# data[].attributes.body
- More deaths
- Possible PTSD for family
- Some doctors seen as murderers

# data[].attributes.body
- Less suffering
- Last resort if pain is immense
- More medicine available for healthier patients

# data[].attributes.body
Website ^  Articles v

# data[].attributes.body
Website ^ Articles v

# data[].attributes.headline
                                               Equality

# data[].attributes.subject
                                               Equality

# data[].attributes.body
Kevin Diaz, national director of legal advocacy for Compassion & Choices, which advocates for aid in dying, said he didn't think the suit would move forward. "I just don't understand exactly what their assertions are, given that this legislation treats all people ... no matter what their condition, equally, and is respectful of their end-of-life wishes," Diaz said. A hearing for a preliminary injunction has been set for the end of the month.

# data[].attributes.headline
                                            What if?

# data[].attributes.subject
                                            What if?

# data[].attributes.body
Imagine you're in a restaurant and a woman at the next table stops breathing or her heart stops beating. You would immediately give her CPR, right? And if you don't know how, you'd frantically search for someone nearby who does. The idea of denying the woman CPR would be monstrous. It might even be described as murder. Yet for patients near the end of life the ethical choices are often reversed. Thousands of patients both verbally and in writing request "do not resuscitate" designations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Error message

Notice: Undefined variable: html in _bfm_debates_streaming_debate_ticker_block() (line 884 of /var/www/vhosts/www.intelligencesquaredus.org/www/sites/all/modules/custom/bfm_debates/inc/bfm_debates.blocks.inc).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1994, Oregon voters passed the Death with Dignity Act, which legalized physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Since then, it has become legal in 4 more states, including New Mexico, where the state court ruling that it is constitutional is under appeal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HIGHLIGHTS

"Euthanasia and assisted suicide are the opposite of care and represent the abandonment of the sick and the suffering, of older and dying persons," the bishops said April 18.

Lawmakers in Victoria aim to allow "assisted dying," meaning both euthanasia and assisted suicide, in limited circumstances.

"While it is never easy to face the end of life of a loved one, we cannot support this kind of legalization however it is described," [the bishops] continued.

Melbourne, Australia, Apr 25, 2017 / 12:01 am ( CNA/EWTN News).- Proposals to legalize euthanasia in the Australian state of Victoria are based on "misplaced compassion," the local bishops said. "Euthanasia and assisted suicide are the opposite of care and represent the abandonment of the sick and the suffering, of older and dying persons," the bishops said April 18. "We ask Victorians to continue to love and care for those who are sick and suffering rather than abandoning them to euthanasia or supporting them to suicide. Our ability to care says much about the strength of our society."

Their pastoral letter was signed by the four bishops with dioceses in Victoria state, including Archbishop Denis Hart of Melbourne.

Lawmakers in Victoria aim to allow "assisted dying," meaning both euthanasia and assisted suicide, in limited circumstances. In 2016 a parliamentary committee recommended that Victoria advance towards legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Government endorsed the proposal and at present there is a consultation to determine how such laws can be made "safe."

The bishops countered: "We should be clear - there is no safe way to kill people or to help them to their own suicide." The commandment "You Shall Not Kill" is central to both biblical and civil law, they said, encouraging the Catholic faithful and others to pray and act against the bill.

"While it is never easy to face the end of life of a loved one, we cannot support this kind of legalization however it is described," they continued. "Assistance in our time of dying is something that we should all want for ourselves and for others - however, this should not involve a lethal injection or offering a lethal dose." Instead of legalizing assisted suicide, everyone should respond to the sick and the suffering with "truth and compassion," the bishops said, affirming that everyone has the duty "to protect, nurture and sustain life to the best of our ability."

The bishops cited Pope Francis' Nov. 15, 2014 speech to Italian physicians, which contrasted the false compassion of assisted suicide with "the compassion of the Gospel" that accompanies us in times of need and the compassion of the Good Samaritan who "draws near and provides concrete help."

