California is closer to allowing doctor assisted suicide.

brianlux

After California Assembly Health Committee could not be convinced to approve measure SB 128 (a.k.a variously referred to as "right to doctor assisted suicide" and "aid-to-dying") was withdrawn the bill was amended and renamed ABX2-15. I attended the hearing on that bill today at the State Capitol before the Assembly Health Committee and showed support for the bill. It passed in the Health Committee by a vote of 12 to 3 (the correct total, not "12 to 2" as the article linked below states). This was a major hurdle for this bill. The proceeding were charged and emotional but for the most part were relatively peaceful.

The other interesting event for me personally today was running in to activist, Congressman, author Tom Hayden in one of the Capitol elevators. I was thrilled to be able to shake his hand and once again (something similar happened to me in Mountain View in 1982 or 3), thank him for his work and tell him how much I love his excellent book, The Lost Gospel of the Earth. As I exited the elevator I told him, "You are an amazing man." He truly is!

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Aid-in-dying-bill-gets-new-life-6479341.php

dudeman

Is this good thing? I'm genuinely curious as I don't really have an opinion here.

brianlux

dudeman said:

Is this good thing? I'm genuinely curious as I don't really have an opinion here.

To be honest, I wasn't all that passionate about the issue but a friend and colleague has been so I went with her. When I heard her story (about her mother who suffered and a friend who died in great pain) and when I saw people who are literally at the end of their life (all in stage 4 cancer) bravely get up before the assembly and tell the representatives how import this is to have that choice at the end of their life, I was quite moved. It is a very conservative bill which carefully addresses any loopholes and includes many safeguards against abuse which makes it safe. Even if passed, this bill will not make it easy for people to utilize this end-of-life method. Such a decision will be very carefully looked at and monitored.

PJ_Soul

Canada has legalized this year, and there should be policies for it by next year. So glad!

PJ_Soul

dudeman said:

Is this good thing? I'm genuinely curious as I don't really have an opinion here.

Really? No opinion? I gather you have never lost anyone who died of a painful and slow terminal illness yet? ... Just wait. Once that happens, you will likely form an opinion pretty quick. (if you have gone through that and still have no opinion... well, I wouldn't know what to say about that).
Not that going through that awful experience is a prerequisite to have a strong opinion about doctor assisted suicide. I have actually NOT had that experience. However, my mother did, and just learning about what my mom went through with her mothers protracted death is more than enough for me to form a very strong opinion.... although that still isn't what made me decide that I support death with dignity. In the end, it's just my imagination that did that. All I have to do is imagine myself with a painful, drawn out, terminal illness, and I know what I want the law to be.

gimmesometruth27

i support this.

having seen people deteriorate, i believe that people should have the right to physician assisted suicide. i know that is what i would choose.

jeffbr

Me, too (both support it and would choose it). It is the ultimate right of self determination. I can't imagine how we wouldn't have the right to make that choice for ourselves. I get that religious people may be queasy about it, because apparently gods are supposed to decide our fate and we shouldn't play god. I get that people in government may have issues with it because they are supposed to be in charge of what we can and can't do. But removing any religious bias, and ignoring government types (whose opinions mean nothing to me), what would be the objection? And what would give the person objecting any sort of voice or authority over what should be a very personal decision?

PJ_Soul

I have no idea why the religious people (which I think actually includes those who oppose it in government) are worried about. They act as though they are going to be forced to kill themselves if they get sick, lol. .... Maybe they are worried that just living in a country with laws that they see contrary to God will damn them by proxy??

Last-12-Exit

I think it's a great thing. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was unjustly jailed for his assistance with his patients.

gimmesometruth27

jeffbr said:

Me, too (both support it and would choose it). It is the ultimate right of self determination. I can't imagine how we wouldn't have the right to make that choice for ourselves. I get that religious people may be queasy about it, because apparently gods are supposed to decide our fate and we shouldn't play god. I get that people in government may have issues with it because they are supposed to be in charge of what we can and can't do. But removing any religious bias, and ignoring government types (whose opinions mean nothing to me), what would be the objection? And what would give the person objecting any sort of voice or authority over what should be a very personal decision?

the objection is purely religious.

religions are in the business of saving souls. suicide is a mortal sin and you will go to hell. therefore, people are manipulated into living until their body stops on them, just accepting the long, slow, often painful decline.

they did not count on religion falling out of favor and less and less people believing in a benevolent god and even less believing in a hell.

as an atheist, i don't believe that there is a bad place for me to go once i am gone, therefore my decision on how my life ends has no negative consequence.

hedonist

My father believed in god and fully supported assisted suicide.

