2/05/06 A Good Law Can Help A Person Die With Dignity, by Sen. Fred Risser

Terminally-ill people cannot choose an alternative to death. The issue is whether those who are mentally competent and know that their death is imminent should have the freedom to decide when and how to die.

Those opposed to any legislation on this subject argue that laws authorizing death with dignity could lead us down the "slippery slope" to euthanasia or result in undue social or economic pressure on the elderly, poor or vulnerable of our society to prematurely end their lives.

The answer is to regulate against such potential abuses, not shut off the rights and desires of competent, terminally-ill adults.

This is not a new idea. It is patterned after a law that has been in effect in the state of Oregon since 1998. A majority of the voters in Oregon supported "Death with Dignity" in a state ballot initiative in November 1994 by 51 percent to 49 percent. This despite strong opposition by the American Medical Association, the Catholic Church, and both the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor.

Implementation of the law was delayed until 1998, when a second referendum was submitted to the voters of Oregon. This time it was approved by an even wider margin of 60 percent to 40 percent. During the first seven years of the law, a total of 208 people elected to end their lives under its provisions.

I have introduced legislation to allow a physician to comply with a patient's desire for a death with dignity in the most limited and narrow of circumstances.

The proposal contains stringent safeguards. Only a mentally competent adult who has been judged terminally ill by two physicians may voluntarily make a written, retractable request to his or her attending physician for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.

The requester must first make the request orally and then again in writing. There must then be a further oral request to the doctor, after which the doctor may write the prescription for the requested medication. The physician may or may not be present when the requester self-administers the medication.

If, in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician, a requester may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder that causes impaired judgment, the requester will be referred for review and counseling to a psychiatrist or psychologist who will determine and certify in writing that judgment has not been impaired by such a disorder before a request for medication is fulfilled.

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to forego unwanted medical treatment. Living wills, which allow competent adults to state their preferences on whether or not to permit the use of life-sustaining procedures in the event of terminal illnesses, are currently authorized in 47 states and the District of Columbia.

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Oregon, upheld rulings by two lower federal courts which in essence held that the regulation of medical practice generally belongs to the states and refused to strike down the Oregon law.

Society must continue to evaluate and to address related issues, such as pain control, health care for all, and treatment of depression and the social isolation of persons who are older or disabled. Aid in dying must not be an alternative to quality home care, or access to a licensed hospice. Individual choice and the desire to die peacefully are the foremost reasons in support of "Death with Dignity."