act</font>

Since the passage of this law, the will of the majority has been under attack by the Catholic Church and other religious interests. I haven't seen any reports, but I suspect that there is pharmaceutical money (drug money) involved in this fight against individual choice.

<font color = "red">
During 1994, '95, and '96 the new law is placed on hold while various legal challenges to the legalization of assisted suicide are presented by the few who oppose it--most of them residing outside of Oregon.

During 1997, the 9th Circuit Court gives the Oregon law the go-ahead, giving people access to Physician-Assisted Suicide.

1997: In an attempt to satisfy the money and religious interests, the Oregon State Legislature creates Measure 51. This measure is a repeal of The Death With Dignity Act. Measure 51 is defeated by a large number of votes. The Death With Dignity Act is, again, affirmed by the Oregon voters.
</font>

Now that the effort to deny Oregonians there vote has failed at the state level, these special interest groups have looked towards the US Senate for power over popular vote--specifically, the Pain Relief Promotion Act. This little work of political disservice is nearing the Senate floor. This act was created with the intention of ending Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon. It will not releave pain and suffering for the terminally-ill. It will prolong suffering and create a dependence on expensive drugs, furthering their misery.

The drug money issue aside, I bring this here because I think that it shows how religion and its zealots work towards encroaching on the independence of others, using less than honest tactics to advance their cause. I also believe that it shows something of even more importance, that we Americans do not live in a democracy.

In short, Christians, Catholics and their kind are not children of God. They are rats who scurry in the shadows of civilization, gnawing on the souls of others, creating more harm than good.

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser--

My last Oregon election was '96. I drove 250 miles to vote in it, essentially to make a point (since I had forgotten to register in Washington, but ....)

Elections in Oregon were fun while I was there; I arrived after Measure Five (1990), and got to campaign and vote in the Measure 9 campaign (1992). M-9 and its sons obsessed my political life in Oregon thereafter.

As to the assisted suicide ... yeah, the conservative angle here seems fulsome. Big Pharmaceutical Money is more than likely the force behind the movement, but Oregonians--especially the M-9/OCA supporters--make it happen. I have a feeling that Schering, Glaxo, or Warner-Lambert could throw as much money as they want at this fight and not be so annoying if they didn't have the operating base of that many individuals self-righteously obsessed with interfering with your right to be an individual. Many of the OCA's supporters also worked against 16, and helped organize post-passage opposition.

Once again we see two opposing philosophies colliding. From one direction we have, "I hate what you say, but shall defend your right to say it." On the other, "I hate what you say, and in the name of Freedom, I will force you to stop saying it."

I have to be honest ... Oregonian conservatism is one of the reasons I beat a retreat from Salem in '96. I honestly couldn't take it anymore. It wasn't the idea of smashing ourselves stupid in order to achieve what is right, but the idea that no matter what right is, the people seemed determined to smash themselves stupid anyway.

Of course, I now live in Seattle, where the intervening couple of years have been hilarious (including the forfeiture of ambulance services by the electorate). However, people are now preparing to smash themselves stupid over carpool/HOV lanes.

Go figure.

smashing, grinning, and apparently quite stupid,

Tiassa :D

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

I apologize for the following statement:

"In short, Christians, Catholics and their kind are not children of God. They are rats who scurry in the shadows of civilization, gnawing on the souls of others, creating more harm than good."

That was a bit harsh, but it probably comes very close.



------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser,

I think you are in torment. You clearly don’t want to offend anyone, hence your apology, but you also seem to really want to stay with your original claim, e.g. from your qualification “… comes very close”. I don’t think your apology quite made the grade.

Here is a solution to your torment: Think of Christians as unfortunate people who are inflicted with a terrible disease that affects their brains making them unable to reason clearly and make rational judgements. Our approach should be one of great sympathy and pity, and where we should strive to help find a cure.

I can understand your obvious frustration, their ramblings are often incoherent and incomprehensible, and their actions often cause great harm to themselves and everyone around them. Trying to use reason with such disturbed unfortunates often fails as that ability is the critical faculty that is afflicted. However, use of rational argument is our primary medication and we must continue to administer stronger and stronger doses until our patients are cured.

So as one ‘doctor’ to another, I recommend you show greater patience with our patients and I must admonish you, for now, for your poor bedside manner.

With a smile
Cris (alias the Wizard)


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited April 07, 2000).]

Bowser,

You're right, in a sense, and only that it's nobody else's business if someone CHOSES to commit suicide, or someone CHOSES to assist. The legality of it is irrelevant, so I'm not exactly sure why this is such an "agenda" or a "campaign" with you. I also don't see the need for an assist in this matter. I mean, why does someone need help committing suicide exactly? It doesn't take any help to swallow a bunch of pills, or to swallow the barrel of a gun, so why the need for legalized assistance? Not that it matters one bit whether it's legal or not. I have no idea why "religious" people even get involved in these matters. They should know more than anyone that we all are going to meet our maker one day, and we are all accountable for only ourselves, and no one else. So why do they even bother? Why do they care if it's legal or not? It's not like they have to worry about someone forcing THEM to do it, that would be murder right? So what's the point? I just don't get it. Fact is that it's God's work to do. His decision to make. Committing suicide is not the right thing to do. If someone is close to God, and has faith, God can heal them, take away their pain, or bring them home, but it's His decision, and His only input comes from your relationship with Him and your faith. We, in our denial of God, think that it's up to us who lives or dies or is ever born. We're wrong.

Oh and by the way, Cris and Bowser can just bite my little ass for those hideously ignorant comments that were made regarding Christians in general. Are you two racists as well by chance? Or just delusional when it comes to Christians?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited April 07, 2000).]

Lori--

The prescription of effective life-terminating drugs, or the administration of Kevorkian's death-machine constitutes assistance, despite the fact that in either case, the ultimate act is supposedly left to the dying patient.

This form of assistance prevents horror stories like we heard in assisted-suicide debates from around the country and the world; one that particularly sticks in my mind is a young mother recalling her five year-old discovering the headless, shotgunned body of a terminally ill Grandpa who chose to go out in a flash and a boom rather than suffer and wither.

I think religious interference comes from some of the issues we've been yelling about, and this is one case where we might be able to agree that the involvement of "church people" might constitute the employment of vague but allegedly-fixed doctrinal beliefs as license to exercise an intrusive will of their conscience.

I, however, decline Bowser's apology, as it is not mine to receive. He has acknowledged his own frustration with his form of expression, but like any other outburst of such nature, it has arguable causes. In this case, I sympathize heavily, having operated within the same political sphere to which he refers. It truly is an amazing process in Oregon, and it is a demonstration of the worst side of church institutions and church culture. After all, the word "These" as a qualifier would render the statement 100% true, to my experience. (But that's just me, and we all know my experience has little to do with reality.)

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Tiassa,

The grandfather shouldn't have done that huh? He may have been a wee bit selfish in blowing those brains all over the place, eh? It's just not the right thing to do. I can see trying to keep a dying person or terminally ill person comfortable, but killing them? That's a whole different story, and I just don't think it's our place to make decisions like that. Even for ourselves. But the LEGALITY of it? LOL! WHO GIVES A RAT'S BUTT???? Not me.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori--

I have a hard time defining selfishness in the context of a person facing a slow, painful death. But I believe I see your point.

I would like to play with your own words a little and see if they make sense. I can see trying to keep a dying person or terminally ill person comfortable, but killing them?

What I'm wondering about is the word "killing". Does the phrase, "...allowing them to die" make any better sense?

To be more specific, and again, playing on your words a little: Which decision is it not ours to make? If it's not our place to interfere, as such, then what of the legal prohibitions against A) suicide, and B) helping someone attain the means to make that decision for their own self? Or have I missed that point?

Part of what the assisted-suicide laws seem to be about is that people like the Grandpa shouldn't have to make such decisions. A better course of action should be available. One might be able to advise their family of their decision, obtain the necessary device (drugs, &c.), and then retire to a quiet place to die, out of the way, so that people don't run the risk of walking in on a bloody mess. The whole thing seems more dignified, but I think that making suicide illegal and making the prescription of lethal drugs for suicide against the law is exercising power in these decisions. I think such laws are the act of making the decision which (if I'm reading you right) is not ours to make.

But if I'm taking even a single word of yours out of context, it could result in my accepting the polar-opposite of your intent; if that has happened, well, do your best to pull out the relevant stuff and I'll figure out the rest. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Allow me to clarify....the decision to die, IN MY OPINION, is not ours to make for ourselves or for anyone else. The legality of anything is irrelevant to me. If a person, such as gramps, chooses to make this decision anyway, then it shouldn't matter if it's legal or not, and I suppose that drugs are more "dignified" (?) than a shotgun blast. But don't you think that you're just taking the same act, and "prettying it up" for appearances sake? It's still the same thing. But I know that I myself do not have a right to make any bit of this decision for anyone else (regarding the legality issue), and I also don't think that I have the right to make that decision for myself. I think that in any respect, you will fail miserably in life if your only measuring stick regarding right and wrong, or good and bad, is our f'ing legal system. Does that help?

Let me ask you too, since many people out here adhere to the belief that "as long as you don't hurt anyone, anything goes".....do you think that committing suicide hurts others? Do you think it hurts the individual who commits it? Toughy huh?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Lori--

If we do not control our own selves, in any given choice, then what is the point of being? One does not choose to be born; somewhere around 1990, or so, I recall Washington having two ballot measures for the election; one was assisted suicide, and one was abortion (pro-choice). Amusingly enough, both were defeated (the abortion law would have been, far and away, the most liberal I've ever heard), and both were defeated on arguments surrounding the same principle.

