The legality issue is one of Religion and Capitalism? We need separation of church and state and the end of corp welfare.
Proposed Death with Dignity Bill Creates Deep Division
by Taylor Reed, The Caledonian-Record, St. Johnsbury, VT, 1/13/2005
Supporters of a proposed Death with Dignity bill are holding their breath, hoping the House will vote on it this year.
Last year lawmakers passed over the proposal.
"In my hand basket, one of the choices I want is to be able to end (my life)," said Pat Burnham of Waterford.
Burnham is a passionate supporter and a drafter of the proposed bill. She thinks it will be resubmitted to the House next week.
Burnham is a director on the Dartmouth Hitchcock Alliance Board and a member and former chairwoman of the Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital Board of Trustees. Burnham has also written a book, "Life's Third Act: Taking Control of Your Mature Years," and teaches elder policy at the University of Vermont as an adjunct professor.
She has spent countless hours in the Statehouse lobbying for such senior citizen issues as rising prescription costs. Her focus, she said, has always been on improving health care. Burnham believes ending one's own life, in a terminal situation, is a right people should have in order to avoid unnecessary suffering.
"The question is, 'Don't I have a right to have this choice?'" Burnham said.
If a patient chooses to die under the proposed bill, he or she must go through a long process. The patient, Burnham said, must be sane and make the decision on his or her own.
Jim Newell, Vermont End of Life Choices treasurer, said patients approved for death would be given a drug to take on their own that would kill them.
Newell said patients can gather loved ones around them before taking the pill, and have some control over the process.
Newell adamantly objects to the term "physician-assisted suicide."
Burnham also objects to the term. She said physician-assisted suicide was a label created by the opposition.
"It is patient-controlled, physician-assisted death," Burnham said in response.
The term suicide, she contends, is a legal one and connotes somebody illegally taking their own life. Under the proposed bill, taking a death pill would not be illegal nor considered suicide for insurance purposes.
Aside from the shoving of religious values onto others, isn't this largely what the opposition is about? Money? Insurance? I own my body and should have the right to end my life when I choose. What is ethical or just about someone else imposing their values on MY life? As far as insurance... hell, we're all gonna die, just a matter of time. What gives the insurance companies the right to withhold the money I paid them for death benefits if I choose to end my mental/physical suffering before my body gives out? Are they more concerned about loosing a paying customer? Should there be a law to protect that?
Some in the local religious community strongly disagree with supporters of the bill.
"It's part of the continuing erosion of the value of life in our society," said the Rev. Joel Battaglia of Lyndon Bible Church.
I'd like to hear the good Rev's take on the "value" of the bazillion lives taken in the name of religion.
In Battaglia's mind, death with dignity is a nice way of saying committing suicide. He said murder is against the Ten Commandments and suicide is the murder of oneself.
That's not the issue. The issue is that this country is not supposed to be ruled by the 10 Commandments.
Associate Pastor Michael Murray of New Beginnings in St. Johnsbury said there is nothing dignified about suicide. Murray recently watched a sick parishioner die in agony and said that was real dignity - it was natural.
And, may he also die in gut-wrenching dignified agony as well. What's all the fuss? Where's the separation of church and state? No one will force Murray or anyone else to commit suicide. How will THEIR actions directly impact him? They won't. Control freaks. Was wiping out whole civilizations, raping and pillaging, "dignified"? Hell, it's not even "civilized". And what of the death penalty? "Dignified"? Their lives have no "value"? Correct, they aren't consumers.
Pastor Paul Essof of Newport lost his wife to liver and pancreatic cancer three years ago. The doctors, he said, could never control her pain.
Speaking for his wife, Essof said, she would have never killed herself to avoid the pain, even if it was legal. Essof feels the same way.
That's all well and good, and just as it should be. So, get about living your values and leave others alone. My how religious people love their pain and suffering paradigm. Sadistic. It's like they stopped growing socially/emotionally at 2 years of age.
Oregon is only state that allows terminal patients to end their lives.
State Sen. Julius Canns, R-Caledonia, said Oregon has been "plugging Vermont because it is the easiest state to turn on" regarding such issues.
"I'm not real enthused about it because the people aren't real enthused about it," Canns said of the proposed bill. He said the vast majority of constituents he has heard from are against it, as well as doctors with whom he has talked. Canns said he has not made a decision on the issue.
Sen. Jane Kitchel, D-Caledonia, is also undecided. She said the state does need to improve end-of-life care, but doesn't know if death with dignity is the proper means.
The State doesn't need to do anything except stay out of people's personal affairs. Stop forcing they personal values on all citizens.
"The opinions are very divided, even in the medical community," Kitchel said. Lawmakers, she said, may not have time to deal with the bill this session. Many state residents hope they do.
According to the Associated Press, a December Zogby International poll found that 78 percent of Vermonters support the legislation.
So, are Cann's constituents the religious right?
The poll was commissioned by two groups that back the bill - Death with Dignity Vermont and End of Life Choices.
Canns said to be wary of the figures due to who commissioned the poll.
Canns will work to defeat this bill to avoid feelings of grief/loss of control. Not very "dignified", Canns. Why are you trying to avoid suffering?
Burnham expects the proposal to at least be delayed while legislators deal with money issues, such as health care.
Newell said the bill has been heavily based on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which is seven years old. "In Oregon the major benefits have been the improvement of palliative, end of life care for terminal patients," Newell said. He said only about 150 people have ended their lives in Oregon under the act.
Burnham provided these major provisions for the proposed Vermont Death with Dignity Legislation:
? A written, witnessed request to the physician.
? Request must be voluntary with no evidence of coercion.
? Terminal diagnosis confirmed by two independent physicians.
? Evaluation of mental competency by a mental health professional if recommended by independent physician.
? A 15-day waiting period prior to receiving the requested prescription (for death).
? Revocable by the patient at any time.
? Medication (for death) must be prescribed by the doctor and self-administered by the patient.
? No criminal liability for a physician, family member or caring friend who is present.
? No effect on life insurance.
? Monitoring by the Vermont Department of Health and the Department of Developmental & Mental Health Services.
~~~
Typically, I think people (kids) have a hard time with a parent suiciding because there is no discussion and/or therapy following the event. The issue is taboo and stuffed in the closet, which leaves lots of room for the imagination to go wild. They need to be allowed to grieve (just as with any death/loss) and move on, rather than carrying it around. To talk with someone who is stable enough to help them put things in perspective. There's a reason we're equiped with tear ducts. Talking and crying are the way humans heal from grief and dispair. Hard to do in this religiously dominated culture which supports martyrdom and discourages discussion of taboo issues.
I don't think you should restrain a person who is hopeless unless you're pretty damn confident that you have the skill to genuinely help them regain their hope- desire to live. Short of that, how humane is it to dope them up or ECT them to the point of being a vegetable? What kind of life is that? Again, just saving others from experiencing grief.
And why, exactly, should a person who is in so much emotional/physical pain that they are ready to check out be manipulated to consider other's feelings? That is so selfish. "Live in utter misery, so I don't have to grieve a loss". Force another to suffer to avoid your own suffering. How "diginified" is that.
If they are to consider others feelings about thier planned death, perhaps they should arrange for it to appear to be an accident. Takes care of the insurance issue too. Accidents pay double. Just don't swerve into oncoming traffic like the young woman did, who left my ex-boss in a wheel chair. There are plenty other objects to slam your car into. No need to take out innocent bystanders.
