s/o controversial topics...

LuvBug12683

What is your opinion on i-1000 (the initative that allows Drs to end a patients life with consent)

...Im torn.


*flame free if possible

pinktulips

My issue with I-1000 is that it opens the doors for insurance companies to press for assisted suicide instead of paying for care for terminal illness. AND, if that happens, they don't have to pay out life insurance policies because the initative won't require the insuarnce companies to change their pay out requirements.

FutureMrsLynch

I agree with Pinktulips... However in the long run, I am for it.

Em7.31.04

I support it.

June24Bride

This is a hard one. I'm a Christian and so my morals/values are screaming NO! But, on the other hand I put myself if those shoes and contemplate. Alas, I go with my gut and will probably vote no.

omangie

Ditto word for word June24Bride.

JRS72206

I voted no. For many different reasons.

IdahoGirl

June24Bride:

This is a hard one. I'm a Christian and so my morals/values are screaming NO! But, on the other hand I put myself if those shoes and contemplate. Alas, I go with my gut and will probably vote no.

I'm a Christian too - and so your response is interesting to me.  I don't see this as a question of morals, personally.  I don't think God intended for us to waste away the way we do today with some of these diseases.  But that's just what I think.

I haven't decided yet...

MrsHeidiR

I haven't decided for sure but it isn't because of the premise that is stopping me.  I think some initiative allowing this is overdue (I have watched people go through a bitter, slow end and can completely understand the desire to not go through that loss of dignity and deteriorate to a point where you  really are not living any longer.) 

That said, I am often leary of these initiatives and how they are worded and what hte potential reprucussions are.  I am not confident I can support his particular initiative because I haven't taken the time to investigate (yet, but I will) everything that it includes.  So I reserve my decision until I have a complete understanding.

June24Bride

IdahoGirl:

June24Bride:

This is a hard one. I'm a Christian and so my morals/values are screaming NO! But, on the other hand I put myself if those shoes and contemplate. Alas, I go with my gut and will probably vote no.

I'm a Christian too - and so your response is interesting to me.  I don't see this as a question of morals, personally.  I don't think God intended for us to waste away the way we do today with some of these diseases.  But that's just what I think.

I haven't decided yet...

 

Human life is sacred ( we all know that.. ) We are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6). Any destroying of that image/life is prohibited in Scripture except under certain specific circumstances. A judgment that someone's quality of life is too low is never an exception that allows people to kill others or themselves.

Rachandderek

Ditto June

LuvBug12683

Iam having a hard time with this one as well. I know as a christian I need to leave this in the hands of God. Realistically we are taking the power into our own hands. What if the patient has been misdiagnosed and that persons life is ended too short when they could of had months or even years left. Or what if a patient chooses to die and the next day, they find a cure for what was wrong with them. And what about the patients who are not in the right mental state...Im sure there are "rules" when it comes to this but I also have to think. What about those that are suffering. We're allowed to put our animals down (which is I know is completely different than a human life) but women are able to abort their unborn babies daily...they get to make that life or death decision for their child. Whats the difference then, of a terminally ill patient....ahhh!! Im thinking Im going to vote no....

JDCSKF

I will be voting no.

Kathzoo

Yes for me.  It's similar to the pro-choice question.  I want people to have choices, doesn't mean I would personally choose to end my life or have an abortion, but the option should be there.

preston18

I haven't done much research on this...I'm all for ceasing life saving measures like feeding tubes and respirators or denying further treatment like chemotherapy to hasten the inevitable, but actual suicide?  Nope.

I also think that those with diseases that are typically terminal should be allowed as much pain killers as they think they need. And to use marijuana if need be.

babyaustin725

I am against it.  Only God knows how long someone will live and if they will recover.  I still believe in miracles.  There are other things about it that I question, but ultimately I voted no.