At the time, one big objection to abortion was the morality of will, that a woman would make the decision to terminate this alleged, viable life form, is a violation of the prehuman within her; yet that matter of choice, in all other issues of that child's life (once a part of the living world) are remanded to the parent, so that the parent may be criminally liable for misbehavior of the child. So we object, as a political/legal body to the denying a foetus a choice whose authority exceeds the privilege of even a living, born child.

We don't choose to come into the world or not. And now what, we don't get to choose when to leave? It used to be that the city of San Francisco paid people to sit in boats beneath the Golden Gate Bridge to retrieve jumpers. If the jumper was alive, the boatsman would place the jumper under arrest before seeking medical attention. "You can't kill yourself," goes the idea, "So we'll put you in prison--on public money--instead."

The decision to kill oneself should be private. The propriety of that decision, it seems, is 'twixt the individual and their conscience/God. To legislate against the right to make that decision seems inappropriate. Strike that; in my opinion, it is absolutely inappropriate. At the level of the f-ing legal system, I would hold such ideas as a moral cruelty.

I just find it amazing that one could argue (e.g., the 1990 Washington electorate) choice and will on behalf of the foetus, but not on behalf of the living individual in control of their own destiny.

Oh, wait. I guess I'm wrong. We're not in control of our own destinies. Not unless we're free to figure it out for ourselves.

I think I've covered enough of what I wanted here, but I'm actually getting yelled at because one of my bosses wants to buy me lunch, for heaven's sake, so I'd better go clean my plate like a good boy.

So, if I've left anything out, or missed a context, please accept my apologies.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

The basis of western law is, or was, and should be: Everyone is free to do anything they wish providing any actions they take do not interfere with the freedom of others. Any attempt to make and enforce a law that restricts the freedom of an individual to choose is a conflict of what I see as our basic right to free action.

If an individual chooses to end their life for whatever reason, it is none of our business unless it could be shown that such an action interferes with the freedom of another. In the case of an assisted suicide it is vitally important to show beyond any doubt that the requestor is fully aware of the consequences of the request. In which case we have no right to interfere with the decision.

In the future where I suspect lifespans are going to be significantly longer and where most diseases will have cures, then I suspect the most common form of death will be suicide. I believe the freedom of the individual in our society should be paramount and any law that attempts to limit that basic right must be opposed vigorously.


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited April 07, 2000).]

Lori,

In response to this query:

"Let me ask you too, since many people out here adhere to the belief that "as long as you don't hurt anyone, anything goes".....do you think that committing suicide hurts others? Do you think it hurts the individual who commits it? Toughy huh?"

I guess I'm one of the "if you don't hurt anyone, anything goes" crowd. I think it would depend upon the circumstances. (of course - what doesn't?)

Let's imagine my grandfather is terminally ill with cancer. Every day is a struggle, every minute is agony. His life is miserable, nobody in the house can sleep because he wakes up screaming from the pain every 20 minutes or so. Painkillers don't do enough, and they won't prescribe enough to do the job they need to do because it could kill him. He desperately wants to end it all, and says so over and over, begging whatever God it is that he believes in to take him away, yet he lives on in agony.

Would it hurt me to watch him live in this condition for what few days, weeks, months maybe he had remaining? You bet your sweet hiney! Would it hurt me if I watched him struggle painfully from the bed, load a gun and try to blow his brains out? Damn straight, it would! Or, would it hurt me to give him a couple dozen little capsules, say goodbye, and hold his hands as the light left his eyes? No, it wouldn't. Oh, his death would be sorrowful, of course. But there wouldn't be any extra hurt loaded on top of that.

I think there's a difference between "prettying" something up and trying not to damage your family. How would you feel if you found a body with it's face blown off? Little queasy? What if you were five? Doncha think that would give you nightmares for the rest of your life? It would to me. If that same grandpa had the support of his physician and was able to die quietly in his sleep after saying goodbye to his family (which he probably didn't do because they'd stop him, and they'd have the law behind them to do it), do you think that would give you or a 5-year old nightmares?? Or would you be grateful you had the chance to say goodbye and support your dear grandfather in one of the most important decisions a person ever makes??

Now, being that I believe in karma, if we're talking about someone leaping off a bridge because they're in debt, or something equally selfish, I believe that the hurts you visit upon another will be visited upon you eventually, in one life or another. Bearing that in mind, I would probably not choose to commit suicide in a fashion that would harm another. But if I were terminally ill, no chance for recovery, in agony, yadda, yadda, yadda, I want my doctor to be able to give me those little capsules so I can say goodbye to my family and take myself off to "meet my maker". I dont' want to have to resort to leaping off a bridge, or blowing my brains out, or driving my car off a cliff or something. These kinds of things cause more hassle/pollution/disease/sorrow etc. to others than I'd like to be responsible for.

I don't believe there is a karmic debt for taking your own life, so long as you don't harm another, and you don't harm yourself. Yes, I said don't harm yourself. I don't think preventing pain and agony by cutting your life short a few weeks is harmful. Wouldn't you cut off a gangrenous limb? Same kind of thing. You're cutting of a gangrenous lifeline, in a sense.

I guess it boils down to HOW you do it, and WHY. I think it's a horrible tragedy when a 16 year old slices her wrists because she's "fat" or "lonely" or "bad" or whatever.

Question for you, Lori, do you believe in the death penalty? Do you think it matters if we fry 'em in a chair, or gas 'em, or give 'em lethal injection if we are going to execute someone?

Mooncat,

Yes. I felt that. Thanks.

In general, I agree with Cris and the crowd, but I'd like to add a little concerning my issue with the attitude expressed by some that we "don't have the right" to make a decision to die. Obviously, it is implied that such a decision is made by God, and that one should die when the time is right in God's eyes. Aside from the implicit assertion of God, such an attitude is logically inconsistent.

After all, if we are to stick with nature and not make any choices that would shorten our lifespan, then do we really have a right to make choices that would lengthen our lifespan beyond what it would naturally be? In other words, if this person believes that it is wrong to cut a life short, then would this person not believe that it is also wrong to artificially extend one's life beyond its natural limit? After all, either of those acts is a transgression against "God's will"! If you consider it wrong to cut lives short, then why would you consider it right to stretch those lives by hooking people up to machines that replicate the functionality of their failing organs? In fact, if you are to base your decision on what "God" purportedly wants, then would it not be right to let people die even before they are put into intensive care? In fact, would it not be right to abandon absolutely any forms of "unnatural" health care, including any kind of surgery, drug therapy, or any other form of artificial extension of life? Would it not be "right" to let a mother and fetus die rather than perform a Cesarian? Would it not be right to let a person die rather than performing a heart transplant?

But if you believe that artificially enhancing and extending one's own life is ok, then you cannot justifiably believe that it is not ok to artificially shorten one's own life as well. Provided the decision is made by a fully informed person in a rational state of mind, I see nothing wrong with suicide at all.

As far as legality goes, I do not understand why it ought to be irrelevant to this debate. After all, under current law if I assisted my friend in death, I will be found guilty of murder and sentenced to jail. I don't think that is irrelevant at all.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited April 07, 2000).]

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif">
Wow, what a great response to my original post. I can't add much more to it. It's so frustrating that the decision of those who voted on the issue could not be left alone without intervention. Thanks for you thoughts, everyone.

<hr>

Cris,

<font color = "blue">"I think you are in torment. You clearly don’t want to offend anyone, hence your apology, but you also seem to really want to stay with your original claim, e.g. from your qualification comes very close. I don’t think your apology quite made the grade."</font>

Yeah...I know. I couldn't quite shake the anger. This really isn't the place for that kind of dialog. BTW: Yours was a great post, Cris. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/biggrin.gif">

<hr>

Lori,

<font color = "red">"The legality of it is irrelevant, so I'm not exactly sure why this is such an "agenda" or a "campaign" with you."</font>

The legality is very important; just ask the doctor who can't help releave suffering for others without risking imprisonment.

<font color = "red">"I also don't see the need for an assist in this matter. I mean, why does someone need help committing suicide exactly?"</font>

The legalized assistance is for effective and painless drugs.

<font color = "red">"Oh and by the way, Cris and Bowser can just bite my little ass for those hideously ignorant comments that were made regarding Christians in general."</font>

Judging from our other discussion about discipline, I imagine you would prefer a spanking. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/biggrin.gif">

<font color = "red">Are you two racists as well by chance? Or just delusional when it comes to Christians?</font>

No, I was just swept up in the passion of the moment. It really wasn't a fair thing for me to vent in that way, and I really do apologize for that statement, regardless of my feelings. The church has been hiding behind citizen action groups during this issue. To me, that's rat-like in essence. They've been hiding in the shadows while pulling the strings, if you will.

<hr>

tiassa,

<font color = "green">"I think religious interference comes from some of the issues we've been yelling about, and this is one case where we might be able to agree that the involvement of "church people" might constitute the employment of vague but allegedly-fixed doctrinal beliefs as license to exercise an intrusive will of their conscience."</font>

I wish I had ended my first post with the above statement. Thanks.


------------------
It's all very large.

Lori--

It appears I missed the central question in my last post. For that I must apologize.

Let me ask you too, since many people out here adhere to the belief that "as long as you don't hurt anyone, anything goes".....do you think that committing suicide hurts others? Do you think it hurts the individual who commits it? Toughy huh?

One of the more entertaining things about Catholic high school--though, if I may, barely tied to religion, and more tied to the affluence of many of my classmates' families--was the number of frustration-inspired suicide "attempts". I use the word loosely because I have seen far too many anorexic girls gobble Tylenol in order to ... and I hate this phrase ... "cry for help".