According to the Victorian bishops, euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation has been "continually rejected" since a short experiment in Australia's Northern Territory state. "Why? Because when parliamentarians take the time to debate the issue fully and to consider all the consequences they realize that to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide would threaten the lives of vulnerable people," the bishops said.

The bishops warned that the legislation could create a lower threshold of care and protection for the sick, the suffering and the vulnerable. "Such a law would serve to exploit the vulnerability of those people, exposing them to further risk," they said. Even limited legalization would be a first step towards further expansion, the pastoral letter continued. Where assisted suicide and euthanasia have been legalized, their legality has been broadened to apply to children or psychological illness.

"In Holland, there is pressure to allow assisted suicide for people over the age of 70 who have simply become 'tired of life,'" said the bishops. The bishop stressed the blessings the elderly provide for society. Care for them should be done in gratitude, as "part of a culture of love and care."

The Victorian bishops thanked the government for its commitment to palliative care and encouraged more investment in this path instead of assisted suicide or euthanasia. They pointed to Catholic contributions in networks of hospice care, hospitals, aged care, and other services, encouraging further support for these.

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY EMAIL NEWSLETTER

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australian bishops: Assisted suicide is the opposite of health care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HIGHLIGHTS "Euthanasia and assisted suicide are the opposite of care and represent the abandonment of the sick and the suffering, of older and dying persons," the bishops said April 18. Lawmakers in Victoria aim to allow "assisted dying," meaning both euthanasia and assisted suicide, in limited circumstances.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The harm of physician-assisted suicide to patients and the healing profession of medicine was lamented in 400 BC by the Greek philosopher and physician Hippocrates when he wrote: "The regimen I adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients ... and not for their hurt or for any wrong. I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such."

From my perspective, physician-assisted suicide is not a political or religious issue - it is a societal and a bioethical calamity.

The primary proponents of Proposition 106, Compassion & Choices, have been spending millions of dollars in numerous states to pass laws with misleading phrases such as "Death with Dignity" or "Right to Die." Alternative terminology is used by proponents to avoid the uncomfortable term "suicide."

With Proposition 106, an overdose of medication is ingested with the intention of ending one's life - by definition: suicide - an action we desperately try to prevent among those feeling hopeless.

What the proponents of Proposition 106 are looking for is the "right" of a physician to prescribe with impunity a lethal dose of a medication. The patient can ingest the deadly, caustic cocktail at any time, without requiring a health care provider to be present.

In the 2014 report of Oregon's law, there were no health care providers present in 80 percent of the deaths to document the circumstances around the ingestion and death. Less than 5 percent of patients requesting assisted suicide are referred in order to assess their mental capacity despite documentation that a large percentage of terminal patients suffer from untreated depression. And there is no agency set up to monitor worrisome abuses after the patient receives their lethal medications. Thus their deception in claiming there are "no abuses" when there are no reporting requirements. There's no way to know.

And here is another consequence. An Oregon doctor wrote this in The Wall Street Journal:

"Also concerning are the regular notices I receive indicating that many important services and drugs for my patients - even some pain medications - will not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan, the state's Medicaid program. Yet physician-assisted suicide is covered by the state and our collective tax dollars. Supporters claim physician-assisted suicide gives patients choice, but what sort of a choice is it when life is expensive but death is free?"

The healing profession, with hospice and palliative care, is entrusted with the sacred privilege of assisting their patients compassionately through the dying process, ensuring that patients have the comfort and dignity they deserve. With "intensive caring" we strive to ease their suffering, their fear of death - and their fear of living.

Patients can choose to forgo life-sustaining interventions that may excessively burden them or prolong the dying process. They can choose to allow a natural death in the comfort of their home, surrounded by loving caregivers. This is the difference between blowing out the candle vs. allowing it to flicker out on its own. Physicians and nurses are to help the patients as their life is ending, not end their life by an unethical act.

