Dying Patients Should Have Option of Dignity

By None, Bothell Herald (Bothell, WA), Jan. 22, 2006

Editorial

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday to uphold Oregon's Death with Dignity Act allows other states to adopt similar laws, unless Congress acts first to outlaw such measures.

In Washington state, right-to-die supporters and some legislators are ready to introduce legislation now. With a short session already under way, this is not the year for such a bill. Such important legislation can't be rushed through. A year will give supporters time to craft a bill that is sound and addresses all aspects of this controversial and important issue.

In 1991, Washington voters rejected Initiative 119, which would have allowed doctors to prescribe drugs to hasten death and to administer them to terminally ill patients who couldn't take the medications on their own. Oregon's law only allows doctors to prescribe the medication; the patients must take the drugs themselves.

Oregon further restricts the option by requiring: the patient be 18 or older, a resident of Oregon, able to make and communicate health-care decisions, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. Two doctors must confirm the patient meets the criteria.

In the seven years since Oregon voters passed the law, 208 people have used medication to end their lives. That number indicates that the restrictions work.

Washington would do well to adopt Oregon's model.

With such restrictions in place, it is hard to entertain critics who fear such laws would lead to the deaths of non-terminal poor, elderly, disabled, vulnerable and expensive-to-treat patients. While doctors have the final say on who should be able to receive a lethal amount of drugs to end their lives, they are not drawing up lists of who should die or suggesting to patients they should do so. It cannot be overstated: Patients must be diagnosed with a terminal illness to even be considered for the option of assisted suicide.

Oregon really is leading the way when it comes to end-of-life issues. After the Supreme Court ruling, Dr. Susan Tolle, director of the Center for Ethics in Health Care at Oregon Health & Science University, told the Chicago Tribune that the biggest change since the law was passed is the attention the state has devoted to improving end-of-life care, especially pain management and hospice care.

And when the pain is no longer manageable, when the patient's dying body leaves him or her with no dignity, when patients are helpless to help themselves, they have an option. It's just an option. But it's one that should be available to terminally ill, fully aware, suffering patients.

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