So much so that by the time I had a real, inspired, driven suicidal on my hands, I behaved like a megalomaniac trying to shield her from one specific logical argument: that of hurting her family with her departure.

Whether the real suicidal or one of the, say, forty people I knew who tried to perforate their stomachs with Bayer or who had no idea how to cut their wrists, the one common factor was that familial relations had disintigrated and no true spirit of friendship existed within the void of the individuals' lives.

Thus, I'm extropolating one vein from your question, and I reach this conclusion, from which I must admit I have never, since realizing it, given ground on: I find the notion of asking a suicidal to consider the impact of their actions on others to be absurd and offensive; experience shows that those specific others are, in the suicidal's perspective, the problem.

Now that doesn't go far enough to address the issue, though: It speaks nothing of the performance of the act itself. When I consider the issue of suicide, one thing I'm having a hard time justifying is whether I, or any other individual, have a right to even encourage a suicidal away from their proposed end; true Liberty, which I respect above most ideas in the world, dictates that this is none of my business. However, that theory has never been tested in practice, and the nearest thing to a life-threatening personal crisis that I've been witness to did ressurrect fully my aggressively preventionist perspective. Such a question as my power to interfere/intervene is one that, should I live my entire life and never have to answer directly, I will consider myself in witness of strong evidence of a compassionate God-force in the Universe.

This I offer because on the one hand, I would say, "Of course suicide hurts the suicidal." On the other hand, I assert that the suicidal may already be mortally wounded, and actualizing the effect of a spiritual death. Of the former, the idea that of course it hurts, I sanitize the idea with the notion that it hurts like a vaccination: just a prick, and then it's all better. Of the latter, which has served me more practically in life, there is the idea of resurrection. I have never "saved a life", only stalled for time and petitioned long lists of Powers-That-Be for ideas. That everybody was alive after two years is a mystery to me (I almost killed myself in a number of ludicrous vehicular near-misses, so it might be said that the fact that anybody involved survived that period is perhaps an indicator of the presence of Grace in the world.)

The problem is that I believe some holes are truly too deep. A person can dig one for their own self, or be cast into an abyss with no idea that escape is possible, much less an idea of the way out. For instance, I generally shrug off news of heroin-related deaths of people I know. It's not that I don't feel badly, but that of the four people I've met whom I've later learned succumbed to their Demon, I truly consider their death both suicide and liberation from Hell. In at least two cases, they were dead when I met them, as such. Never, though, have I attended an immediate suicidal whose emotional state was so tangibly overwhelming; though Laura Bass and Ellen Davis, in Courage to Heal extended my perception of where that threshold is, both that volume and one by Cynthia Tower, the title of which escapes me, delved into such psychiatric voids. Rarely do words on a page exceed my imagination, compassion, or empathy. Rarely do words on a page frighten my spirit. Even manageable emotional states had that power once; though I've not had to consider my newer ideas of individual Liberty against the ultimate question, it has interfered with my ability to intervene in manageably detrimental behavior. (Note: I generally don't care how alcoholic my friends are getting as long as they don't drive, aren't married, and don't have kids; if these conditions are met, their Liver and conscience is their own business, no matter how much I actually feel I care. FTR, I only know one alcoholic whose motivation is definitively not a psychiatric or psychological dysfunction; for this reason, I consider alcoholism, like heroin addiction, symptomatic in a manner comparable in many ways to suicidal behavior, anorexia, or dangerously excessive slatterny. Mind you, otherwise I can appreciate the benefits of being a general slut, but there's a line where it's downright dangerous.)

I like Reverend Lovejoy, of The Simpsons, when Ned Flanders asks if God is punishing him: "Short answer, yes with an if; long answer, no with a but."

When you ask if suicide hurts this or that person, that's kind of my answer. Of the death of one of my associates, which remains unsolved (50-50 shot murder or suicide), either way it was a possibility given the circumstances of the girl's life. What upset me most was watching her incestuous, bastard father wailing in front of God and the community, wondering why God had let the Devil take his little girl. Theology aside, maybe he shouldn't have raped her? Thus the behavioral pattern as capricious as the wind, as dangerous as fire, and suddenly her whole life is ablaze in drugs, alcohol, and prostitution at 14. Either way, I wanted to hit the man who wondered why, since he not only put the the fire to her but brought the rope and kindling and left her tied and stained at the stake.

So I have a bit of difficulty with who gets hurt when a person takes responsibility for their own destiny and makes what is generally considered a bad choice. I can't blame the psychologically dysfunctional people who wonder why, since they're in denial. But people honestly worry more about the symptomatic manifestations than the problem; this is a generalization based on experience: in other words, it was more important that Kym was smoking cigarettes, drinking hard alcohol, using methamphetamine, and prostituting herself at 14 to support it all than it was for anyone to wonder why. To be honest I think I knew more about what she did than her parents, who turned a blind eye because of their responsibility. Somehow I feel I'm on a huge digressional tangent ....

So I'll end with a couple of notes: First, I hope I did well enough on the questions as to not confuse you ... if not, forgive me, please, as it generally confuses me unless someone is attempting suicide in my presence. (FTR, to be specific, I don't choose Life, per se, but choose Time and Insight and hope for the best; on the other hand, that period of time, while begging for insight, is the only time anything is ethically clear to me as pertains to suicide--and then everything seems quite clear.) Second, forgive that there are no smiles within this post; there's a few places I would put them for context, but the idea of a wink or a smile while I'm thinking about 14 year-old prostitutes killing themselves .... Third, this is a very sacred realm in my Universe; if you picked up those couple of rough sarcasms in my last post, please let them slip by; it's odd, but I think the one active suicide I participated against, and the two possible legitimate suicides/attempts that I knew well seems statistically excessive--I have had enough time, for some reason, to develop habits in this realm. Now that I think about it, it scares the Hell out of me. Or, into me, as such. But it's quite the chilly feeling in the gut now that I stop and think about it. But the first comfort to come to mind is that those habits also developed against a background-haze of seemingly weekly aspirin-attempts and frantic midnight phone calls ("I have a bottle of cough syrup; can I kill myself with it?" Well, no, dear. Frankly, you can do more damage if you keep crushing those allergy pills and snorting them. And so on--I'm not sure I miss high school that much.)

Okay, three notes. And I'm forcing myself to end there. Strangely, I could go on like this for hours.

peace & sunshine
Tiassa :cool:

(Edits 'cuz ... well, I plead The Fifth, but it's mostly typos.)

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)


[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited April 09, 2000).]

http://www.hemlock.org/

The provisions of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act are as follows:

The request must be voluntary
No doctor is forced to comply
The patient must be an adult who is terminally ill and mentally competent
The request must be an enduring one; a 15-day waiting period is required
An examination by a mental health professional may be required
The request must be made orally and in writing and witnessed
All alternatives will be explained to the patient
The patient receive a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, which must be self-administered
The patient may change his or her mind at any time

<hr>
http://www.islandnet.com/~deathnet/lr_libus.html

THE OREGON DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.01 Definitions The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Act, shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Adult" means an individual who is 18 years of age or older.

(2) "Attending physician" means the physician who has primary responsibility for the care of the patient and treatment of the patient's disease.

(3) "Consulting physician" means the physician who is qualified by specialty or experience to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis regarding the patient's disease.

(4) "Counseling" means a consultation between a state licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and a patient for the purpose of determining whether the patient is suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder, or depression causing impaired judgment.

(5) "Health care provider" means a person licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized or permitted by the law of this State to administer health care in the ordinary course of business or practice of a profession, and includes a health care facility.

(6) "Incapable" means that in the opinion of a court or in the opinion of the patient's attending physician or consulting physician, a patient lacks the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to health care providers, including communication through persons familiar with the patient's manner of communicating if those persons are available. Capable means not incapable.

(7) "Informed decision" means a decision by a qualified patient, to request and obtain a prescription to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, that is based on an appreciation of the relevant facts and after being fully informed by the attending physician of:

(a) his or her medical diagnosis;

(b) his or her prognosis:

(c) the potential risks associated with taking the medication to be prescribed;

(d) the probable result of taking the medication to be prescribed;
(e) the feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control.

(8) "Medically confirmed" means the medical opinion of the attending physician has been confirmed by a consulting physician who has examined the patient and the patient's relevant medical records.

(9) "Patient" means a person who is under the care of a physician.

(10) "Physician" means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy licensed to practice medicine by the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Oregon.

(11) "Qualified patient" means a capable adult who is a resident of Oregon and has satisfied the requirements of this Act in order to obtain a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.

(12) "Terminal disease" means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six (6) months.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 2
WRITTEN REQUEST FOR MEDICATION TO END ONE'S LIFE IN A HUMANE AND DIGNIFIED MANNER
2.01 Who may initiate a written request for medication
An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner in accordance with this Act.

