Over the years, I have not found too many reasons to agree with Booth Gardner, but this year he is pitching Initiative 1000 that would allow terminally ill individuals the option to take their own lives and I think under certain circumstances, people should have that choice.
This issue is like the dilemma of “Pro Choice” or “Pro Life” in the abortion debate. Religious beliefs should not be the basis upon which the law is written. Individuals should have the right to make these deeply personal decisions without interference from people with different beliefs. This issue is not about making you do anything; it is about allowing you to choose.
State law should be written with language that protects individuals who are not capable of making decisions for themselves. The potential for abuse is addressed in the text of the initiative.
The thought that a person could end their own life at a time of their choosing is foreign to many religious people. If you have those deep religious beliefs, this program is not one you would participate in.
If your personal beliefs do not prevent you from considering this course and you have a painful chronic terminal illness, all you want is relief from the physical pain for you and the emotional pain of your family as they watch you in agony. Pulling the plug early succeeds in ending the pain for both parties.
There is something to be said for that.
This initiative is not advocating that medical professionals decide when it is time for terminally ill people to die; it is advocating that individuals proactively express the desire to terminate their own life a couple of times over a period of time. If individuals with a progressive terminal illness can express their desires to recognized authorities, they should be given that option.
Whenever people make the decision to interfere with nature, there is a public outcry. I am not suggesting that I would choose this path for me, but I would appreciate having the right to make the choice.
Life is a hard enough struggle. We shouldn’t make dying tougher than it needs to be.
Posted on October 16, 2008 at 6:23 am in Political commentary | RSS feed
|
Reply |
Trackback URL
No Loss for Words
YES on I-1000
by Steve DanaOver the years, I have not found too many reasons to agree with Booth Gardner, but this year he is pitching Initiative 1000 that would allow terminally ill individuals the option to take their own lives and I think under certain circumstances, people should have that choice.
This issue is like the dilemma of “Pro Choice” or “Pro Life” in the abortion debate. Religious beliefs should not be the basis upon which the law is written. Individuals should have the right to make these deeply personal decisions without interference from people with different beliefs. This issue is not about making you do anything; it is about allowing you to choose.
State law should be written with language that protects individuals who are not capable of making decisions for themselves. The potential for abuse is addressed in the text of the initiative.
The thought that a person could end their own life at a time of their choosing is foreign to many religious people. If you have those deep religious beliefs, this program is not one you would participate in.
If your personal beliefs do not prevent you from considering this course and you have a painful chronic terminal illness, all you want is relief from the physical pain for you and the emotional pain of your family as they watch you in agony. Pulling the plug early succeeds in ending the pain for both parties.
There is something to be said for that.
This initiative is not advocating that medical professionals decide when it is time for terminally ill people to die; it is advocating that individuals proactively express the desire to terminate their own life a couple of times over a period of time. If individuals with a progressive terminal illness can express their desires to recognized authorities, they should be given that option.
Whenever people make the decision to interfere with nature, there is a public outcry. I am not suggesting that I would choose this path for me, but I would appreciate having the right to make the choice.
Life is a hard enough struggle. We shouldn’t make dying tougher than it needs to be.
Rate this:
Share this:
Related
Posted on October 16, 2008 at 6:23 am in Political commentary | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL
2 Comments to “YES on I-1000”
October 16, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Excellent points. I’m still researching I-1000, but so far I’ve pretty much made up my mind after seeing the deceptive and outright lies that the opposition has put out with their celebrity infomercials. Particularly, I see things quite similarly to your abortion parallel. Sure, prior to that is the matter of framing; the framing of the issue as a matter of choice or a matter of, i don’t know, some misguided idea of state oppression, but even in that case one is forced to acknowledge a prior condition of free choice that must then manifest itself in our laws as a condition of our individual existence. So, what’s at issue is a matter of personal freedom and choice. Abortion is somewhat different because in that case you’re talking about an issue with three or more parties contending for rights: a woman, a fetus, and the “state” (or some other authority), and in the case of a fetus you’re also dealing with the rights of a person (a fetus) who cannot act or speak on behalf of those rights. And of course, it all depends on where one is on the issue and where one subsequently chooses to draw those lines, giving more weight to the right of one party or another. But with euthanasia, the issue is much different because there are only two parties whose rights are at stake, the right of the community to determine influence matters of death (or the state to dictate “morality”) and the right of an individual to choose death as a last option. Since the person whose life is at issue is able to communicate on behalf of their rights, this gives them a much clearer liberty to determine for themselves whether or not they want to live or die. Sure, people will cite extraneous and inadmissible scenarios of people in comas being put to death, but the wording of i-1000 makes it clear that those kinds of claims are false, and that those scenarios would be accommodated for. Personally, I find it incredible that the people opposed to i-1000 are just using it as some moral crusade, on behalf of the same party of people who are likely to also support the death penalty (an outright demonstration of the state to murder people, which is exactly what their ads refute). It’s ridiculous.
October 17, 2008 at 4:14 am
After talking to my spouse, I need to research this further before voting, although I agree with everything you’ve mentioned. My spouse’s comments went along the lines of “what if an insurance company receives notice that you have a particular illness, and the drugs to kill yourself are cheaper than the drugs to keep you alive, so that’s what they’ll pay for.” Yes, that sounds paranoid and that is why I need to read up on it further. From the way you’ve described it, I would hope the insurance companies have nothing to do with the matter.