It's about humaneness, and freedom of choice with your body and life.

I mean, really...no one has a problem with people deciding to have their ears carved to look like Spock's, or their tongues forked. For aesthetic reasons.

Someone in pain or who knows the hurting and lack of dignity, among other things, that await them aren't allowed to end their own life legally with the same grace and (self)compassion we afford our beloved animals?

Will never get it.

oftenreading

gimmesometruth27 said:

jeffbr said:

Me, too (both support it and would choose it). It is the ultimate right of self determination. I can't imagine how we wouldn't have the right to make that choice for ourselves. I get that religious people may be queasy about it, because apparently gods are supposed to decide our fate and we shouldn't play god. I get that people in government may have issues with it because they are supposed to be in charge of what we can and can't do. But removing any religious bias, and ignoring government types (whose opinions mean nothing to me), what would be the objection? And what would give the person objecting any sort of voice or authority over what should be a very personal decision?

the objection is purely religious.

religions are in the business of saving souls. suicide is a mortal sin and you will go to hell. therefore, people are manipulated into living until their body stops on them, just accepting the long, slow, often painful decline.

they did not count on religion falling out of favor and less and less people believing in a benevolent god and even less believing in a hell.

as an atheist, i don't believe that there is a bad place for me to go once i am gone, therefore my decision on how my life ends has no negative consequence.

Although I'm not arguing against this, I would not agree that the only objections raised are "purely religious". Some raise objections based on concern that it will be used in situations that are not, in fact, a competent individual making a personal choice based on their own preference; situations such as incompetent people, those pressured into it by uncaring family, or those who in fact have a treatable mental illness but who haven't had appropriate treatment. These issues can and should be minimized by appropriate regulations but will likely not be reduced to zero.

Go Beavers

Here in Oregon, we voted for it and have had it for almost 18 years. I don't remember a lot of intense debate at the time, outside of some religious arguments. It's been in place rather quietly, maybe 70 to 80 people go through with the assisted suicide each year. You have to have a terminal diagnosis of 6 months or less. People find comfort in the option, and everyone I'm around respect the individual choice around it, rather than making it into some political issue.

The issue of end of life care will be an even bigger deal as us p jammers get old in the next 30 to 50 years, because medical technology will be able to keep us in a state of suspended life for much longer than maybe we'd prefer.

brianlux

It's really great to get home late and see support here. Thanks! I don't mean just support like "you're on my side", but I mean that I can tell all of your responses are well thought out and caring including some of the concerns mentioned.

oftenreading said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

jeffbr said:

Me, too (both support it and would choose it). It is the ultimate right of self determination. I can't imagine how we wouldn't have the right to make that choice for ourselves. I get that religious people may be queasy about it, because apparently gods are supposed to decide our fate and we shouldn't play god. I get that people in government may have issues with it because they are supposed to be in charge of what we can and can't do. But removing any religious bias, and ignoring government types (whose opinions mean nothing to me), what would be the objection? And what would give the person objecting any sort of voice or authority over what should be a very personal decision?

the objection is purely religious.

religions are in the business of saving souls. suicide is a mortal sin and you will go to hell. therefore, people are manipulated into living until their body stops on them, just accepting the long, slow, often painful decline.

they did not count on religion falling out of favor and less and less people believing in a benevolent god and even less believing in a hell.

as an atheist, i don't believe that there is a bad place for me to go once i am gone, therefore my decision on how my life ends has no negative consequence.

Although I'm not arguing against this, I would not agree that the only objections raised are "purely religious". Some raise objections based on concern that it will be used in situations that are not, in fact, a competent individual making a personal choice based on their own preference; situations such as incompetent people, those pressured into it by uncaring family, or those who in fact have a treatable mental illness but who haven't had appropriate treatment. These issues can and should be minimized by appropriate regulations but will likely not be reduced to zero.

Excellent points and valid concerns here, oftenreading. These very issues were the focus of much of the debate and I came away front he hearing with a strong sense that a very great amount of care has, is and will be concentrated on these issues in order to make this bill safe and well defined as well as compassionate. It's very refreshing to see some good concerted effort made by our law makers. It feels good to have been involved even if just in a small way and very educational.

Go Beavers said:

Here in Oregon, we voted for it and have had it for almost 18 years. I don't remember a lot of intense debate at the time, outside of some religious arguments. It's been in place rather quietly, maybe 70 to 80 people go through with the assisted suicide each year. You have to have a terminal diagnosis of 6 months or less. People find comfort in the option, and everyone I'm around respect the individual choice around it, rather than making it into some political issue.