2.02 Form of the written request

(1) A valid request for medication under this Act shall be in substantially the form described in Section 6 of this Act, signed and dated by the patient and witnessed by at least two individuals who, in the presence of the patient, attest that to the best of their knowledge and belief the patient is capable, acting voluntarily, and is not being coerced to sign the request.
(2) One of the witnesses shall be a person who is not:
(a) A relative of the patient by blood, marriage or adoption;
(b) A person who at the time the request is signed would be entitled to any portion of the estate of the qualified patient upon death under any will or by operation of law; or
(c) An owner, operator or employee of a health care facility where the qualified patient is receiving medical treatment or is a resident.
(3) The patient's attending physician at the time the request is signed shall not be a witness.
(4) If the patient is a patient in a long term care facility at the time the written request is made, one of the witnesses shall be an individual designated by the facility and having the qualifications specified by the Department of Human Resources by rule.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 3
SAFEGUARDS
3.01 attending physician responsibilities
The attending physician shall:
(1) Make the initial determination of whether a patient has a terminal disease, is capable, and has made the request voluntarily;
(2) Inform the patient of;
(a) his or her medical diagnosis;
(b) his or her prognosis;
(c) the potential risks associated with taking the medication to be prescribed;
(d) the probable result of taking the medication to be prescribed;
(e) the feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control.
(3) Refer the patient to a consulting physician for medical confirmation of the diagnosis, and for determination that the patient is capable and acting voluntarily;
(4) Refer the patient for counseling if appropriate pursuant to Section 3.03;
(5) Request that the patient notify next of kin;
(6) Inform the patient that he or she has an opportunity to rescind the request at any time and in any manner, and offer the patient an opportunity to rescind at the end of the 15 day waiting period pursuant to Section 3.06;
(7) Verify, immediately prior to writing the prescription for medication under this Act, that the patient is making an informed decision;
(8) Fulfill the medical record documentation requirements of Section 3.09;
(9) Ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with this Act prior to writing a prescription for medication to enable a qualified patient to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.

3.02 Consulting Physician Confirmation

Before a patient is qualified under this Act, a consulting physician shall examine the patient and his or her relevant medical records and confirm, in writing, the attending physician's diagnosis that the patient is suffering from a terminal disease, and verify that the patient is capable, is acting voluntarily and has made an informed decision.

3.03 Counseling Referral

If in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder, or depression causing impaired judgment, either physician shall refer the patient for counseling. No medication to end a patient's life in a humane and dignified manner shall be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the person is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder, or depression causing impaired judgment.

3.04 Informed decision

No person shall receive a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner unless he or she has made an informed decision as defined in Section 1.01(7). Immediately prior to writing a prescription for medication under this Act, the attending physician shall verify that the patient is making an informed decision.

3.05 Family notification

The attending physician shall ask the patient to notify next of kin of his or her request for medication pursuant to this Act. A patient who declines or is unable to notify next of kin shall not have his or her request denied for that reason.

3.06 Written and oral requests

In order to receive a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, a qualified patient shall have made an oral request and a written request, and reiterate the oral request to his or her attending physician no less than fifteen (15) days after making the initial oral request. At the time the qualified patient makes his or her second oral request, the attending physician shall offer the patient an opportunity to rescind the request.

3.07 Right to rescind request

A patient may rescind his or her request at any time and in any manner without regard to his or her mental state. No prescription for medication under this Act may be written without the attending physician offering the qualified patient an opportunity to rescind the request.

3.08 Waiting periods

No less than fifteen (15) days shall elapse between the patient's initial and oral request and the writing of a prescription under this Act. No less than 48 hours shall elapse between the patient's written request and the writing of a prescription under this Act.

3.09 Medical record documentation requirements

The following shall be documented or filed in the patient's medical record:
(1) All oral requests by a patient for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner;
(2) All written requests by a patient for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner;
(3) The attending physician's diagnosis and prognosis, determination that the patient is capable, acting voluntarily and has made an informed decision.
(4) The consulting physician's diagnosis and prognosis, and verification that the patient is capable, acting voluntarily and has made an informed decision;
(5) A report of the outcome and determinations made during counseling, of performed;
(6) The attending physician's offer to the patient to rescind his or her request at the time of the patient's second oral request pursuant to Section 3.06; and
(7) A note by the attending physician indicating that all requirements under this Act have been met and indicating the steps taken to carry out the request, including a notation of the medication prescribed.

3.10 Residency requirements

Only requests made by Oregon residents, under this Act, shall be granted.

3.11 Reporting requirements

(1) The Health Division shall annually review a sample of records maintained pursuant to this Act.
(2) The Health Division shall make rules to facilitate the collection of information regarding compliance with this Act. The information collected shall not be a public record and may not be made available for inspection by the public.
(3) The Health Division shall generate and make available to the public an annual statistical report of information collected under Section 3.11(2) of this Act.

3.12 Effect on construction of wills, contracts and statutes

(1) No provision in a contract, will or other agreement, whether written or oral, to the extent the provision would affect whether a person may make or rescind a request for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, shall be valid.
(2) No obligation owing under any currently existing contract shall be conditioned or affected by the making or rescinding of a request, by a person, for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.

3.13 Insurance or annuity policies

The sale, procurement, or issuance of any life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy or the rate charged for any policy shall not be conditioned upon or affected by the making or rescinding of a request, by a person, for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner. Neither shall a qualified patient's act of ingesting medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy.

3.14 Construction of act

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a physician or any other person to end a patient's life by lethal injection, mercy killing or active euthanasia. Actions taken in accordance with this Act shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 4
IMMUNITIES AND LIABILITIES
4.01 Immunities
Except as provided in Section 4.02:
(1) No person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for participating in good faith compliance with this Act. This includes being present when a qualified patient takes the prescribed medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.
(2) No professional organization or association, or health care provider, may subject a person to censure, discipline, suspension, loss of license, loss of privileges, loss of membership or other penalty for participating or refusing to participate in good faith compliance with this Act.
(3) No request by a patient for or provision by an attending physician of medication in good faith compliance with the provisions of this Act shall constitute neglect for any purpose of law or provide the sole basis for the appointment of a guardian or conservator.
(4) No health care provider shall be under any duty, whether by contract, by statute or by any other legal requirement to participate in the provision to a qualified patient of medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner. If a health care provider is unable or unwilling to carry out a patient's health care provider shall transfer, upon request, a copy of the patient's relevant medical records to the new health care provider.

4.02 Liabilities

(1) A person who without authorization of the patient willfully alters or forges a request for medication or conceals or destroys a rescission of that request with the intent or effect of causing the patient's death shall be guilty of a Class A felony.
(2) A person who coerces or exerts undue influence on a patient to request medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life, or to destroy a rescission of such a request, shall be guilty of a Class A felony.
(3) Nothing in this Act limits further liability for civil damages resulting from other negligent conduct or intentional misconduct by any persons. (4) The penalties in this Act do not preclude criminal penalties applicable under other law for conduct which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 5
SEVERABILITY
5.01 Severability
Any section of this Act being held invalid as to any person or circumstance shall not affect the application of any other section of this Act which can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 6
FORM OF THE REQUEST
6.01 Form of the request
A request for a medication as authorized by this Act shall be in substantially the following form:

REQUEST FOR MEDICATION TO END MY LIFE IN A HUMANE AND DIGNIFIED MANNER
I, _______________________, am an adult of sound mind.

I am suffering from ___________________________, which by my attending physician has determined is a terminal disease and which has been medically formed by a consulting physician.

I have been fully informed of my diagnosis, prognosis, the nature of medication to be prescribed and potential associated risks, the expected result, and the feasible alternatives, including comfort care, hospice care and pain control.

I request that my attending physician prescribe medication that will end my life in a humane and dignified manner.

INITIAL ONE:

____ I have informed my family of my decision and taken their opinionsp into consideration.

____ I have decided not to inform my family of my decision.

____ I have no family to inform of my decision.

I understand that I have the right to rescind this request at any time.

I understand the full import of this request and I expect to die when I take the medication to be prescribed.

I make this request voluntarily and without reservation, and I accept full moral responsibility for my actions.

Signed: _____________________________
Dated: _____________________________

DECLARATION OF WITNESSES
We declare that the person signing this request:
(a) Is personally known to us or has provided proof of identity;
(b) Signed this request in our presence;
(c) Appears to be of sound mind and not under duress, fraud or undue influence;
(d) Is not a patient for whom either of us is attending physician.

________________________________________________Wi tness 1/
Date

________________________________________________ Witness 2/
Date

Note: One witness shall not be a relative (by blood, marriage or adoption) of the person signing this request, shall not be entitled to any portion of the person's estate upon death and shall not own, operate or be employed at a health care facility where the person is a patient or resident. If the patient is an inpatient at a health care facility, one of the witnesses shall be an individual designated by the facility.




------------------
It's all very large.

Here are some related links:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000406/pl/assisted_suicide_1.html http://www.senate.gov/ http://www.house.gov/

<hr>
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./temp/~c106n4YGkY::

Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (Referred in Senate)

HR 2260 RFS


106th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2260

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 28, 1999
Received


November 19, 1999
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AN ACT
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to promote pain management and palliative care without permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999'.

TITLE I--USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT

SEC. 101. REINFORCING EXISTING STANDARD FOR LEGITIMATE USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.

Section 303 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 823) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(i)(1) For purposes of this Act and any regulations to implement this Act, alleviating pain or discomfort in the usual course of professional practice is a legitimate medical purpose for the dispensing, distributing, or administering of a controlled substance that is consistent with public health and safety, even if the use of such a substance may increase the risk of death. Nothing in this section authorizes intentionally dispensing, distributing, or administering a controlled substance for the purpose of causing death or assisting another person in causing death.

`(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in determining whether a registration is consistent with the public interest under this Act, the Attorney General shall give no force and effect to State law authorizing or permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia.

`(3) Paragraph (2) applies only to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

SEC. 102. EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

Section 502(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 872(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (5);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(7) educational and training programs for local, State, and Federal personnel, incorporating recommendations by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, on the necessary and legitimate use of controlled substances in pain management and palliative care, and means by which investigation and enforcement actions by law enforcement personnel may accommodate such use.'.

TITLE II--PROMOTING PALLIATIVE CARE

SEC. 201. ACTIVITIES OF AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH.

Part A of title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following section:

`SEC. 906. PROGRAM FOR PALLIATIVE CARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY.

