New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | March 2, 2005

Julian Sanchez gives the Oscar to Oregon's assisted suicide law.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← New at Reason | Main | Backdraft →

See all 43 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|3.2.05 @ 12:23PM|#

People who believe in assisted-suicide hate America, or at least that's what Limbaugh(among others) would have us believe.

Why should a person be forced to continue living if they don't want to? Especially when they're in horrible pain? How is it government's role to enforce one person's religous viewpoint over anothers?

The people who are most vehemently opposed to assited suicides, death with dignity, etc. regularly use comparisons to Goebbels' progandizing the German populace into believing that state executions of the disabled would be in their best interests. Such a comparison conveniently ignores that the disabled in Nazi Germany were executed regardless of what they wanted. That is not the case in Oregon and they know it. If anything the comparison is better applied to their outlook that the state should ensure that these people suffer as long as possible to sate their consciences.

|3.2.05 @ 12:31PM|#

Why don't you just rename this blog to Spoiler Hit and Run?

|3.2.05 @ 12:34PM|#

Hey smacky, at the end of Star Wars Ep3, Anakin will become Darth Vader. He's also Luke's father.

|3.2.05 @ 12:36PM|#

it's hard to come up with an answer for this which isn't steeped in vitrol.

|3.2.05 @ 12:46PM|#

This is a very tricky subject, and one on which I haven't reached a full conclusion. On the one hand, the terminally ill who are in great pain or are being kept artificially alive should absolutely have the right to say "enough". On the other hand, regardless of legislation, full scale acceptance of euthanasia could have some profound consequences.

For instance my grandmother, currently in her late 80's and showing early signs of Alzheimers as well as greatly decreased mobility, but otherwise in decent health and still able to have joyous moments completely feels that she is a great burden to the rest of her family. This is a common feeling among people like her. However, whatever extra responsibility we have to take on to care for her is miniscule compared to the many great moments that we can still share together. I have little doubt that if completely acceptable (her own upbrining would get in the way, I suspect, but such values will change with time) she would choose to terminate her own life, not to end her own suffering, but to spare her family a burden that she greatly overestimates.

There are good reasons why we have taboos against suicide, and although such things do change over a long period of time, proponents of euthanasia must attempt to recognize that this is an issue which will have unintended consequences and must be dealt with delicately.

Larry A|3.2.05 @ 12:57PM|#

Stretch: [There are good reasons why we have taboos against suicide, and although such things do change over a long period of time, proponents of euthanasia must attempt to recognize that this is an issue which will have unintended consequences and must be dealt with delicately.]

Except if the Feds impose a no-way-no-how policy no one even gets a chance to try to deal with the consequences, delicately or otherwise.

|3.2.05 @ 12:58PM|#

My own grandmother succumbed to Alzheimer's. Watching her detoriate was probably the worst thing I've ever seen.

I agree with you that it is a touchy issue, and not to be applied to otherwise healthy people who are having a bad day. I think the loved ones of the person who intends this path should try to discourage them if that's what they beleive, but that ulimately it should come down to the individual's choice.

Warren|3.2.05 @ 1:15PM|#

David,
I'm with smacky on this one. I think it's reprehensible to reveal significant plot twists until the movie has been out on video for at least one month.

|3.2.05 @ 1:35PM|#

Oh my God ... I'm home.

You blew it up! God damn you! God damn you all to hellll!

Well, at least I still have plenty of this yummy Soylent Green.

Gimme Back My Dog|3.2.05 @ 1:43PM|#

The chick in The Crying Game is really a dude. Rosebud is a sled. Bruce Willis is a ghost. James Cromwell turns out to be the bad guy in nearly every movie he is in.

|3.2.05 @ 1:44PM|#

I think it's reprehensible to reveal significant plot twists until the movie has been out on video for at least one month.

Section 408(2)Q of the plot revelation code allows for this expiration to be put on "fast track" when it gets in the way of making a Jesus joke.

