Mr. Bill W.
You say: "Prop 106 may be flawed. It is, after all, a "Proposition," most of which are flawed in some form." Yeah, but if this is voted in, it becomes THE law affected all citizens of Colorado. If it is flawed, voters should reject it and send it back to the drawing board. NOT vote it into law. Especially since this bill involves matters of life and death of vulnerable people!
Mr. Bill W.
How would I be "offended by [your] support" for prop 106? That doesn't make any sense. I pointed out that someone can critique the details of the law and be opposed to assisted suicide in all cases. How can you dispute that? It's like being against a war but still pointing out that too much money is being spent on the costs of it.
Great balanced story Stanley. Whatever you think of these amendments you show the distorting effects of money on the campaigns. Thank you
And please accept my sincere sympathy and condolences for your loss as well. My wife had 18 months as well after her recurrence. They told her when the cancer came back that, statistically, she had 12-18 months. They were right...unfortunately. But she hung on as long as she could.
I loss my wife too to hep c she contracted from a transfusion after child birth in 1983. I was her care givers 24/7 for her last 18 months. Please accept my condolences for you loss.
"The source of this article is coendoflifeoptions."
That would make it the source of this discussion, as reprinted in a weekly newspaper. It's still not a source I have personally sought out or endorsed.
Thanks for your expression of sympathy regarding my source. Very gracious.
The source of this article is coendoflifeoptions.
"Your source has done you a disservice. The promoters of assisted suicide have worn out their thesaurus attempting to imply that it is legal in Montana."
I think you have assumed facts not in evidence. My source is not "promoters of assisted suicide." I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never researched the subject nor contacted a "promoter of assisted suicide" by phone, in person, by email, on the internet or in any other manner. Never. None. Nada.
My "source" is my late wife who died a freaking awful death of metastatic breast cancer. It came back to her five years after she finished treatment. It attacked her brain and spinal cord. I won't bore you with the gory details, but I will say this: I speak for myself, and I speak from the heart.
Perhaps you've also had a loved one die in your arms after extended agony. Perhaps not. But it is an unforgettable life experience to me.
There were no options at the time in Colorado for assisted suicide. I don't know if she would have used them if there were options. But the degree of suffering she endured at the end of her life was unspeakable.
I have no idea what the law is in Montana. Nor do I much care. I live in Colorado. It's on our ballot in November. And while I'm not an activist and won't lobby or work for passage of Proposition 106, I will probably vote for it.
I have seen unimaginable end of life suffering wreak havoc on someone I loved dearly. She told me that she didn't want to suffer any more, but there was nothing we could do about it.
I get your point. Life is precious. I agree. But we all die, and, in my view, we should all have choices that respect our beliefs at the end.
You stated that "we can all agree that Proposition 106 does not deliver." Please do not assume that your view is universal. I still don't agree with your statement.
Bill W, the difference between having a witness to "self administration" and no witness is that one honors individual rights and the other is non voluntary euthanasia. A promoter was once asked "why don't you just legalize euthanasia?" He said "the public is not ready to accept euthanasia."
Your source has done you a disservice. The promoters of assisted suicide have worn out their thesaurus attempting to imply that it is legal in Montana. Assisted suicide is a homicide in Montana. Our MT Supreme Court did ruled that if a doctor is charged with a homicide they might have a potential defense based on consent. The MT Supreme Court acknowledged it is a homicide in the ruling.
The Court did not address civil liabilities and they vacated the lower court’s claim that it was a constitutional right. Unlike Oregon no one in Montana has immunity from civil or criminal prosecution and investigations are not prohibited like Oregon. Does that sound legal to you?
Perhaps the promoters are frustrated that even though they were the largest lobbying spender in Montana their Oregon model legalizing assisted suicide bills have been rejected in Montana in 2011, 2013 and 2015.