In reality, most states are very cautious about following the Oregon example. In only two states, Oregon and Washington, have ballot initiatives passed. Voters rejected ballot measures in Michigan, Maine and Massachusetts. And think about this: State legislatures in 30 states - including Colorado - have considered and rejected assisted-suicide laws.

These are some of the "Trojan Horse" policy issues that voters must carefully weigh in making their decision on Proposition 106. If you have doubts, vote "no." Colorado's elected representatives and senators had enough bipartisan doubts about this flawed law that the bills never made it to a floor vote two years in a row. Follow the lead of other states in rejecting this idea. Elections are serious. Votes make a difference. Rarely are voters called on the make what is truly a life-or-death decision. But that is exactly what Proposition 106 is all about. Life or death.
Alan Rastrelli, M.D., is medical director for Divine Mercy Supportive Care, a nonprofit hospice affiliated with the Catholic Church. To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No on Proposition 106: Physician-assisted suicide is the wrong choice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From my perspective, physician-assisted suicide is not a political or religious issue - it is a societal and a bioethical calamity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Euthanasia could save the Canadian taxpayer C$139 million a year, health analysts believe.

A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal by researchers from the University of Calgary estimates that the healthcare savings of assisted dying -- approximately $139 million a year -- will dwarf the costs associated with helping patients to end their lives.

The study utilises data about euthanasia rates in Belgium and the Netherlands. It multiplies the Netherlands data by current mortality rates for the Canadian population and recent end-of-life cost data. It also considers the direct costs associated with offering medically assisted death, including physician consultations and drug costs.

According to the authors, "as death approaches, health care costs increase dramatically in the final months. Patients who choose medical assistance in dying may forgo this resource-intensive period."

The authors go to pains to state they aren't suggesting people be voluntarily euthanized to save money. "Neither patients nor physicians should consider costs when making the very personal decision to request, or provide, this intervention," they write.

Peter Tanuseputro, a physician-scientist at the Bruyère Research Institute and the Ottawa Hospital, said that this effort to quantify MAID should serve as a reminder that the Canadian health-care system must offer better palliative care, especially at home.

"When we talk about MAID and end-of-life care, I think we need to quickly move on to discuss the need to improve palliative care because the two are very related," he said. "If we provide good palliative care, I think the consensus out there is that many requests for MAID could be avoided completely."

The article has already been criticised for proposing an 'economic incentive' for patients to be euthanised. Writing in the National Review, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith said that the study confirmed "the financial impetus in favor of death".

This article is published by Xavier Symons and BioEdge under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BioEdge: Doctor-assisted suicide could save Canada $140 million a year, study suggests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Euthanasia could save the Canadian taxpayer C$139 million a year, health analysts believe. A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal by researchers from the University of Calgary estimates that the healthcare savings of assisted dying -- approximately $139 million a year -- will dwarf the costs associated with helping patients to end their lives.

# data[].attributes.headline
How do the characters fit on the Opposing/Supporting sides?

# data[].attributes.subject
How do the characters fit on the Opposing/Supporting sides?

# data[].attributes.body
The rest of the community is placed over here, because most of them don't know what Release is, allowing for forced agreement

# data[].attributes.headline
How do the characters fit on the Opposing/Supporting sides?

# data[].attributes.subject
How do the characters fit on the Opposing/Supporting sides?

# data[].attributes.body
Jonas is over here, as he opposes Release upon seeing the twin released by his father, and Rosemary's release further along.

# data[].attributes.headline
                          How does this relate to The Giver?

# data[].attributes.subject
                          How does this relate to The Giver?

# data[].attributes.body
In The Giver by Lois Lowry, "Release" is heavily supported by most of the people in the community. Release would translate into real life as Assisted Suicide. One example of this is on page 143, it is seen that Jonas begins to oppose Release.

# data[].attributes.headline
            See things from a different perspective

# data[].attributes.subject
            See things from a different perspective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This page includes information adapted from FAQs by Oregon Department of Human Services, Washington State Department of Health, and Vermont Department of Health as well as from a guest article by Dr. Carol Parrot, MD.
*

What is Death with Dignity?