Besides. Plot information wants to be free.

|3.2.05 @ 1:44PM|#

Charleton,

Please! I'm trying to work here. Take your cannibalism elsewhere.

|3.2.05 @ 1:47PM|#

By the way, remind me not to let any of you guys know that I just spent spent $100 on the special edition of The Joys of O. Henry: Complete Collected Works so that I can finally read this classic American writer for the very first time.

First up: "The Gift of the Magi"! I can't wait to find out what this is about!

|3.2.05 @ 1:51PM|#

Charleton, Please! I'm trying to work here. Take your cannibalism elsewhere

(Looks up from plate with puzzled expression, blinks, says with mouth full...)

Mf? Whaffoo talkin bout?

|3.2.05 @ 1:53PM|#

Yet more spoilers:

Bruce Willis is a ghost.

Samuel L. Jackson is a villain.

Aliens are seriously allergic to water.

It's the present day, not the 19th Century.

Extra Special Bonus spoiler:

Roy Scheider kills the shark.

|3.2.05 @ 2:16PM|#

It's the present day, not the 19th Century.

Hey, I don't think I've seen that one. Which movie is that?

I know the others:

"Bruce Willis is a ghost." Hudson Hawk. (But eventually, his career recovered somewhat.)

"Samuel L. Jackson is a villain." Hollywood Salutes Nicolas Cage: An American Cinematheque Tribute (2002) (Not that it was that big a surprise. I mean, anyone who would host a tribute to Nicolas Cage...!)

"Aliens are seriously allergic to water." Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock (at the Bottom of the Pool)

"Roy Scheider kills the shark." Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigolo, when he breaks the rich guy's aquarium. No, wait, dammit -- that was Rob Schneider; I always mix those two up. I meant SeaQuest DSV.

|3.2.05 @ 2:21PM|#

Seriously, SR, I haven't seen some of those movies. Don't Spoil it For Me! I reserve my right to be as out-of-touch with current movies as I want to be.

I think it's reprehensible to reveal significant plot twists until the movie has been out on video for at least one month.

Out on video for at least one month? Too lenient, my friend. There ought to be a law banning spoilers for anything that's pre-talkie, IMHO. (I have a lot of catching up to do.)

|3.2.05 @ 2:22PM|#

I meant to say, "banning spoilers for anything that's POST-talkie", meaning after sound was added to films.

|3.2.05 @ 2:22PM|#

This seems like a good thread to share the breathtaking logical flaw contained in this Letter to the Editor from Monday's NY Daily News:

Your Feb. 25 editorial "Let us pray" is yellow journalism. Suggesting that everyone prays "no matter what our faith" is a lie. New Yorkers don't all pray, and we don't all admire the Pope. If you think he "served humankind long and well" then you probably never needed an abortion, a stem cell or to die with dignity.

|3.2.05 @ 2:26PM|#

...so where's the logical flaw in that?

|3.2.05 @ 2:52PM|#

Not having read the editorial in question, I would say the logical flaw is saying "I don't follow the Pope" as a response to "everyone prays, no matter what their faith."
Also conflating an editorial with yellow journalism.
Did I get it right?

Stormy Dragon|3.2.05 @ 3:58PM|#

I don't have a problem with assisted suicide in and of itself, but I'm concerned with how frequently it slips from "You have the right to end your life if You don't consider it worth living" to "The Government has the right to end your life if It doesn't consider it worth living."

|3.2.05 @ 4:18PM|#

This is a tricky one. If someone wants to die,(Million Dollar Baby) then so be it. But have to be careful about laws. Don't want to end up like Soylent Green. Terminally ill people with zero quality of life should be allowed to go in peace.

|3.2.05 @ 4:45PM|#

My only problem with Oregon's law is that it "safeguards" against "impulsive suicides." If Juan Alvarez had had a place to go get himself painlessly snuffed, he might not have driven his SUV in front of a train and killed 11 people who didn't want to die.

People who oppose assisted suicide because it might lead to forced euthenasia annoy me. The distinction between choosing death for oneself and choosing it for someone else is not difficult to make.

|3.2.05 @ 4:53PM|#

If Juan Alvarez had had a place to go get himself painlessly snuffed, he might not have driven his SUV in front of a train and killed 11 people who didn't want to die.

As an aside, when I heard about that, I was so pissed off. What a completely thoughtless idiot.
Not to be heartless, but couldn't he think of a better, less intrusive way of snuffing himself?!

|3.2.05 @ 4:56PM|#

Oh wait, he was driving an SUV....he's used to being a road hog. That explains it.

|3.2.05 @ 5:20PM|#

Well put, Rex!

Smacky sorry about the Star Wars spoilers. They're just speculation anyway.

|3.2.05 @ 5:55PM|#

People who oppose assisted suicide because it might lead to forced euthenasia annoy me. The distinction between choosing death for oneself and choosing it for someone else is not difficult to make.

Yes ... as easy to make as the distinction between:

1) Equal civil rights (striking down arbitary race-based barriers that prevent individuals from making certain choices)

and

2) Mandated affirmative action (forcing people to hire, admit, promote, etc., a certain proportion of individuals of a designated race).

Nope, nobody -- certainly nobody in government -- is gonna blur that clear distinction, nosireebob. :)

|3.2.05 @ 5:57PM|#

And by the way, I do think suicide should be legal, but I do worry about "the right to die" morphing into "the duty to die."

Stormy Dragon|3.2.05 @ 6:10PM|#

>People who oppose assisted suicide because it
>might lead to forced euthenasia annoy me. The
>distinction between choosing death for oneself
>and choosing it for someone else is not
>difficult to make.

The question isn't how difficult it is to make the distinction, it's whether the political system, being what it is, WILL make the distinction.

In the perfect libertarian society, yes the issue is a no brainer. But we don't live in that society.

There are already people using 'social cost' arguments to justify intrusions into every aspect of our lives, from gun ownership to the food we eat. There already people using 'social costs' arguments to jusitfy beurcrats deciding when patients should be refused access to further treatment.

It seems incredibly naive to assume that, once assisted suicide becomes socially acceptable, these same people won't start using 'social cost' arguments to justify taking the choice on when life is worth living away from the individual patient and giving it to some government beuracracy.

Case in point: the recent reports on the Netherlands where doctors routinely euthanize babies because they consider them to "not have a future." Not only has the government not prosecuted these doctors, but they want to formalize the process so that it can be used more commonly. This would seem to be well beyond your "clear distinction," yet there's been no outcry.

I value my right to live far more than my right to die, so given how little respect this society has for individual choice anymore, I'm willing to give up the later rather than risk having to give up the former.

|3.2.05 @ 7:00PM|#

And by the way, I'm now halfway through reading "The Gift of the Magi" by O. Henry. Della just cut off and sold her beautiful long hair so she can buy a new fob chain for her husband's watch.

Of course, the question to be resolved at the end is, "Will Della's husband still like her looks without her long hair?" Don't anybody tell me! I'm revelling in the suspense! I've heard O. Henry is anything but predictable!

|3.2.05 @ 7:18PM|#

Terminally ill people with zero quality of life should be allowed to go in peace.

Only a fringe few would argue otherwise, that's not the real issue.

The issue is who gets to measure this "quality of life" and by what yardstick? It's tricky in cases of extreme dementia, but in general it's rather untricky.

I've worked at a hospice myself and it should be said (and often doesn't) that euthanasia is an extremely common occurance. If you were to record the immediate cause of death for many patients, it's opiate overdose. People that talk about euthanasia as if it were some moral issue are generally ignorant of the reality. And probably just generally ignorant.

Stormy Dragon|3.2.05 @ 8:10PM|#

>I've worked at a hospice myself and it should
>be said (and often doesn't) that euthanasia is
>an extremely common occurance. If you were to
>record the immediate cause of death for many
>patients, it's opiate overdose.

So in other words, you were murdering your patients and we're just supposed to be okay with that because you know better than us when it's time to die.

This attitude is exactly why I don't trust assisted suicide, not slipping into forced euthanasia.

>People that talk about euthanasia as if it were
>some moral issue are generally ignorant of the
>reality.

No we're aware of the reality, but just because you get away with this doesn't make it right. Rape happens all the time to. Does that mean we should legalize it? Are people who think of rape as a moral issue just "generally ignorant of reality"?

|3.2.05 @ 8:21PM|#

Stevo Darkly and Stormy Dragon make good points; perhaps the danger is greater than I'd like to believe. But to take Stevo's analogy of civil rights vs. affirmative action: because the concept of civil rights morphed into affirmative action, does that mean it was a mistake to repeal Jim Crow laws? No, you support the expansion of self-ownership and, if it becomes necessary, oppose its perverted mutant cousin.

|3.2.05 @ 8:33PM|#

Hey now, she was no mutant!

|3.2.05 @ 9:20PM|#

What if someone is in their 30s and they are relatively healthy (from a physical perspective), but they want to off themselves due to incurable depression?

|3.2.05 @ 9:25PM|#

Of course the best way to deal with the issue is to have a living will which states that at "X" stage kill me.

What we are really talking about here is folks who have foolishly decided not to make this decision and have left it up to the relatives or the state to make it for them. And that is a far trickier issue than simply adhering to the wishes of the individual as memorialized in a document like a living will.

Furthermore, there is nothing problematic about the situation where an individual decides while they are still able to make a rational decision that they want to do die. This is what happens in Switzerland. Some time before you lose such ability you make an appointment, go the clinic, and they shoot you full of life-ending chemicals.

|3.2.05 @ 9:32PM|#

Rex: Stevo Darkly and Stormy Dragon make good points; perhaps the danger is greater than I'd like to believe. But to take Stevo's analogy of civil rights vs. affirmative action: because the concept of civil rights morphed into affirmative action, does that mean it was a mistake to repeal Jim Crow laws? No, you support the expansion of self-ownership and, if it becomes necessary, oppose its perverted mutant cousin.

Hm. That is a superb comeback -- excellent point.

|3.2.05 @ 9:40PM|#

Now I turn my mind back to the "spoilers" aspect of this thread ...

Well, I just finished O. Henry's "Gift of the Magi" and the ending was ... just damn. Of course, I will say no more than that!

I've now begun the next story in the O. Henry collection, "The Ransom of Red Chief." This is just as suspenseful. It's about two criminals who kidnap a rich man's son for ransom. Rather a dark theme for O. Henry.

The kid seems like quite a handful. Lordy, I hope they don't just kill the kid instead of exchanging him for the ransom ... Nobody tell me how it turns out!

|3.3.05 @ 1:28AM|#

In the 6 years since the law has been in-place 176 people have taken their lives with the help of their doctor (less than 30 a year). When the law was passed I remember predictions that people would flock to Oregon to "off" themselves in huge numbers? I think this shows that most people don't want to take their lives but in unique circumstances a very small minority will use the right. Slippery-slope, I don't think so.

I have heard a lot of interviews with the terminally ill in Oregon and most appreciate the right but end up not using it.

|3.3.05 @ 3:09AM|#

scott,

Yeah, I distinctly remember the scare tactics of the opposition to the ballot measure. They were quite obviously wrong.

It would interesting to contrast this with the Dutch, Belgian and Swiss experiences with assisted-suicide. A heck of a lot of European countries also practice assisted-suicide under the rug as well.

You can simply fly to Switzerland and die there if you want; though the Swiss government requires that there to be some "humanitarian" reason for your action.

The Dutch allow self-euthanasia; but if someone helps you they must be a doctored or surprivised by one. That means that if you want to blow your head off you can do it but you can't your wife or husband to do it.

Self-euthanasia is also legal in Japan.

clarityiniowa|3.3.05 @ 9:38AM|#

I think there should be suicide booths on every streetcorner. As in "Futurama," they should have two settings: "Quick and Painless," and "Prolonged and Extremely Messy."

|3.3.05 @ 6:14PM|#

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, Julian, but I'm not sure how you can say that Raich deals with the question present in this case. Certainly they both deal with federalism as a policy matter, but Raich dealt with the constitutionality of the CSA whereas it seems that this case is purely about how to interpret the CSA. Unless you're saying that, should the Court find that the CSA does cover this case, the Court will then need to decide its constitutionality. In which case, of course you're right--this doesn't come close even to the "interstate" level of Raich, which itself is pretty damn thin.