`(a) IN GENERAL- The Administrator shall carry out a program to accomplish the following:

`(1) Develop and advance scientific understanding of palliative care.

`(2) Collect and disseminate protocols and evidence-based practices regarding palliative care, with priority given to pain management for terminally ill patients, and make such information available to public and private health care programs and providers, health professions schools, and hospices, and to the general public.

`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `palliative care' means the active, total care of patients whose disease or medical condition is not responsive to curative treatment or whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced disease. The purpose of such care is to alleviate pain and other distressing symptoms and to enhance the quality of life, not to hasten or postpone death.'.

SEC. 202. ACTIVITIES OF HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Part D of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294 et seq.), as amended by section 103 of Public Law 105-392 (112 Stat. 3541), is amended--

(1) by redesignating sections 754 through 757 as sections 755 through 758, respectively; and

(2) by inserting after section 753 the following section:

`SEC. 754. PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN PALLIATIVE CARE.

`(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator for Health Care Policy and Research, may make awards of grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to health professions schools, hospices, and other public and private entities for the development and implementation of programs to provide education and training to health care professionals in palliative care.

`(b) PRIORITIES- In making awards under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to awards for the implementation of programs under such subsection.

`(c) CERTAIN TOPICS- An award may be made under subsection (a) only if the applicant for the award agrees that the program carried out with the award will include information and education on--

`(1) means for alleviating pain and discomfort of patients, especially terminally ill patients, including the medically appropriate use of controlled substances;

`(2) applicable laws on controlled substances, including laws permitting health care professionals to dispense or administer controlled substances as needed to relieve pain even in cases where such efforts may unintentionally increase the risk of death; and

`(3) recent findings, developments, and improvements in the provision of palliative care.

`(d) PROGRAM SITES- Education and training under subsection (a) may be provided at or through health professions schools, residency training programs and other graduate programs in the health professions, entities that provide continuing medical education, hospices, and such other programs or sites as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

`(e) EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS- The Secretary shall (directly or through grants or contracts) provide for the evaluation of programs implemented under subsection (a) in order to determine the effect of such programs on knowledge and practice regarding palliative care.

`(f) PEER REVIEW GROUPS- In carrying out section 799(f) with respect to this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the membership of each peer review group involved includes one or more individuals with expertise and experience in palliative care.

`(g) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `palliative care' means the active, total care of patients whose disease or medical condition is not responsive to curative treatment or whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced disease. The purpose of such care is to alleviate pain and other distressing symptoms and to enhance the quality of life, not to hasten or postpone death.'.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; ALLOCATION-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 758 of the Public Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section) is amended in subsection (b)(1)(C) by striking `sections 753, 754, and 755' and inserting `sections 753, 754, 755, and 756'.

(2) AMOUNT- With respect to section 758 of the Public Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section), the dollar amount specified in subsection (b)(1)(C) of such section is deemed to be increased by $5,000,000.

SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this title take effect October 1, 1999, or upon the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever occurs later.
Passed the House of Representatives October 27, 1999.

Attest:

JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.




------------------
It's all very large.

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Well, I sent one e-mail out. I need to complain to somebody. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

Mr. Hyde,

In Oregon we believe that our vote has value. As you know, we have made a decision, by popular vote, to allow Physician-Assisted Suicide. But this decision has been challenged by various groups since the passage of Measure 16, Oregon's Death With Dignity Act. With all of the previous attempts failed, we now find that you and others are attempting to subvert our decision by pushing the Pain Relief Promotion Act.

I don't understand why you, an American Congressman, would deny your fellow Americans their birthright to decide issues such as this by process of popular vote. There is talk online that drug money (pharmaceutical) is responsible for your zeal in this matter. I won't make any assumptions; however, I feel that your actions prove that you have little respect for democracy or the process of popular vote.

Thank you for your time,

**** *****
**** ** ***** **
Portland, Oregon *****

------------------
It's all very large.

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> What the heck, I sent an e-mail to my Congressman.

<hr>

Mr. Earl Blumenauer (Congressman),

In Oregon we believe that our votes count. Please fight those who would prove us wrong. I add to this email the letter which I had sent to Mr. Henry Hyde concerning The Pain Relief Promotion Act.

I thank you for your time,

**** *****
**** ** ***** **
Portland, Oregon *****



------------------
It's all very large.

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> I'm gonna canvas the Senate now. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon3.gif">

<hr>

Senator Wyden,

My concern is with the The Pain Relief Promotion Bill. I believe that this issue subverts my rights and the rights of all Oregonians as a voters. I can't imagine the justification of its passage, and I feel that it is contrary to our system of democracy. I do not wish to make assumptions, but the rumor online is that drug money (pharmaceutical)has created the zeal in this ongoing effort to deny Oregonians there decision to allow Physician-Assisted Suicide.

I wish to thank you for your efforts in defending the decision of your fellow Oregonians, fighting for our rights as participants in our government. I wish you the best in this effort.

Thank you for your time,
**** *****

<hr>

Senator Nickles,

Oregonians believe that their vote has meaning. As a voter, I feel that the Pain Relief Promotion Bill is an attempt to subvert the decision of Oregonians, and it is contrary to our system of democracy. Why you and others would deny us our freedom to participate in our government is debatable; however, the rumor online is that drug money (pharmaceutical)is responsible for much of the support behind this bill. I will not make an assumption, but I will tell you that it appears that you, and those who support the Pain Relief Promotion Bill, are in opposition to the idea that citizens hold authority in our country. It is obvious that you desire to dismiss our votes.

Thank you for your time,
**** *****


------------------
It's all very large.

<hr>
Does anyone want to get involved?
<hr>

PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO OTHERS
--------------------------

Hello,

Very soon, the U.S. Senate will be deciding the value of your vote, the value of your voice, and the value of our democracy. Specifically, The Senate is deciding on an issue which has already been decided by the People--the right to die with dignity. The Pain Relief Promotion Act is a Bill contrived in Congress which will subvert your right to determine your own destiny as an individual. It will effectively nullify Oregon's Death With Dignity Act and the rights of those people who voted it into law. It will prevent other states and their citizens from choosing and creating laws which affirm the rights of individuals. It will, in truth, solidify a market for the pharmaceutical companies, forcing those who are terminally ill to choose between two options: pain killers (drugs) or an uninformed, possibly hideous suicide.

The Pain Relief Promotion Act is not the only issue here. What is even more disturbing is the idea that special interest groups have the ability to command our government in such a way that they can induce our Congress and Senate to produce Bills such as this one, a bill which will, if made law, deny the will of the people, furthing the cause of the few. I've always held faith in the power of my vote, and I demand that Congress and the Senate recognize and respect the votes of the majority.

I believe that if we all contact our Senators before the Pain Relief Promotion Act reaches the Floor, we can send a message that this Bill is wrong, and that OUR SENATORS should be working for us. Below is a link/URL where you can contact your Senator--and all of the other Senators. I urge you to do contact yours and all of the others. E-mail them and tell them that the Pain Relief Promotion Act is wrong simply because it was given birth by means contrary to our beliefs and our traditions.

<A HREF =
"http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm"
>http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm</A>

I want to remind you that WE own this country; re-affirm that notion by being heard. PLEASE PASS THIS LETTER TO OTHERS.

I've included below the text for the Pain Relief Promotion Bill, and I've also included the text for the Oregon's Death With Dignity Act. The Oregon's Death With Dignity Act was created and twice voted for by the Oregon Voters. Since its passage in 1994, this law has been under attack by various interests. It was placed on hold by the courts while being challanged from various groups who opposed the . The Oregon State Legislature, under debatable pressures, created and then place forward to the Oregon Voters, a measure (Measure 51) which would have repealed the Death With Dignity Act. It failed when the Oregon Voters reaffirmed there original vote for the Death With Dignity Act (Measure 16).

Since the efforts of those opposed to freedom have failed on the state level and in the courts. They are now attacking from the frederal level. Don't let them succeed.

I thank you for taking the time to read this letter,
**** *****

************************************************** ****

Government Links:

<A HREF =
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/"
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/</A

<A HREF =
"http://www.senate.gov/"
>http://www.senate.gov/</A>

<A HREF =
"http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm"
>http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm</A>

<A HREF =
"http://www.senate.gov/legislative/index.html"
>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/index.html</A>

<A HREF =
"http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./temp/~c106n4YGkY::
>The Pain Relief Promotion Bill</A>


<A HREF =
"http://www.house.gov/"
>http://www.house.gov/</A>

<A HREF =
"http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html"
>http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html</A>


Other links regarding this issue:

<A HREF =
"http://www.hemlock.org/"
>http://www.hemlock.org/</A>

<A HREF =
"http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000406/pl/assisted_suicide_1.html"
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000406/pl/assisted_suicide_1.html</A>

<A HREF =
"http://www.dwd.org/"
>http://www.dwd.org/</A>


************************************************** ****

The provisions of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act are as follows:

The request must be voluntary
No doctor is forced to comply
The patient must be an adult who is terminally ill and mentally competent
The request must be an enduring one; a 15-day waiting period is required
An examination by a mental health professional may be required
The request must be made orally and in writing and witnessed
All alternatives will be explained to the patient
The patient receive a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, which must be self-administered
The patient may change his or her mind at any time


**********************************

THE OREGON DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT

---------------------------------

SECTION I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.01 Definitions The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Act, shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Adult" means an individual who is 18 years of age or older.

(2) "Attending physician" means the physician who has primary responsibility for the care of the patient and treatment of the patient's disease.

(3) "Consulting physician" means the physician who is qualified by specialty or experience to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis regarding the patient's disease.