Death with Dignity can refer to

1. an end-of-life option that allows certain eligible individuals to legally request and obtain medications from their physician to end their life in a peaceful, humane, and dignified manner;

2. state legislation codifying such an end-of-life option

3. a family of organizations promoting the end-of-life option around the United States.

Learn more about

Death with Dignity as an End-of-Life Option

What is Death with Dignity as an end-of-life option?

Death with Dignity is an end-of-life option that allows certain terminally ill people to voluntarily and legally request and receive a prescription medication from their physician to hasten their death in a peaceful, humane, and dignified manner.

Death with Dignity is governed by state legislation.

What are some other terms used to refer to Death with Dignity?

Death with Dignity is a term originating in the title of the Oregon statute governing the prescribing of life-ending medications to eligible terminally ill people; because our founders authored the Oregon law, our family of organizations bears its name and it's our preferred term for the practice.

Other terms include physician-assisted death, physician-assisted dying, physician-hastened death/dying, aid in dying, physician aid in dying, and medical aid in dying.

Incorrect and inaccurate terms that opponents of physician-assisted dying use in order to mislead the public include: "assisted suicide," "doctor-assisted suicide," "physician-assisted suicide", and (active) "euthanasia."

How can I use a Death with Dignity law?

A legal prescription for life-ending medications in only available in states with Death with Dignity laws. As of February 20, 2017, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have physician-assisted dying statutes. Physician-assisted dying is also legal in Montana by way of a 2009 State Supreme Court ruling.

To qualify under Death with Dignity statutes, you must be an adult resident of a state where such a law is in effect (CA, CO, OR, VT, WA); mentally competent, i.e. capable of making and communicating your healthcare decisions; and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months, as confirmed by two physicians. The process entails two oral requests, one written request, waiting periods, and other requirements.

Should I tell my family I want to use the option?

Every family is different, and many families have had strained relations. However, even if there has been little communication for years, the months or weeks before death is a time when many people attempt to open up to each other. It is amazing how many families reestablish communication and offer support.

It is truly in the best interest of those who will be left behind that you tell your family what you are planning, and give them the option to accept or reject it, or to work out personal past differences. This helps those family members cope better after you die, as they have some good, positive memories.

Even if your family cannot support you in what you are choosing to do, by starting the dialogue you have at least given them the chance to understand and grow. And most families rise to the occasion by providing help, support, and understanding.

However, if after thought and consideration, you still feel strongly that telling your family would not be helpful, we encourage you to discuss this with a neutral third party like a friend, a religious counselor, or a social worker.

How can I find a doctor in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, California, Colorado, or District of Columbia who will prescribe life-ending medications?

There are no lists of physicians who participate in physician-assisted dying laws, for both confidentiality and safety reasons. Doctor participation in the law is strictly voluntary.

You are more likely to find a participating physician in a non-faith-based hospital and in larger cities. End of Life Washington has compiled information about which activities each hospital in the state permits or restricts when a patient asks for assistance using their Act.

To find out if your doctor is willing to participate in the law, make an appointment with him or her to discuss your end-of-life goals and concerns, including the option available under the state's Death with Dignity law. Ask any kind of doctor: your hospice doctor, or your oncologist, or pulmonologist, or neurologist, or even your dermatologist or psychiatrist. Any physician licensed to practice in a "Death with Dignity state" is allowed to participate if s/he agrees; the law also says every physician has the choice not to participate.

If the first physician says yes, ask them for a referral to another doctor who will participate or ask another of your (probably many) doctors if they will participate. Both physicians need to certify that you meet the criteria under the law. The first physician will be your attending physician for the law. He or she will guide you through all the requirements of the law and, if you qualify, will write the life-ending medication prescription for you. The second certifying doctor will be the consulting physician under the law who has to certify all the criteria under the law have been met.