LuvBug12683

baby_austin7/25:

I am against it.  Only God knows how long someone will live and if they will recover.  I still believe in miracles.  There are other things about it that I question, but ultimately I voted no.

Oh yes, I definatley second the miracle part!! Great point!

noisy_penguin

I don't live in Washington right now, so I'm fairly uninformed about the specifics of the initiative - but I guess I look at this the same way I look at abortion. It's not something I could ever do for myself, but I think it's an incredibly personal decision that I could not presume to make for someone else. I don't think government should be in the business of legislating what people do with their bodies, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

jodynjames2005

I voted yes, and I completely agree with noisy. It's not the government's job to legislate morality. It's absolutely absurd that there are any laws against suicide to begin with, and I see no problem whatsoever in allowing people a dignified way to end their lives when they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, two doctors are willing to sign off on it, etc.

My aunt is dying right now and is absolutely miserable, and has been for months. There is no magical cure. She is simply elderly and her body is very slowly shutting down. She begged my uncle to bring her a bottle of Xanax from home so that she could just die already. I wish that there were a better option for her than this. My own opinions on religion, morality, etc. really have nothing to do with her ability to end her own life. Besides which, doctors end people's lives every day as it is, with doses of morphine they know will slow their respiration, etc. It's already happening, and I'd like to see it done openly rather than the way it is now, where really there is no oversight at all. If this initiative passes, two doctors will have to review each case and it will be done out in the open, which I think will make the practice more legitimate and less prone to error.

IdahoGirl

I think I agree with Noisy and Jody....religious views aside, it's not the government's job to legislate this.

 My only concern would be as a pper mentioned, having insurance companies push for it or not cover life insurance claims....

tfarabians

I'm voting YES!  This law has worked very well in Oregon for 10 years now.  It isn't as easy to get through the hoops as you might think.  This also allows someone to keeps their family from suffering along with them through a slow agonizing death it also prevents them from suffering the HUGE debts of hospital bills left behind by a person that had no quality of life. 

My mom being diabled with MS made me make a deal with her years ago that I wouldn't let her whither away in a nursing home.  She told me and my dad to smother her or find a way to OD her on drugs.  Why would you vote no on this to not let someone have this option for what kind of quality of life that they want?

MissBlush

Laws ARE legislated morality.

That being said, I don't typically like to empower the government to take choices away from people when they are not hurting or affecting the health or safety of anyone else.  Still, I don't know that I'll vote in favor of the law.  I'm undecided at this point.   

IdahoGirl

MissBlush:

Laws ARE legislated morality.

That being said, I don't typically like to empower the government to take choices away from people when they are not hurting or affecting the health or safety of anyone else.  Still, I don't know that I'll vote in favor of the law.  I'm undecided at this point.   

You've got a good point, C, I guess they are legislated morality....and I agree with the rest of what you said.

applecider

I feel very strongly about this and I apologize if this comes off as snarky.

I will be voting yes and I'm going to try to convince you to vote yes also.  Suicide doesn't jive with my beliefs.  However, I think it would be wrong of me to take away this choice from some old atheist with cancer just so that I can sleep better at night.

I think the government should stay out of gay marriage and end-of-life care and leave it up to individuals.  Also, I don't know how to say this non-flamefully, but no one should force Christianity or any other religion on anyone else.  If you vote no only because you are a Christian, this is what you are doing.

I think we need to try to imagine ourselves in the other persons shoes.  How would you feel if someone made you wear a Muslim veil because Islam believes that modesty is sacred?

From my limited legal understanding, the law is well worded.  I think that it's almost impossible that the law could be abused by insurance companies as the patient has to request and self-administer the medication.  (Also, I know that I would certainly read the Riot Act to any insurance company that tried to pull carp like that.)

I liked the info in this annual report from Oregon:

https://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year10.pdf

Summarized bits:

Oregon has had a Death with Dignity law since 1997.  Although many people have gone as far as obtaining a lethal prescription, only 341 have actually used it.