Assisted Suicides at All Time High New Oregon Figures Show

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

"I don't think it's smart to allow government into the killing business, and that's what assisted suicide is."

I think you may have missed an important point at the beginning of the article. They said that most people ask their doctor for a perscription (probably morphine or related) and then take it home and give it to themselves. So first of all it is between the patient and the doctor. The only involvement of the government is giving the permission of the patient and doctor to do what they do.

As to denying food a water, my mother was very clear that she did not want to go to a hospital for intravenous or other feeding. And my husband was adament that he did not want feeding tubes. At some point they each became disinterested in eathing or drinking, or unable to swallow and soon slipped into a coma. They did not suffer. I know this because they only groaned if I shifted their body to clean their waste.

As hard as it is for us to accept, there comes a time of multiple organ failure and shutting down when death is inevitable. I have never understood why those who profess to believe in God the most seem the most dramatically opposed to all this. Should people be denied the right to join their God when their body is failing? In fact, as I recall the Terry Schivo case, I was astonished to see all the religious people writhing, wailing and falling on the ground at the thought that this poor woman would soon be with God. If this is faith???

Thank you for your kind words. One serious problem is that there is not education in this country on how to care for the terminally ill at home. The big money is in drugs, hospitals and nursing homes, so we the people are left uneducated. I am currently writing up my experience caring for my husband in great detail (8,000 words so far) and perhaps will get it published.

You mention the Grandma was not strong enough to handle Grandpa. Fortunately, I was 9 years younger than my husband, and in good physical condition. Nevertheless, I put on 30 pounds (not intentionally, but because of stress) and used that weight to pin him to the bed when he wanted to go out at four in the morning in the city. During the day he escaped a few times and disappeared and I had to call the police. Usually I could follow him down the block, and coax him back to the house for some food.

When he started to become paranoid and violent, the VA provided medication which made the problem manageable. I had previously taught classes in therapeutic nutrition, and feed him very well, as well as giving him a number of vitamin, mineral and herbal supplements. This kept him in generally good health, so that he only began to have serious physical problems in the last month of his life. I knew that when he could no longer swallow the supplements he would probably die soon and that is exactly what happened.

Thank you for you information on care of the terminally ill. You did a wonderful thing for both your mother and your husband.

I realize people ask their doctor for a prescription, but government would have to permit the use of drugs that are designed to kill people. There would certainly come into play various arguments as to who should be given these drugs. I mean people that are ill but not near death or people with depression will request them, and they may become available to people with depression in Switzerland. I firmly believe it will lead to euthanasia as it has in other countries. Allowing euthanasia has resulted in deaths of infants or the elderly that haven't been able to consent. Infants or those in nursing homes are killed under the guise that it is best for them and inhumane to allow suffering. Some people have no one to speak for them in these hospital or nursing home situations. Others may accept the medication to end their lives so as not be a burden upon their families.

I can explain why Catholics are opposed to suicide and euthanasia through the listings of the Catechisms explanations on suicide and euthanasia. I imagine it's the same for most conservative branches of Christianity like Anglicans.

Suicide

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Volutnary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminsh the responsiblity of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitues a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and the the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbdden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legallly entitled to the act for the patient, whose reasonable will and lgitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

Thank you for your clarifications. I too am concerned at the thought of unregulated outside-the-patient decision making. This is why advanced directives are so important. And I urge everyone to have them. Their lack was what made the Terri Schivo situation so awful.

One of the biggest problems is dealing with serious irreversible illnesses like Amyo Lateral Schlerosis (sp?), also known as Lou Gherigs Disease, or heredity ones like Huntingtons Chorea. I believe that the Oregon law only gives patients the option of requesting potentially lethal medication when the medical judgement is that only 6 months of life remain. Unfortunately, with the above diseases, or with some kinds of lethal cancer, the really bad phase of dying may take much longer than that.

Therefore I would suggest that any jurisdiction that wants to deal with the problem should have a well qualified panel of medical and ethical personal to review the wishes and medical outcome of a presented case. If the panel can determine that the wishes of the patient are clear, and the medical progression and outcome are clearly irreversible and fatal, then a set of conditions could be established and approved for final measures. This would rule out making decisions because of temporary depression, etc.

In the case of ALS, the conditions might be that when the patient has requested that when they are no longer able to eat and swallow, when they no longer have voluntary movement of their body parts, then a designated person could administer a strong painkiller.

In the case of HC, the patient might designate that when they are no longer in mental contact with the world and their loved ones, that the lethal dose be administered.

I realize that given the difference in our religious orientation you may not agree with all of this. But, my bottom line is that in all cases where choice is possible, I want it to be that of the patient, even if their natural dying might reasonably be expected to take more than 6 months.

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.