Nurse practitioners and physician's assistants, while they can treat your basic disease, are not allowed to act as licensed physicians for the law.

Where can I take the medication?

You can take (self-administer and ingest) the medications at a place of your choosing, though the law advises your physician to ask you not to do so in a public place. Most people, almost 95 percent, choose to take the medications at home; those who reside in assisted-living or nursing home facilities tend to take them there.

If you take a dose prescribed under a Death with Dignity law outside the state where you obtained it, you may lose the legal protections afforded by the law in question. For example, your death may be ruled a suicide under another state's law.

What kind of prescription will I receive?

None of the medical aid-in-dying laws tell your physician exactly what prescription to give you, but all medications under these laws require the attending physician's prescription. It is up to the physician to determine the prescription. To date, most patients have received a prescription for an oral dosage of a barbiturate (pentobarbital or secobarbital), and beginning in 2015, a phenobarbital/chloral hydrate/morphine sulfate/ethanol mix has also been used.

How much does the medication cost?

Cost varies based on medication type and availability as well as the protocol used (additional medications must be consumed prior to the lethal medications at an extra cost). The following are only estimates as prices and availability change. The actual prescription depends on the physician's assessment.

Pentobarbital in liquid form cost about $500 until about 2012, when the price rose to between $15,000 and $25,000. The price increase was caused by the European Union's ban on exports to the US because of the drug being used in capital punishment, a practice that is illegal and deemed deplorable there; many international pharmaceutical companies don't export the drug to the United States for the same reason. Users then switched to the powdered form, which cost between $400 and $500.

The legal dose of secobarbital (brand name Seconal) costs $3,000 to $5,000.

Due to the increase in the cost of Seconal, alternate mixtures of medications has been developed by physicians in Washington state. The phenobarbital/chloral hydrate/morphine sulfate mix produces a lethal dose that is similar in effect to Seconal. The cost of this alternate mixis approximately $450 to $500. A second alternative, consisting of morphine sulfate, Propranolol (Inderal), Diazepam (Valium), Digoxin and a buffer suspension costs about $600. A compounding pharmacy will need to prepare each mixture.

When will I know it is the time to take the medication?

No one can answer this question for you.

Some people know when it's time, when they've reached a point where their disease or the pain and suffering it causes has robbed them of the quality of life they find essential.

If you decide the time is not right, that's fine; it only means the Death with Dignity Act is working as intended because it has given you the freedom and empowerment to set your own timeframe. Some people (about 1 in 3) never take the medication. Simply knowing they have this option, if they need it, gives them comfort.

What happens with unused medications?

As controlled, Schedule 2 substances, medications prescribed under death with dignity laws are regulated by federal statutes. These medications are carefully tracked from the date they are prescribed to the date the person for whom they are prescribed dies. Physicians must report all prescriptions for lethal medications to their state's health department. Similarly, pharmacists must report on dispensing these medications. The medications must be taken by the person prescribed to; criminal penalties may ensue if another person takes them.

One in three people who obtain medications under aid-in-dying laws choose not to take them. Anyone who chooses not to ingest a prescribed dose or anyone in possession of any portion of the unused dose must dispose of the dose in a legal manner as determined by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency or their state laws, if any.

The California End of Life Option Act stipulates that, "A person who has custody or control of any unused aid-in-dying drugs prescribed pursuant to this part after the death of the patient shall personally deliver the unused aid-in-dying drugs for disposal by delivering it to the nearest qualified facility that properly disposes of controlled substances, or if none is available, shall dispose of it by lawful means in accordance with guidelines promulgated by the California State Board of Pharmacy or a federal Drug Enforcement Administration approved take-back program."

Because 9 in 10 of all patients who use the death with dignity laws are enrolled in hospice care at the time of their death, it is the responsibility of hospice to have a policy about drugs left after a patient's death, including the legally prescribed lethal doses of medication, and to educate the deceased patient's family about the disposal of such medications. In those few cases where the patient is not enrolled in hospice at his/her death any unused medications have been disposed of by those who are present at the time the patient dies. There have been no reported cases of misuse of the medications during the nineteen years Oregon's law has been in effect nor during the eight years in Washington and the three years in Vermont.