(4) "Counseling" means a consultation between a state licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and a patient for the purpose of determining whether the patient is suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder, or depression causing impaired judgment.

(5) "Health care provider" means a person licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized or permitted by the law of this State to administer health care in the ordinary course of business or practice of a profession, and includes a health care facility.

(6) "Incapable" means that in the opinion of a court or in the opinion of the patient's attending physician or consulting physician, a patient lacks the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to health care providers, including communication through persons familiar with the patient's manner of communicating if those persons are available. Capable means not incapable.

(7) "Informed decision" means a decision by a qualified patient, to request and obtain a prescription to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, that is based on an appreciation of the relevant facts and after being fully informed by the attending physician of:

(a) his or her medical diagnosis;

(b) his or her prognosis:

(c) the potential risks associated with taking the medication to be prescribed;

(d) the probable result of taking the medication to be prescribed;
(e) the feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control.

(8) "Medically confirmed" means the medical opinion of the attending physician has been confirmed by a consulting physician who has examined the patient and the patient's relevant medical records.

(9) "Patient" means a person who is under the care of a physician.

(10) "Physician" means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy licensed to practice medicine by the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Oregon.

(11) "Qualified patient" means a capable adult who is a resident of Oregon and has satisfied the requirements of this Act in order to obtain a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.

(12) "Terminal disease" means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six (6) months.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 2
WRITTEN REQUEST FOR MEDICATION TO END ONE'S LIFE IN A HUMANE AND DIGNIFIED MANNER
2.01 Who may initiate a written request for medication
An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner in accordance with this Act.

2.02 Form of the written request

(1) A valid request for medication under this Act shall be in substantially the form described in Section 6 of this Act, signed and dated by the patient and witnessed by at least two individuals who, in the presence of the patient, attest that to the best of their knowledge and belief the patient is capable, acting voluntarily, and is not being coerced to sign the request.
(2) One of the witnesses shall be a person who is not:
(a) A relative of the patient by blood, marriage or adoption;
(b) A person who at the time the request is signed would be entitled to any portion of the estate of the qualified patient upon death under any will or by operation of law; or
(c) An owner, operator or employee of a health care facility where the qualified patient is receiving medical treatment or is a resident.
(3) The patient's attending physician at the time the request is signed shall not be a witness.
(4) If the patient is a patient in a long term care facility at the time the written request is made, one of the witnesses shall be an individual designated by the facility and having the qualifications specified by the Department of Human Resources by rule.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 3
SAFEGUARDS
3.01 attending physician responsibilities
The attending physician shall:
(1) Make the initial determination of whether a patient has a terminal disease, is capable, and has made the request voluntarily;
(2) Inform the patient of;
(a) his or her medical diagnosis;
(b) his or her prognosis;
(c) the potential risks associated with taking the medication to be prescribed;
(d) the probable result of taking the medication to be prescribed;
(e) the feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control.
(3) Refer the patient to a consulting physician for medical confirmation of the diagnosis, and for determination that the patient is capable and acting voluntarily;
(4) Refer the patient for counseling if appropriate pursuant to Section 3.03;
(5) Request that the patient notify next of kin;
(6) Inform the patient that he or she has an opportunity to rescind the request at any time and in any manner, and offer the patient an opportunity to rescind at the end of the 15 day waiting period pursuant to Section 3.06;
(7) Verify, immediately prior to writing the prescription for medication under this Act, that the patient is making an informed decision;
(8) Fulfill the medical record documentation requirements of Section 3.09;
(9) Ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with this Act prior to writing a prescription for medication to enable a qualified patient to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.

3.02 Consulting Physician Confirmation

Before a patient is qualified under this Act, a consulting physician shall examine the patient and his or her relevant medical records and confirm, in writing, the attending physician's diagnosis that the patient is suffering from a terminal disease, and verify that the patient is capable, is acting voluntarily and has made an informed decision.

3.03 Counseling Referral

If in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder, or depression causing impaired judgment, either physician shall refer the patient for counseling. No medication to end a patient's life in a humane and dignified manner shall be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the person is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder, or depression causing impaired judgment.

3.04 Informed decision

No person shall receive a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner unless he or she has made an informed decision as defined in Section 1.01(7). Immediately prior to writing a prescription for medication under this Act, the attending physician shall verify that the patient is making an informed decision.

3.05 Family notification

The attending physician shall ask the patient to notify next of kin of his or her request for medication pursuant to this Act. A patient who declines or is unable to notify next of kin shall not have his or her request denied for that reason.

3.06 Written and oral requests

In order to receive a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, a qualified patient shall have made an oral request and a written request, and reiterate the oral request to his or her attending physician no less than fifteen (15) days after making the initial oral request. At the time the qualified patient makes his or her second oral request, the attending physician shall offer the patient an opportunity to rescind the request.

3.07 Right to rescind request

A patient may rescind his or her request at any time and in any manner without regard to his or her mental state. No prescription for medication under this Act may be written without the attending physician offering the qualified patient an opportunity to rescind the request.

3.08 Waiting periods

No less than fifteen (15) days shall elapse between the patient's initial and oral request and the writing of a prescription under this Act. No less than 48 hours shall elapse between the patient's written request and the writing of a prescription under this Act.

3.09 Medical record documentation requirements

The following shall be documented or filed in the patient's medical record:
(1) All oral requests by a patient for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner;
(2) All written requests by a patient for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner;
(3) The attending physician's diagnosis and prognosis, determination that the patient is capable, acting voluntarily and has made an informed decision.
(4) The consulting physician's diagnosis and prognosis, and verification that the patient is capable, acting voluntarily and has made an informed decision;
(5) A report of the outcome and determinations made during counseling, of performed;
(6) The attending physician's offer to the patient to rescind his or her request at the time of the patient's second oral request pursuant to Section 3.06; and
(7) A note by the attending physician indicating that all requirements under this Act have been met and indicating the steps taken to carry out the request, including a notation of the medication prescribed.

3.10 Residency requirements

Only requests made by Oregon residents, under this Act, shall be granted.

3.11 Reporting requirements

(1) The Health Division shall annually review a sample of records maintained pursuant to this Act.
(2) The Health Division shall make rules to facilitate the collection of information regarding compliance with this Act. The information collected shall not be a public record and may not be made available for inspection by the public.
(3) The Health Division shall generate and make available to the public an annual statistical report of information collected under Section 3.11(2) of this Act.

3.12 Effect on construction of wills, contracts and statutes

(1) No provision in a contract, will or other agreement, whether written or oral, to the extent the provision would affect whether a person may make or rescind a request for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, shall be valid.
(2) No obligation owing under any currently existing contract shall be conditioned or affected by the making or rescinding of a request, by a person, for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.

3.13 Insurance or annuity policies

The sale, procurement, or issuance of any life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy or the rate charged for any policy shall not be conditioned upon or affected by the making or rescinding of a request, by a person, for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner. Neither shall a qualified patient's act of ingesting medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy.

3.14 Construction of act

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a physician or any other person to end a patient's life by lethal injection, mercy killing or active euthanasia. Actions taken in accordance with this Act shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 4
IMMUNITIES AND LIABILITIES
4.01 Immunities
Except as provided in Section 4.02:
(1) No person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for participating in good faith compliance with this Act. This includes being present when a qualified patient takes the prescribed medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.
(2) No professional organization or association, or health care provider, may subject a person to censure, discipline, suspension, loss of license, loss of privileges, loss of membership or other penalty for participating or refusing to participate in good faith compliance with this Act.
(3) No request by a patient for or provision by an attending physician of medication in good faith compliance with the provisions of this Act shall constitute neglect for any purpose of law or provide the sole basis for the appointment of a guardian or conservator.
(4) No health care provider shall be under any duty, whether by contract, by statute or by any other legal requirement to participate in the provision to a qualified patient of medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner. If a health care provider is unable or unwilling to carry out a patient's health care provider shall transfer, upon request, a copy of the patient's relevant medical records to the new health care provider.

4.02 Liabilities

(1) A person who without authorization of the patient willfully alters or forges a request for medication or conceals or destroys a rescission of that request with the intent or effect of causing the patient's death shall be guilty of a Class A felony.
(2) A person who coerces or exerts undue influence on a patient to request medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life, or to destroy a rescission of such a request, shall be guilty of a Class A felony.
(3) Nothing in this Act limits further liability for civil damages resulting from other negligent conduct or intentional misconduct by any persons. (4) The penalties in this Act do not preclude criminal penalties applicable under other law for conduct which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 5
SEVERABILITY
5.01 Severability
Any section of this Act being held invalid as to any person or circumstance shall not affect the application of any other section of this Act which can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 6
FORM OF THE REQUEST
6.01 Form of the request
A request for a medication as authorized by this Act shall be in substantially the following form:

REQUEST FOR MEDICATION TO END MY LIFE IN A HUMANE AND DIGNIFIED MANNER
I, _______________________, am an adult of sound mind.

I am suffering from ___________________________, which by my attending physician has determined is a terminal disease and which has been medically formed by a consulting physician.

I have been fully informed of my diagnosis, prognosis, the nature of medication to be prescribed and potential associated risks, the expected result, and the feasible alternatives, including comfort care, hospice care and pain control.

I request that my attending physician prescribe medication that will end my life in a humane and dignified manner.

INITIAL ONE:

____ I have informed my family of my decision and taken their opinionsp into consideration.

____ I have decided not to inform my family of my decision.

____ I have no family to inform of my decision.

I understand that I have the right to rescind this request at any time.

I understand the full import of this request and I expect to die when I take the medication to be prescribed.

I make this request voluntarily and without reservation, and I accept full moral responsibility for my actions.