Your source has done the public a disservice. Their ordinary bait and switch campaign is demonstrated by their selling "must self-administer" then they do not provide in their legislation for an ordinary witness of the "self-administration". This omission eviscerates the flaunted safeguards putting the entire population at risk of exploitation by the medical-industrial-complex, organ traffickers and predatory heirs.
Mtaas dot org
PS: Note much abuse has been documented in the Oregon assisted suicide system.
See the federal case of Thomas Middleton who was killed with the Oregon law for his assets according to the feds.
There are more details at http://dredf dot org/public-policy/assisted-suicide/some-oregon-assisted-suicide-abuses-and-complications/
Opposition to euthanasia comes from 95% of the entire spectrum of humanity once they learn how these laws can easily be administered wrongly against the individual. It is as simple as that.
The promoters have done the public a disservice. Their ordinary bait and switch campaign is demonstrated by their selling "must self-administer" then they do not provide in their legislation for an ordinary witness of the "self-administration". This omission eviscerates the flaunted safeguards putting the entire population at risk of exploitation.
Prop 106 is modeled after Oregon and is defined as an Oregon model bill.
For the one person who's pain can't be treated adequately, there are hundreds who fall into the category described by Ben Mattlin in his "Miracle Boy Grows Up: How the Disability Rights Revolution Saved My Sanity." He states: "The subtle pressures to go along - to avoid costly treatments - can easily lead to acquiescence, especially if the patient is confused. Believe me, we may say anything under the influence of pain or morphine or in the isolation of an ICU."
I wish the people pushing to give doctors the legal right to intentionally kill another person would listen to the voices of people who are disabled and who would be the first to be encouraged to "end it all."
In every state they push their agenda, Compassion and Choices (formerly called the Hemlock Society) tries to get the most extreme case of someone in pain and suffering. Unfortunately, laws do not only apply to a few cases, they apply to everyone.
Cathy Ludlum, who has a neuromuscular disease that took away her ability to move, has said: “No matter how many safeguards go into the bill [she was speaking of Connecticut's bill which was basically the same as Colorado's] , we [people with disabilities] are going to be the collateral damage.” . . .
If Mr. Williams expects to post his position and not be criticized for it, he is naive. The same goes for you. He put his thoughts out there. I responded. Politely. No name calling. No insults. No implication that he should not express his beliefs.
You, on the other hand, would have no one, myself included, criticize his position. This is not a forum for just one side of the issue. Mr. Williams stated his beliefs. I stated mine.
Prop 106 may be flawed. It is, after all, a "Proposition," most of which are flawed in some form. However, Mr. Williams arguments are also flawed. I'd appreciate it if you'd be as generous with my right to speak my mind as you are with Mr. Williams' right to do the same.
As a reminder, I advised all who haven't already done so to consider completing a medical directive. If one so desires, that medical directive can EXCLUDE any physician assisted suicide, no matter what the law says. There's room enough in this discussion for both sides, and I respectfully addressed the side supporting Proposition 106.
I'm sorry you're offended by my support for it, but you can't deny me the right to express it.
Mr. Bill W:
You are criticizing Mr. Williams because he is against assisted suicide in all cases and he is finding fault with the details of the proposed Colorado law? Proposition 106 has great far-reaching flaws which need to be pointed out. Whether someone pointing them out is for or against assisted suicide in general is entirely irrelevant.
A brief review of your organization's website, www.mtaas.org, begs the question whether there is any (and I highly doubt there is) death with dignity legislation that would be acceptable to you. That greatly diminishes the nits you pick about the Colorado legislation.
You would have the death certificate list the cause of death as "poison." Your word. Presumably, you would require that description so as to punish he or she who "poisoned" the patient. That's absurd; the patient administers it, and the patient is gone. There is no one to prosecute even if your term "poison" is used.
You would require a "witness" to the delivery of the drug(s). Why? Not only is that macabre, but there seems to be no legitimate purpose for the requirement, unless traumatizing the surviving family and friends is legitimate in your view.
"I encourage people to read the Oregon model bill before taking a, or expounding on their position. We will agree no matter our starting position that this Prop 106 does not deliver.