The objection that simply having the lethal dose of medicine results in its misuse fails to account for any other medications patients around the country have, e.g. Oxycontin, Oxycodene, morphine, anti-depressants, sleeping sedatives, etc., all of which could be misused and in some cases are misused. The laws in the US are very clear: legally prescribed medications must be taken by the person for whom they are prescribed and it is illegal for such medications to be used by others.

What options do I have if my state does not allow physician aid in dying?

You can

Such measures can take anywhere from several days to several weeks to result in death. Stopping treatment or medication may lead to unanticipated effects or pain.

Your end-of-life concerns can also be addressed by hospice or palliative care.

Discuss your options with your physician.
Back to top ↑
Death with Dignity Legislation

What is Death with Dignity legislation?

Death with Dignity, or medical aid-in-dying, statutes allow certain terminally ill adults to request and obtain a prescription for medication to end their lives in a peaceful manner. The acts outline the process of obtaining such medication, including safeguards to protect both patients and physicians.

In states where physician-assisted dying is legal, there is no state program for participation in the existing aid-in-dying laws and people do not apply to state health departments. It is up to eligible patients and licensed physicians to implement the act on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Five states currently have physician-assisted dying statutes in effect: Oregon since 1997, Washington since 2009 (the law was passed in 2008), Vermont since 2013, California since 2016, and Colorado since 2016. The District of Columbia also has a statute, since 2017. In Montana, physician-assisted death is legal (since 2009) by the state Supreme Court ruling.

Who can participate in physician-assisted dying laws?

Anyone who meets the eligibility criteria can use their state's physician aid in dying law. Participation in the law is strictly voluntary.

To qualify for a prescription of medication under existing physician-assisted dying laws, you must be

an adult resident of California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington;

mentally competent, i.e. capable of making and communicating your healthcare decisions;

diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months.

You must also must be able to self-administer and ingest the prescribed medication. Two physicians must determine whether all these criteria have been met. The process entails two oral requests, one written request, waiting periods, and other requirements.

There are no exceptions to these requirements.

Can my family member or a proxy request participation in medical aid in dying on my behalf (for example, if I am in a coma or suffer from Alzheimer's disease or dementia)?

No. The law requires that you ask to participate voluntarily on your own behalf and meet all the eligibility criteria at the time of your request.

Can physician-assisted death laws be used with Advance Directives?

Advance Directives are legal documents that describe what you as a dying person want done (or not done) medically if you can no longer communicate. The aid in dying laws cannot be used under Advance Directives because you would no longer be of sound mind when the advance directives kick in.

What are the residency requirements under Death with Dignity laws?

You must provide adequate documentation to the attending physician to verify that you are a current resident of the state with an aid-in-dying statute. It is up to the attending physician to determine you have adequately established residency. Factors demonstrating residency include, but are not limited to any of the following:

a state-issued ID or driver license;

a lease agreement or property ownership document showing that you rent or own property in the state;

a state voter registration; or

a recent state tax return.

There is no length-of-residency requirement. You must simply be able to establish that you are currently a state resident.

Can I move to a "Death with Dignity state" in order to participate in the law?

There is nothing in Death with Dignity statutes that prevents you from doing this. You must simply must be able to prove to the attending physician that you are currently a resident. However, relocating in and of itself, not to mention across state lines, is a challenge, particularly if you are terminally ill and if you are elderly (the median age of aid-in-dying participants in Oregon is 72).

We work to ensure every state has a Death with Dignity statute so that no one should have to uproot to use another state's statute.

Can I just fly to California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington and fly home with the medication?

No. You must be a resident of one of these states and be planning to die in that state. Taking the medication prescribed under one state's physician-assisted dying law outside that state may result in your and your physician's losing the legal protections afforded by the law in question.