Signed: _____________________________
Dated: _____________________________

DECLARATION OF WITNESSES
We declare that the person signing this request:
(a) Is personally known to us or has provided proof of identity;
(b) Signed this request in our presence;
(c) Appears to be of sound mind and not under duress, fraud or undue influence;
(d) Is not a patient for whom either of us is attending physician.

________________________________________________Wi tness 1/
Date

________________________________________________ Witness 2/
Date

Note: One witness shall not be a relative (by blood, marriage or adoption) of the person signing this request, shall not be entitled to any portion of the person's estate upon death and shall not own, operate or be employed at a health care facility where the person is a patient or resident. If the patient is an inpatient at a health care facility, one of the witnesses shall be an individual designated by the facility.


************************************************** ****

Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (Referred in Senate)

HR 2260 RFS


106th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2260

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 28, 1999
Received


November 19, 1999
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AN ACT
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to promote pain management and palliative care without permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999'.

TITLE I--USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT

SEC. 101. REINFORCING EXISTING STANDARD FOR LEGITIMATE USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.

Section 303 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 823) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(i)(1) For purposes of this Act and any regulations to implement this Act, alleviating pain or discomfort in the usual course of professional practice is a legitimate medical purpose for the dispensing, distributing, or administering of a controlled substance that is consistent with public health and safety, even if the use of such a substance may increase the risk of death. Nothing in this section authorizes intentionally dispensing, distributing, or administering a controlled substance for the purpose of causing death or assisting another person in causing death.

`(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in determining whether a registration is consistent with the public interest under this Act, the Attorney General shall give no force and effect to State law authorizing or permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia.

`(3) Paragraph (2) applies only to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

SEC. 102. EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

Section 502(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 872(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (5);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(7) educational and training programs for local, State, and Federal personnel, incorporating recommendations by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, on the necessary and legitimate use of controlled substances in pain management and palliative care, and means by which investigation and enforcement actions by law enforcement personnel may accommodate such use.'.

TITLE II--PROMOTING PALLIATIVE CARE

SEC. 201. ACTIVITIES OF AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH.

Part A of title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following section:

`SEC. 906. PROGRAM FOR PALLIATIVE CARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY.

`(a) IN GENERAL- The Administrator shall carry out a program to accomplish the following:

`(1) Develop and advance scientific understanding of palliative care.

`(2) Collect and disseminate protocols and evidence-based practices regarding palliative care, with priority given to pain management for terminally ill patients, and make such information available to public and private health care programs and providers, health professions schools, and hospices, and to the general public.

`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `palliative care' means the active, total care of patients whose disease or medical condition is not responsive to curative treatment or whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced disease. The purpose of such care is to alleviate pain and other distressing symptoms and to enhance the quality of life, not to hasten or postpone death.'.

SEC. 202. ACTIVITIES OF HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Part D of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294 et seq.), as amended by section 103 of Public Law 105-392 (112 Stat. 3541), is amended--

(1) by redesignating sections 754 through 757 as sections 755 through 758, respectively; and

(2) by inserting after section 753 the following section:

`SEC. 754. PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN PALLIATIVE CARE.

`(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator for Health Care Policy and Research, may make awards of grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to health professions schools, hospices, and other public and private entities for the development and implementation of programs to provide education and training to health care professionals in palliative care.

`(b) PRIORITIES- In making awards under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to awards for the implementation of programs under such subsection.

`(c) CERTAIN TOPICS- An award may be made under subsection (a) only if the applicant for the award agrees that the program carried out with the award will include information and education on--

`(1) means for alleviating pain and discomfort of patients, especially terminally ill patients, including the medically appropriate use of controlled substances;

`(2) applicable laws on controlled substances, including laws permitting health care professionals to dispense or administer controlled substances as needed to relieve pain even in cases where such efforts may unintentionally increase the risk of death; and

`(3) recent findings, developments, and improvements in the provision of palliative care.

`(d) PROGRAM SITES- Education and training under subsection (a) may be provided at or through health professions schools, residency training programs and other graduate programs in the health professions, entities that provide continuing medical education, hospices, and such other programs or sites as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

`(e) EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS- The Secretary shall (directly or through grants or contracts) provide for the evaluation of programs implemented under subsection (a) in order to determine the effect of such programs on knowledge and practice regarding palliative care.

`(f) PEER REVIEW GROUPS- In carrying out section 799(f) with respect to this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the membership of each peer review group involved includes one or more individuals with expertise and experience in palliative care.

`(g) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `palliative care' means the active, total care of patients whose disease or medical condition is not responsive to curative treatment or whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced disease. The purpose of such care is to alleviate pain and other distressing symptoms and to enhance the quality of life, not to hasten or postpone death.'.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; ALLOCATION-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 758 of the Public Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section) is amended in subsection (b)(1)(C) by striking `sections 753, 754, and 755' and inserting `sections 753, 754, 755, and 756'.

(2) AMOUNT- With respect to section 758 of the Public Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section), the dollar amount specified in subsection (b)(1)(C) of such section is deemed to be increased by $5,000,000.

SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this title take effect October 1, 1999, or upon the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever occurs later.
Passed the House of Representatives October 27, 1999.

Attest:

JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.




[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited April 09, 2000).]

Bowser,

I hear your passion and am picking up on your good intentions.

After studying the info you posted - thanks - what I am seeing is that the palliative care act proposes another alternative which does not usurp an individual State's authority concerning assited suicide or euthanasia.

While the act does not give force to an individual State's law it does not negate it either. What it does offer is a broadening of the legal medical use of controlled substances on a national level, without supporting assisted suicide and euthenasia, so that controlled substances may be used more effectively by physicians in the management of pain. Under the act, physicians would have the legal authority to prescribe certain substances and doses (which were previously considered too risky or dangerous) in an attempt to manage a patient's pain more effectively, without going as far a to prescribe a definitive lethal dose.

I see this as a valid alternative. It is more in keeping with the Hippocratic Oath, something which most physicians would feel more comfortable doing (helping their patients rather than killing them) and something which would help reduce the number of human beings wishing to end their life due to physical pain.

Thus, I also see the good intentions of this act.

With Love and Best Wishes for a long, happy and pain-free life,

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael_w (edited April 09, 2000).]

Michael_w,

"AN ACT
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to promote pain management and palliative care without permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia, and for other purposes"

I would say that their intentions are very clear.

Thanks for your reply. From my perspective, they are taking away alternatives. The patient will always be able to get drugs for pain. They really are not offering anything that wasn't there before. Also, do we want the conscience of our Rep's dictating our last rights? I would feel better knowing that some things are sacred.

Anyway, I thank you for your thoughts and wish you the best, too.


------------------
It's all very large.



[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited April 09, 2000).]

Hello Bowser,

Your perspective is appreciated. If you don't mind, I would like to explore some other facets of this issue:

First, let's ask ourselves WHAT IS MOST SACRED in this life? It must be life itself, for without life, there is nothing else, including our "rights" in this life.

Next, let's stop and consider what suicide is. Suicide is the "intentional" taking of one's "own" life. What does the taking of your life become when you ask "another" person to "intentionally" provide the means or demand that they "sanction" what they perceive to be your usurpation of the sanctity of life? Is it fair to ask or to demand such a thing from a fellow human being? Are you justified in asking another person to participate in and/or sanction your "suicide"? What is the other person's culpability in such a matter (and I'm not just speaking in a legal sense)? In what ways and to what extent, do you think, might your request for another to "intentionally" assist in your "intentional" death affect "them" during the remainder of "their" lifetime - after you are gone?

Sure, with lethal dosess of prescription drugs as an option, some people might be spared the sight of a bloody or gory death. *AND* - others will most certainly become more profoundly involved with suicide under Oregon law. I suspect that with more people directly involved with premature death by suicide, the effects of such participation would be detrimental to society in general in the long-run.

Just as you say that the patient will always be able to get drugs for pain, ANYONE can commit suicide very easily at ANY TIME if they so choose.

Granted, more can be done to improve the quality of life during the final stages of life, and the reformed federal law takes steps in that direction. However, Oregon voters call for "death" with dignity through suicide. How is dignity accomplished by involving another human being in "suicide" under Oregon law? As human beings, why would we want to "dignify" suicide? To dignify something is to add to its prestige, to place it in a prominent or influential position, to elevate it or to hold it in high esteem. Is that really where we want suicide to be placed in the minds of our youth?

Can't dignity in the last stages of life be brought about by the elimination of pain and suffering afforded by the broadening of the use of Controlled Substances under the reformed federal law? It allows for the prescribing of controlled substances at higher dosages even if it increases the risk of death. Under the reformed federal law, it is understood that that such prescriptions must not be prescribed with the "intention" of hastening or postponing the patient's death. However, such higher dosages (which would help manage pain better and improve the quality of life) could also potentially be used for carrying out one's unilateral decision to "intentionally take one's own life" without causing the prescribing physician to "intentionally" prescribe the doses for use in suicide and without the sanctioning of suicide by the government or society in general. Therefore, Oregonians who wish to commit suicide by lethal doses still can do so more privately without having to solicit accomplices within the medical profession and without elevating suicide to a prominent status in our culture.

Under the reforemed federal law, a patient anywhere in the nation could truly commit suicide if they so choose, and die with what Oregon voters are calling dignity, can they not? Or, do you believe that the dignity of death by suicide IS actually brought about by another human being's "intentional participation in" or "sanctioning of" the act of killing one's self?

You say that you would feel better knowing some things are sacred. Are you referring to suicide/the right to choose suicide as something sacred? Well, I believe that life is sacred. Wouldn't you agree that the thing that is most "sacred" in this life is "life" itself and that without life, we would not HAVE any rights?

Now, personally, I respect the voice of the Oregon voters. For the record, Wyden did speak out, loudly, in defense of Oregon voters on this issue. So much so that in June of last year, Attorney General Janet Reno ruled that physicians in Oregon who prescribed according to State Law would not be prosecuted under the federal Uniform Controlled Substances Act. However, that ruling which applied to Oregon was inconsistent with a ruling which was applied to California with repect to the passage of its in-state marijuana laws. The Attorney General's rational behind shutting down California's marijuana law was that it contradicted Federal Law which supercedes state law with regard to controlled substances; specifically, all states fall under the "Uniform Controlled Substances Act" of the United States of America. Now, it is not so much that I agree with the uniform federal law in its entirety, but I do believe in "consistency" in such matters.

The statements made by by both California and Oregon voters was certainly heard by Congress; That is what prompted it to look more closely at the issue and to reform the Uniform Controlled Substances Act to help with the quality of life for the dying by permitting more drugs to be available at higher doses and by funding pain managment research and education without sanctioning assited suicide nationwide.

The fact is that while Oregon voters decry the federal government for usurping what Oregonians are calling their "authority" via votes, what Oregon citizens actually did by placing the death with dignity act on its state ballot in the first place was to attempt to usurp the authority of the existing laws of the federal government. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it's just a risky and indirect way to go.

OREGON LAW IS IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PAIN RELIEF PROMOTION ACT.

In essence, by popular vote, Oregon voters ignored or attempted to overturn federal law. (This is the type of stuff that cessation from the union could be made of). Because the federal law which governs all states in the nation was not adjusted to accomodate the wishes Oregon voters does not mean that Oregon law was overturned or that its voters were ignored. The law "in Oregon" still stands, albeit in conflict with federal law.

Whether the medical professionals in that state will abide by state law or federal law is a matter to be seen. And, whether or not a physician who prescribes in accordance with state law would actually be prosecuted under federal law is another wait and see matter.

Given that the laws which ultimately govern these matters are federal, the most direct course of action would be to move to change the federal law. From your posts above, it looks like the appeals are headed in that direction as of late. I wish you and your fellow Oregonians good luck in your endeavors and I pray for continued national support for the sanctity of life.

Thanks for listening brother.

Peace and Love,

Michael





[This message has been edited by Michael_w (edited April 11, 2000).]

Michael_w ....

All other presuppositions aside ....

What does the taking of your life become when you ask "another" person to "intentionally" provide the means or demand that they "sanction" what they perceive to be your usurpation of the sanctity of life?

Who owns the sanctity of life?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Hello tiassa,

Sanctity in the traditional sense of saintliness or godliness; the quality or condition of being considered sacred (sacred, being dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity; worthy of reverence or respect; not secular or profane); inviolability (inviolability being the condition of being safe from or secure against violation; kept sacred; impregnable to assult or trespass) - is a "condition" common to human life which encompasses all of us as fellow human beings which we have a common duty to ourselves and to each other to respect. Sanctity is a quality of "our" life as it exists, rather than something to be owned.

With Love,

Michael

Thanks, Michael.

What I'm after is simply the assertion that I am entrusted with the management of the sanctity of my own life. For all intents and purposes, I own that sanctity, and little else in the world.

For if I am not in charge of my own, then whose is it I've been playing with these last few years?

Presently, as pertains to suicide, we say, "I, the Government, am in charge of the sanctity of your life; if you attempt to revoke this life, you will be confined and forced to live against your will." This I disagree with.

As relates the Oregon measure being in conflict with federal law, what is the constitutional standing? States' Rights are not yet dead. (In this particular instance, I think we might look to the preamble to the Constitution: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", as such ... but if we use that phrase to reinforce the Constitution's authority in this most private of affairs, then where else will it be applied?)

Do you cry at funerals? If so, why?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Hello tiassa,

What I'm after is simply the assertion that I am entrusted with the management of the sanctity of my own life. For all intents and purposes, I own that sanctity, and little else in the world.

I believe I am hearing what you are saying. Yes, I agree that we are in charge, responsible for our own 'actions' throughout our lives and that we are entrusted with "maintaining" the sanctity of our lives.

Now, I respect your differing opinion. And, I believe that in this instance we were brought together to learn something from each other about this issue.

Maybe the difference lies in our personal understanding of sanctity. I gather that you see 'sanctity' as something to be managed (owned and/or controlled). I see 'sanctity' as something which *is* a characteristic of life which I am entrusted to allow to *BE* - something which I am entrusted to maintain (to preserve).

If we violate our life, that is, if we intentionally fail to keep our life by committing suicide, inviolability (sanctity)is lost. If the sanctity of life is relegated to the secular (the temporal we) to dispense with as we please (rather than maintain) then it is no longer 'sacred' and the 'sanctity' of life is lost. Sanctity would no longer exist as a quality/characteristic of our life - we would have violated a sacred trust.

Presently, as pertains to suicide, we say, "I, the Government, am in charge of the sanctity of your life; if you attempt to revoke this life, you will be confined and forced to live against your will." This I disagree with.

I also disagree with confining someone who has attempted suicide, but survived and/or "forcing" someone to live. While they still have their sacred life, I believe that they should be offered as much love and help as possible in their life. Whether or not they are willing to accept the love and help of others is another issue.

As relates the Oregon measure being in conflict with federal law, what is the constitutional standing? States' Rights are not yet dead. (In this particular instance, I think we might look to the preamble to the Constitution: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", as such ... but if we use that phrase to reinforce the Constitution's authority in this most private of affairs, then where else will it be applied?)

I think we are in agreement here! According to our Constitution, I believe we all have an 'inalienable' right to life. Although I personally believe that suicide obliterates the sanctity of life and I do not see such acts as purely "private", I do not think it is the governments' place to tell someone that they cannot die in what is being referred to as a "private" manner- that they cannot commit suicide - if they so choose. However, when states vote for the legalization of "assisted suicide" (somewhat of misnomer) and when governments sanction the "intentional" involvement of others in such a matter - it then contains elements of legalized homicide and becomes a public issue.

Do you cry at funerals? If so, why?

I am not into attending many funerals but I have been known to cry when someone close to me has passed away. In trying to recapture the reason why, I feel the pain of separation. The thing that held us together - the bond of life - was broken in their death and it hurts.

Sometimes, even when I am not that close to the decedent but am close to others who are, I also cry out of empathy.

How about you?

Peace and Love,

Michael

Michael,

Too bad you're trying to force your understanding of sanctity and/or inviolability upon everyone else through law or rhetoric. So sad your religious perspective is not shared by many. But hey, this country is all about free speech, thought, and deed. So I'm here to declare that while life is sacred, so is the right to end it. There is a difference between the untouchability of other's lives, and one's own; by the golden rule we cannot violate lives of others -- however, our own life is ours to end if we so rationally desire. What is more compassionate -- horribly and endlessly torturing people on their deathbeds, or granting them their last wish?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Michael--

There are a number of things which bring tears to my eyes, whether someone close to me or a distant tragedy.

* Loss--I will no longer have the treasure of this person in my life.
* Justice--Something that means a great deal to me has been violated, and resulted in a tragedy worth mourning.
* Shock--My own inability to accept what events have transpired.

The key element there is that the sense of loss or tragedy is my own. Mourning one's death is, imho, a strictly selfish enterprise, and one to which I confess.

One of the difficulties I'm having approaching the topic is that I'm unsure about a specific point. Sanctity seems to be an idea related to its collective force; but I cannot assert this clearly from my interpretation of your position.

It would seem that I, as an individual, owe you, or any other person, a fare as regards sanctity; that is, for sanctity's sake, I forego the right to make this or that decision.


Main Entry: sanc·ti·ty
Pronunciation: 'sa[ng](k)-t&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English saunctite, from Middle French saincteté, from Latin sanctitat-, sanctitas, from sanctus sacred
Date: 14th century
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

--from http://www.m-w.com (Miriam-Webster)


In the case of a "standard" suicide--someone in emotional distress abruptly terminating that distress--I would argue that the "quality or state of being holy or sacred" that permeates life has disintegrated, according to the suicidal. In the case of a medical "mercy" suicide, I think would assert the same. However, the differences between the two situations seems nearly rhetorical to me.

For the medical, I have a hard time justifying the idea that existing in pain, humiliation, and the constant misery of watching the self disintegrate to the daisies while you're still alive is a sanctified event. One should not be obliged to accept a ticket to this screening of "This is Your Death".

Is it a sanctified state to be unconscious, force-fed through a tube, and having a machine force air into your lungs while your relatives tear each other to pieces in a courtroom to determine your fate? Not to mention watery stool in a diaper or a cold pan ...?

(I am willing to leave the standard-suicide alone for now; its only relevance is a comparison of sanctity, and the possible degredation thereof.)

If we violate our life, that is, if we intentionally fail to keep our life by committing suicide, inviolability (sanctity)is lost. If the sanctity of life is relegated to the secular (the temporal we) to dispense with as we please (rather than maintain) then it is no longer 'sacred' and the 'sanctity' of life is lost. Sanctity would no longer exist as a quality/characteristic of our life - we would have violated a sacred trust.

Inviolability (sanctity) lost: Perhaps it's a trite approach, but isn't that between the individual and God, as such?

relegated to the secular (the temporal we): Here I'm having a bit of trouble. Um ... secular ... as compared to religious in general? Or are we looking at the religious version of secular, which often means "Any faith but our own"? (e.g.--Contemporary social regard of Seventh-Day Adventists or certain Southern Baptist congregations th