The issue of end of life care will be an even bigger deal as us p jammers get old in the next 30 to 50 years, because medical technology will be able to keep us in a state of suspended life for much longer than maybe we'd prefer.

So true, Go Beavers. I worked with the woman I went with yesterday in the Human Services Dept at out local college. About 12 years ago, in one of her classes, she mentioned how important this issue would become for her and my generation (boomers) and those to follow.

I'm told the California bill is modeled very much on the Oregon bill which has gone fairly well. One of the state representatives mentioned that there have been no law suits filed over any doctor assisted deaths related to the Oregon law. Seems they have done it right. I think we will as well.

tempo_n_groove

Go Beavers said:

Here in Oregon, we voted for it and have had it for almost 18 years. I don't remember a lot of intense debate at the time, outside of some religious arguments. It's been in place rather quietly, maybe 70 to 80 people go through with the assisted suicide each year. You have to have a terminal diagnosis of 6 months or less. People find comfort in the option, and everyone I'm around respect the individual choice around it, rather than making it into some political issue.

The issue of end of life care will be an even bigger deal as us p jammers get old in the next 30 to 50 years, because medical technology will be able to keep us in a state of suspended life for much longer than maybe we'd prefer.

Oregon doesn't have much trouble with anything progressive or liberal does it?

You always have a choice to take your own life whether it's a law or not, so why is it a big deal to have it passed? I never understood that. Buy some morphine or suck on a tailpipe...

PJ_Soul

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

Here in Oregon, we voted for it and have had it for almost 18 years. I don't remember a lot of intense debate at the time, outside of some religious arguments. It's been in place rather quietly, maybe 70 to 80 people go through with the assisted suicide each year. You have to have a terminal diagnosis of 6 months or less. People find comfort in the option, and everyone I'm around respect the individual choice around it, rather than making it into some political issue.

The issue of end of life care will be an even bigger deal as us p jammers get old in the next 30 to 50 years, because medical technology will be able to keep us in a state of suspended life for much longer than maybe we'd prefer.

Oregon doesn't have much trouble with anything progressive or liberal does it?

You always have a choice to take your own life whether it's a law or not, so why is it a big deal to have it passed? I never understood that. Buy some morphine or suck on a tailpipe...

Because one is painless and comforting and allows family to be with you, and the other is horrible and messy and completely traumatic for the families. Trying to OD can either lead to death, or a horrible overdose scenario.
Or to put it another way, it's the difference between taking your dying dog to the vet to have it put peacefully to sleep, maybe with your kids so they can say goodbye, and taking your dying dog behind the barn and shooting its head off.

hedonist

Great, now I have flashbacks to the first (and only) time I watched Old Yeller.

Very well said, though!

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

Here in Oregon, we voted for it and have had it for almost 18 years. I don't remember a lot of intense debate at the time, outside of some religious arguments. It's been in place rather quietly, maybe 70 to 80 people go through with the assisted suicide each year. You have to have a terminal diagnosis of 6 months or less. People find comfort in the option, and everyone I'm around respect the individual choice around it, rather than making it into some political issue.

The issue of end of life care will be an even bigger deal as us p jammers get old in the next 30 to 50 years, because medical technology will be able to keep us in a state of suspended life for much longer than maybe we'd prefer.

Oregon doesn't have much trouble with anything progressive or liberal does it?

You always have a choice to take your own life whether it's a law or not, so why is it a big deal to have it passed? I never understood that. Buy some morphine or suck on a tailpipe...

This is NOT a partisan or "liberal/conservative" issue. You might look at how disparaging your remarks sound when considering how carefully, compassionately and respectfully this issue has been dealt with on both sides. Out of about 200 people attending the Assembly issue in Sacramento only one person ON EITHER SIDE spoke out in such a crass manner.

PJ_Soul

I'd just be curious to know if Tempo would tell his mom or dad, or brother or sister, or child, if they were dying of a terrible terminal illness and wanted to end their suffering and hoped for the least traumatic way to handle that, to "suck on a tailpipe" or to "go buy some morphine".

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

I'd just curious to know if Tempo would tell his mom or dad, or brother or sister, or child, if they were dying of a terrible terminal illness and wanted to end their suffering and hoped for the least traumatic way to handle that, to "suck on a tailpipe" or to "go buy some morphine".

Good question!

