An end-of-life decision

Earlier this month, voters in Washington state approved Initiative 1000, also known as the Death with Dignity Act. The measure, placed on the ballot by public petition, allows terminally ill adult patients to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician when the patient is medically predicted to have six months or less to live. A similar law is on the books in neighboring Oregon.

I-1000 was spearheaded by former Washington Gov. Booth Gardner, who suffers from Parkinson's Disease but will not be affected by the new legislation because his ailment is not terminal. Voices from both sides of the debate were strong; in the final month before the election, actor Martin Sheen appeared in advertisements in which he personally urged voters to reject the initiative. (Apparently, we were supposed to follow his advice simply because he's a celebrity, not because he has any connection whatsoever to the state of Washington. But that's an entirely different blog post.) In the end, some 58 percent of voters said "yes."

I won't use this space to indicate how I voted or to advocate for either perspective. Frankly, I've never had to deal with an end-of-life decision such as the one this ballot measure sought to address, so I don't claim to be an expert. Furthermore, I heard compelling arguments from both sides. On one hand, there are factors associated with a terminal illness that, in some circumstances, create misery that renders an independent and dignified life impossible. If I reached a point at which I could no longer leave my bed, eat food, or perform bodily functions without assistance, I would probably see little value in carrying on — particularly if I knew that I had a mere six months to live anyway. And I'd likely be resentful of those who would presume to make decisions on my behalf when, in all likelihood, they have no experience with the agony I'm facing.

On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns associated with such a proposition. What if profit-hungry health insurance companies target terminally ill patients, rejecting their treatment claims on the premise that it would be cheaper to simply facilitate the inevitable and end it all? What if these patients make a rash decision because they are clinically depressed? What about incorrect diagnoses? (For purposes of clarification, this initiative does require that the patient make two requests — one verbal and one written — with a 15-day waiting period between the two and another 48-hour waiting period before issuance of the prescription. It also requires the diagnosis and verification of two independent physicians.)

With the "live-and-let-live" culture prevalent in this part of the country (or, perhaps in this case, "live-and-let-die"), the success of this ballot measure isn't surprising. It does, however, raise some serious questions that merit discussion about end-of-life choices, regardless of where you stand on the issue.

For some reason, I suddenly have Paul McCartney & Wings running through my mind.