Is anyone talking about I-1000? The right to choose to die gracefully.

[rhett o rick]

Seems simple to me, people should have the right to decide when they are terminally ill to be able to die without excessive pain and suffering.

How arrogant of society to say that society knows best for people that are dieing and in pain. I have yet to meet anyone that doesn’t agree that they themselves do not want to continue living in such a state.

I have only heard two arguments against I-1000. One states that there might be abuse. This is a laughable argument that can be said about all laws and regulations. Of course potential abuse should be watched for closely.
The other argument is that God should decide. Of course God’s will, will be decided via man. We extend lives each and every day. Is that God’s will? How do we justify extending someone’s life and then say that we can't allow them to die? Isn’t extending life interfering as much as assisting death?

But there is misdirection against the Initiative. One lady quoted in today's Times that she was against I-1000 because she was glad that her husband was able to live out his life. Is she saying she is glad her husband didn't have the option to end his pain early? I hope not. But otherwise the law would not have interfered with her husbands living or death.

[SeattleGirl]

1. I haven't really heard anyone talking about it, but I did see

that The Times had an article about it.

I agree with your points, rhett. Oregon has had the same law on it's books for several years, and believe me, there have been no mass murders of people with terminal illnesses. That abuse argument is a false argument overall, I believe. For one thing, other people don't get to decide to end someone's life; the ill person does.

Having watched my mother suffer for several years with a debilitating illness, this law makes perfect sense to me. Mom passed away on February 9th. She didn't use medication; she said she wanted her feeding tube taken out. My 4 siblings and I knew what that meant, as that was the only nourishment she was getting. She was tired, and she was ready to go. Yes, she did have an option of medication, as she lived in Oregon, but she didn't have to. If that had ended up being her way, I would have honored that, just as I honor the choice she made.

The only way my mom could have continued to live would have been to stay hooked up to a feeding tube, spending most of her time in bead, nauseated most of the time, short of breath, and sleeping 75% of the time. My mom was a strong, independent woman. Continuing to live that way would have been a death sentence to her soul.

For others to make a literal life and death decision for someone, when that person him/herself is of sound mind, is just flat wrong.

[rhett o rick]

2. My mom's biggest fear in the world when she got older was that she mite have to suffer a long time.

This law would alleviate some of that concern. She has since passed without pain.

[eridani]

3. Write LTEs about it to very paper in your area n/t

[rhett o rick]

4. I'm on it. i am always sending them LTTE's about something. PI some times

prints but never the Times.

[eridani]

5. But they still count the number of letters for and against anything

That's how they decide the ratio of pro/con letters that they print. (At least in cases where no one on the editorial board has an ox that might get gored.)