Also, Tempo, regarding the idea that this is a liberal issue- the main witness before the Assembly who was earnestly beseeching this board to pass the bill was a woman who stated that she is a Republican and Christian who served as a cop on the LAPD for several years. She is in stage 4 cancer and very obviously not long on this earth. She said, "I watched my mother suffer in her last days from the exact same cancer I have and now my daughter is watching the same thing happen to me". Please, let's leave the unnecessary partisan remarks out of this. Thanks.

Go Beavers

Too add, it also provides a sense of peace for people who are terminal. They'll get the prescription, and many never use it, but it provides some sense of control of their being when they have lost nearly all control of their fate to the disease.

tempo_n_groove

Dear lord people relax. Nothing Partisan in what I said. The question was simply put "Oregon doesn't have much trouble with anything progressive or liberal does it?"

This is the state that has amazing bike lanes and Portlandia, no?

I also see where my comments were a little obtuse. Sorry. Didn't come off right and I get why it is important. I don't understood why it's illegal to do this.

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

Dear lord people relax. Nothing Partisan in what I said. The question was simply put "Oregon doesn't have much trouble with anything progressive or liberal does it?"

This is the state that has amazing bike lanes and Portlandia, no?

I also see where my comments were a little obtuse. Sorry. Didn't come off right and I get why it is important. I don't understood why it's illegal to do this.

Sorry for misunderstanding! It's really not a liberal issue- like I said, one of the witnesses at the commission meeting was a Republican and also one of the Assembly members who showed support is a conservative Republican. In any case, I'm glad you apparently support the issue.

Now bike lanes- creating those is a leftist socialist commie pinko anti-industrial idea. Only radical left wing nut cases would support something so archaic!

tempo_n_groove

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Dear lord people relax. Nothing Partisan in what I said. The question was simply put "Oregon doesn't have much trouble with anything progressive or liberal does it?"

This is the state that has amazing bike lanes and Portlandia, no?

I also see where my comments were a little obtuse. Sorry. Didn't come off right and I get why it is important. I don't understood why it's illegal to do this.

Sorry for misunderstanding! It's really not a liberal issue- like I said, one of the witnesses at the commission meeting was a Republican and also one of the Assembly members who showed support is a conservative Republican. In any case, I'm glad you apparently support the issue.

Now bike lanes- creating those is a leftist socialist commie pinko anti-industrial idea. Only radical left wing nut cases would support something so archaic!

Off topic I know but I wish they could have some in NY. They have them in the city sure but who wants to get hit by a taxi...

On topic, how many states list euthanizing as illegal? Is that the right word even?

PJ_Soul

tempo_n_groove said:

I also see where my comments were a little obtuse. Sorry. Didn't come off right and I get why it is important. I don't understood why it's illegal to do this.

JUST A GIRL

If someone wants to die, let them die. It's their life to do with as they choose

I know I was born and I know that I'll die...

"The inbetween is mine"

josevolution

Put me down for support , i'm sure a lot of the objections also come from the Medical front and insurance companies ....

tempo_n_groove

josevolution said:

Put me down for support , i'm sure a lot of the objections also come from the Medical front and insurance companies ....

Why? Because they aren't making money off them anymore?

josevolution

tempo_n_groove said:

josevolution said:

Put me down for support , i'm sure a lot of the objections also come from the Medical front and insurance companies ....

Why? Because they aren't making money off them anymore?

bingo ....

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Dear lord people relax. Nothing Partisan in what I said. The question was simply put "Oregon doesn't have much trouble with anything progressive or liberal does it?"

This is the state that has amazing bike lanes and Portlandia, no?

I also see where my comments were a little obtuse. Sorry. Didn't come off right and I get why it is important. I don't understood why it's illegal to do this.

Sorry for misunderstanding! It's really not a liberal issue- like I said, one of the witnesses at the commission meeting was a Republican and also one of the Assembly members who showed support is a conservative Republican. In any case, I'm glad you apparently support the issue.

Now bike lanes- creating those is a leftist socialist commie pinko anti-industrial idea. Only radical left wing nut cases would support something so archaic!

Off topic I know but I wish they could have some in NY. They have them in the city sure but who wants to get hit by a taxi...

On topic, how many states list euthanizing as illegal? Is that the right word even?

Bummer about none of few bike lanes in NY. I don't know how those bike couriers survive in that town, great place though it is.

Yes, "euthanizing" is correct. It is illegal in 46 states (soon to be 45, I hope). Here's the breakdown:

http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132

brianlux

The End of Life Option Act was approved by the CA Assembly yesterday. Now it goes back to the CA Senate where it is very likely to be approved and then needs to either be signed by Governor Brown or have him just ignore it which is basically the same as him signing it (weird how that works).