This bill is not the one."
It appears that you are endorsing the Oregon model rather than Proposition 106. In fact, you find neither acceptable. You should just say so instead of sending your readers on a wild goose chase to find a law for which you failed to provide a link and do not support.
Finally, "we will agree no matter our starting position that this Prop 106 does not deliver."
Wrong. It does deliver. We have no such agreement.
The Colorado promoters of assisted suicide are guilty of false advertising. Their bills do not deliver as promised.
Colorado Prop 106 provides no ordinary witness to the “self-administration of poison”.
Even as the promoters have inundated us with their claim that the lethal dose “must be self-administered” and mentioned it 9 times in their 11 page Prop 106 they do not provide an ordinary witness to the act. That omission effectively eviscerates all of the so called safeguards. The process seems to be full of requirements on the front end up until the script is written. Then an heir can pick up the script and administer it without oversight. Know that only 2% of the doctors have attended these events in other states.
Even the front end “requirements” have fatal flaws. A predatory heir may be a witness to the initial request along with a staff member of the facility. Does that sound like good public policy?
The rest of the family is not required to be contacted. And everyone involved gets instant immunity. The death certificate is falsified by this law which makes it impossible to prosecute a murder when the death certificate states the underlying illness is the cause of death. There really is no transparent reason not to post poison as the cause.
This bill Final #145 Article 48 provides that a predatory heir can facilitate the signup process, murder the individual and receive immunity all before the rest of the family is notified. This is neither reasonable nor prudent public policy. This is dangerous public policy that puts the entire population (all ages) at risk of exploitation by the medical-industrial-complex, organ traffickers and predatory heirs.
I encourage people to read the Oregon model bill before taking a, or expounding on their position. We will agree no matter our starting position that this Prop 106 does not deliver.
This bill is not the one.
MTaas dot org
This all goes back to the inability to raise sufficient revenue, thanks to TABOR. Cities revert to those nasty little faux taxes called fines and fees. They don't have to ask anyone in the general public, they just do it by edict. Same as a tax, same green money, but even less say by the public. Just like having to replace shocks, wheels and tires just for driving on miserably maintained roads due to lack of funding...
No to 71 so we can mount some kind of effort to get TABOR tossed. If that effort has to be mounted in every State Senate district it will be much harder to accomplish. All voters will still get to vote on the issue, it could be retained, but at least it can make it to the ballot!
The reality is that each and every one of us has the right to end our lives at any time we deem appropriate. The number of arrests and convictions for attempted and/or successful suicides stands at zero.
For those who have never had to witness a loved one suffering a lingering and painful death, this is a theoretical question. For the rest of us, it's all too real.
There is no question that we treat our pets with more dignity and compassion than we treat the terminally ill. Proposition 106 will change that and give terminally ill patients compassionate options to end their suffering.
Those who would dictate that we all live out our natural lives in pain may want to consider their own inevitable deaths. You might see options to end your own suffering as a welcome solution to medical problems that will never get better but will certainly get worse.
It's worth thinking about. And if you haven't done so, it's a good time to prepare medical directives for your caregivers and medical personnel. We will all die. You can choose how you want to be treated when it's your turn.
I highly recommend that anyone who doesn't have medical directives in place visit the "Five Wishes" website (www.agingwithdignity.org) for a low cost, legally binding document. Don't want until it's too late.
The bill states: "The attending and consulting physician must refer the individual to a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist if either one believes the individual may not be mentally capable"
Sounds foolproof, right? Has the words "must refer" --- but then it says "if either one believes"
As in Oregon, where 1000 people have been given suicide death pills, it's up to the doctors to decide if a mental health evaluation is needed. While most people receiving a terminal diagnosis probably have some level of depression, only about 5% of the 1000 people killed in assisted suicides in Oregon were referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist. Only 5%. Is there any reason to think it will be different in Colorado?
The best response to this type of overstep by downtown businesses is to shop elsewhere.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation