Posted on 03/14/2007 4:37:01 PM PDT by wagglebee
Salem, OR (LifeNews.com) -- The number of Oregon residents using the state's assisted suicide law to kill themselves is on the rise. New figures from the state's health department show more people in Oregon died under the assisted suicide law in 2006 than any year previously.
The Department of Human Services of Oregon, in its annual report, reveals that 46 Oregonians, most of them suffering from cancer, kill themselves after getting a prescription for a lethal amount of drugs from their physician.
The number is up eight from the 38 people took their lives under the assisted suicide law in 2005 and higher than in other years.
State health officials say the demand for assisted suicide is not rising because it said the number of prescriptions issued last year was lower than in previous years.
In 1998, 16 Oregonians used the assisted suicide law to kill themselves, followed by 27 in 1999, 27 in 2000, 21 in 2001, 38 in 2002, 42 in 2003, and 37 in 2004.
As a result from the state's law, the only one of its kind in the United States, some 292 people have killed themselves. The typical profile of a person using the law of a patient using the assisted suicide law is a white male about the age of 70 who is battling cancer. Mot have a college education and a handful suffer from either AIDS or Lou Gehrig's disease.
Most have died at home and were receiving hospice care at the time.
While patients cite depression and other emotional fears as their reasons for using the assisted suicide law, just two patients received psychological evaluations prior to being given the lethal drugs in 2005.
The use of assisted suicide hasn't been without problems.
Lung cancer patient David Prueitt took a fatal dose of drugs but woke up three days later wondering why he wasn't dead. The 42 year-old man eventually lived two more weeks before dying of natural causes.
Another patient who died in 2005 asked for the drugs three years ago, but the law specifically allows the drugs to be given only to patients expected to live for six months or less.
Diane Coleman, president of Not Dead Yet, a leading disability rights group said that the longer the Oregon law stays around the more disabled patients are feeling obligated to end their lives when they become a so-called "burden" to their families.
"What looks to some like a choice to die begins to look more like a duty to die to many disability activists," she said.
In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that patients had a right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment and, in 1997, the court ruled unanimously that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide but that states may ban or allow the practice.
The state came under fire last October for deciding to change the wording of the phrase assisted suicide when referring to the state law. It determined it would begin referring to "physician assisted suicide" as "physician assisted death" on official reports.
The change comes as backers of the assisted suicide law claim the original term is offensive to those who kill themselves under the statute. In fact, Compassion & Choices, a national group that backs euthanasia and assisted suicide, pressured state officials to make the change.
Gayle Atteberry, the executive director of Oregon Right to Life called the wording difference "outrageous."
"They have changed it to a euphemism to make it more palatable," she said. "Do they think it is going to make it easier for people to kill themselves?"
California, Michigan, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont and Washington have defeated attempts to legalize assisted suicide over the years.
Related web sites:
Physicians for Compassionate Care - http://www.pccef.org
Oregon Right to Life - http://www.ortl.org
It's not the "term" that's offensive, it's the act itself.
Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Note to self...do not move to Oregan.
This is what those dealing with disabilities have to say about it. But there are vocal activists on the other side, demanding the right of disabled people to be killed. It doesn't bother them that the people they're killing don't want to be killed. It just slows them down a little.
They will go back to the "lessons" they learned in the 1930s and 1940s and make it the law.
"It doesn't bother them that the people they're killing don't want to be killed. It just slows them down a little."
Unfortunately, I have become fairly familiar with the issue having cared for my dying mother and husband in recent years. So here are some thoughts based on personal experience rather than moral absolutes.
My mother was 88 and was dying because the pig valve that replaced the mitral valve in her heart ten years earlier was failing and she was too frail to sustain another surgery. The surgery involved cutting an incision from her naval to half way up her breast bone and then spreading it apart 6 inches to work on the heart. She was just too weak, and knew she would die soon.
She had been hospitalized recently for some other problem and would call me at 3 am crying, I am sooo hungry and nobody will feed me. After her last hospitalization when I brought her home to die she begged me not to put her in another hospital but let her die at home. When she was near the end, the doctor asked if she would like to go into the hospital for intravenous feeding, etc. which could prolong her life another few weeks. She said absolutely not, she preferred to die at home and un messed with. Two weeks later she slipped into a coma and died two days later at age 89.
At age 72, my husband's Alzheimers had progressed to the point where he needed 24 hour supervision, because he could not remember for more than 15 seconds, and couldn't find his way home if he went out. We had already seen a lawyer and prepared wills, do not resuscitate order, medical power of attorney and financial power of attorney documents. [A wise move for anyone caring for someone likely to die, or even if not likely soon.]
When it seemed the end was near, I took him to the VA Geriatrics Dept. where he was beeing cared for and TWO doctors examined him. I had brought the legal papers with me after they examined them they asked him if he wanted to have intravenous or feeding tubes if he became unable to swallow or was hospitalized. He emphatically shouted NO!! They asked him again with the same result. He was Scotch background and temperment, and had long since established that any money he had he wanted to go to family and not to drug companies and doctors. My mother felt the same way. So do I.
About two months later he could no longer get out of bed. I feed him there, changed his diapers, called our son in Florida and asked him to come immediately. He arrived two days later. My husband was happy to see him although I don't think he knew exactly who he was, or who I was by that time either. Two days later he didn't want to eat any more. My son and I talked it over. My other son had already expressed his opinions. We called the Dr who had seen my husband with the legal papers. She said if he doesn't want to eat, don't feed him. If he doesn't want to drink don't water him. If he asks, then do. She sent the hospice people who visited every day. The next day he was in a coma and died 4 days later in our marriage bed of 44 years. He would not have wanted it any other way. They also gave me morphine to give him some if it was painful when I tried to move him around. When he died they asked for the unused portion back which was most of it and measured the amount used.
NOBODY is arguing that the terminally ill have the right to refuse medical treatment -- as long as it's their own decision.
"As long as it's their own decision."
This is exactly the point. A person can refuse treatment, but in most places cannot legally access what would enable them to die without excess pain.
Fortunately, neither my mother or my husband had significant pain. If they had, I and they would have wanted to be able to make the decision to end it at a time of their own choosing.
Looking for a win-win here, can't we convince DemocRats that the only way to stop global warming is for them to move to Oregon and save the planet by ceasing to breathe?
I don't think it's smart to allow government into the killing business, and that's what assisted suicide is. With abortion legal, we don't currently see this, but ideally a society should respect and protect the life of each of it's members. Killing children within the womb of their mother or killing elderly or sick people is certainly not respecting, let alone protecting the life of each member in a society. Human suffering is such a tragic part of life, and each person has his/her share it to some degree, some more than others. It's natural human instinct to want to alleviate that suffering as much as possible, sometimes in any way possible. The question is, how far does society go to do that? I would argue that doctors should continue to work for and provide cures to ailments and pain medication for variant degrees of pain. People can choose to decline extraodinary means such as surgeries, respirators, or have DNRs. People may also decide that certain medications which may take days or weeks off of life are necessary for comfort. However, other means such as denying food or water, a basic human necessity (which helps to keep one comfortable) or actual medications or injections to terminate one's life is taking measures too far. Some may argue it is dignified not to suffer a miserable death, but if we say that suffering in some way makes us undignified, we would have to claim that each person on this Earth is undignified which is blatantly untrue. The goal of doctors and society should be to recognize the inherent value in human life and preserve it, not take it.
We must turn towards societies that have permitted assisted suicide, and realize that assisted suicides have increased in Oregon, the only state where they are permissible. In Dutch countries, they have proceeded to euthanasia, which is very dangerous. It's been said that people have been euthanized that were unable to give consent or had families that either were not around or chose to give consent. Babies that are ill or deformed also recieve the euthansia "treatment" as it is deemed "humane". Things get progressively worse as Switzerland attempts to open the door to assisted suicide for those who are mentally ill or depressed. More and more people may feel the need to end their lives, those that are depressed, pressured by doctors, or feel they are alleiving their family of a "burden". The bottom line, it's a dangerous road to go down. Who knows what damage will befall before we can turn back?
We as humans don't have the power to take the lives of other humans. Only God and nature can do that. Humans aren't animals, and we must cotinue to promote the sanctity of human life in our society.
That's a very powerful post, and I wish I had time to comment about all the levels it touched me on. The most obvious thing I saw was how much you love and care for your family. Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone had someone like you in their final hours? Then no one would pass from this world neglected, forgotten and abused. Everyone should experience a love like that. Thank you for sharing it with us.
The only good that comes out of the liberal agenda is that many of its tenets (abortion, assisted suicide, etc.) take their largest toll amongst their own ranks.
I wanted to add though that you did an incredible job caring for your family. Alzheimers is such a horrendous disease. I lost my Grandpa 6 years ago and my Grandma a few months back due to Alzheimers. What you did was amazing, caring for your husband at home. Both my Grandparents were in nursing homes, as they were no longer trusted not to wander out the door. No one could watch the full time, and my Grandma was not strong enough to handle my Grandpa. My Grandpa simply gave up eating at the end, and he refused any food. Our family attempted a feeding tube, but his brain didn't know how to process the nutrients so it was basically useless. My Granmda, Mom, and Aunt went daily and watched him lose much weight until he eventually died. My Grandma had Alzheimers and was beginning to wander. We put her in a nice assisted living for Alzheimers patiens, but she eventually got too weak. She was moved to full time nursing where she finally began to stop eating, and she then suffered a stroke. They kept her comfortable in the hospital for several days until she passed. Having gone through two family members with Alzheimers, I hope to never go through it again. Watching them constantly forget and repeat the same thing over and over, watching them decline is miserable. In some ways, my Grandparents had no real clue they were losing their minds, and it was very hard on the family. I hope some day that they find a cure for such a disease. God Bless you for the care you provided your husband until the end!
...and you'll find those on FR who will claim that "The Disabled" are against having assistance in managing their own future, as if there were not MANY people with disabilities who are too aware of how easily their wishes can be ignored, especially when they are unable to fight back themselves. That's why many people who are disabled are very strongly in favor of being able to obtain physician assistance in ending their life with peace and dignity.
Unfortunately, experience has shown that many people find that by the time they wish to go, it's too late for them to do so without help. That is, many able-bodied people become disabled by progressive illness before dying and never realize til too late that they suffer the same vulnerability as the life-long disabled person. The alternative to providing assistance is to force people to prematurely off themselves while they still know they can.*
The key is to leave the decision in the patients' hands. What is so wrong with that? There's no danger of misuse, if the PRIMARY focus is on the patients' desires, not on life versus death.
I'm sorry for your losses, but am so glad that you found the assistance to ease things.
*I sometimes wonder if the anti-PAS crowd is a bunch of sadistic ghouls who enjoy forcing pain and early death upon those who suffer.
It is exactly your kind of thinking which will promote the use of assisted suicide against a person's will.
See my post above.
And furthermore, we go in God's time not our own. So arrogant of people to decide otherwise.
So....respecting a person's will as primary encourages the ignoring of a person's will?
And I suppose cops encourage crime and Coalition troops encourage terrorism...? If we didn't have that durn Constitution and all those messy "rights" then things would be peachy, eh? Sheesh...some logic!
I can see the discussion of your wide-awake death: "...must have fallen asleep at the wheel...no skid marks, no attempt to swerve out of the way..."
Or do you, perhaps, arrogantly take matters into your own hands?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.