How do aid-in-dying laws protect patients?

Death with Dignity statutes contain a number of safeguards, protecting patients from abuse and coercion:

Patients must meet stringent eligibility requirements, including being an adult, state resident, mentally competent, and having a terminal diagnosis with a 6-month prognosis as confirmed by two licensed physicians.

Only the patient him or herself can make the oral requests for medication, in person. It is impossible to stipulate the request in an advance directive, living will, or any other end-of-life care document.

The patient must make two oral requests, at least 15 days apart.

The written request must be witnessed by at least two people, who, in the presence of the patient, attest that to the best of their knowledge and belief the patient is capable, acting voluntarily, and is not being coerced to sign the request. One of the witnesses cannot be a relative of the patient by blood, marriage or adoption; anyone who would be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate; an owner, operator or employee of a health care facility where the eligible patient is receiving medical treatment or is a resident or the patient's attending physician.

The patient must be deemed capable to take (self-administer and ingest) the medication themselves, without assistance.

The patient may rescind the request at any time.

Two physicians, one of whom is the patient's attending physician, familiar with the patient's case, must confirm the diagnosis. Each physician must be licensed by the state to practice medicine and certified to prescribe medications.

If either physician determines the patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment, they must refer the patient for evaluation by a state licensed psychiatrist or psychologist to determine their mental competency. Medication cannot be prescribed until such evaluation determines the patient is mentally competent.

The attending physician must mail or hand-deliver the prescription to the pharmacy.

The patient must wait 48 hours from their written request to fill their prescription.

The request process must be stopped stop immediately if there is any suspicion or evidence of coercion.

The physicians must meet strict reporting requirements for each request.

Anyone who falsifies a request, destroys a rescission of a request or who coerces or exerts undue influence on a patient to request medication under the law or to destroy a rescission of such a request commits a Class A felony. The law also does not limit liability for negligence or intentional misconduct, and criminal penalties also apply for conduct that is inconsistent with it.

Data and studies show these safeguards work as intended, protecting patients and preventing misuse. No evidence of coercion or abuse has been documented in the Oregon since 1998 and Washington since 2009, when these states' respective laws went into effect.

How do Death with Dignity statutes safeguard confidentiality?

Federal statutes, such as HIPAA, protect confidentiality of all patient records.

While states with physician-assisted dying laws do collect the names of patients in order to cross-check death certificates, the laws guarantee the confidentiality of all participating patients as well as physicians. Patients' or doctors' identifying information is never released to the public or media. The identity of participating physicians is coded, but the identity of individual patients is not recorded in any manner. In Oregon, all source documentation, including any patient or physician documentation, is destroyed approximately one year from the publication of annual reports.

If your death results from taking medications legally prescribed and obtained under a physician aid-in-dying statute, your death certificate will list your underlying illness as the cause of death.

How does using a Death with Dignity law impact my insurance?

Physician-assisted death statutes do not specify who must pay for the services. Individual insurers determine whether the procedure is covered under their policies, just as they do with any other medical procedure. Federal funding, including Medicaid and Medicare, cannot be used for services or medications received under these laws.

Physician aid in dying statutes specify that participation under them is not suicide. Therefore, your decision to end your life under an aid-in-dying statute has no effect on your life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy.

How many people use Death with Dignity laws?

In 2015, a total of 218 terminally-ill adult Oregonians received a prescription for medications under the provisions of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, while 132 of them (60.6 percent) ingested the medications to die peacefully. This corresponds to 38.6 Death with Dignity Act deaths per 10,000 total deaths, or 0.39 percent. Since 1998, when the first person in Oregon took medication prescribed under the Death with Dignity Act, a total of 1,545 patients have received the prescription, of whom 991 (64.1 percent) ingested it and died.

In Washington, 213 individuals received medications in 2015, of whom 166 died after ingesting the medication, 24 died without having ingested the medication, and for the remaining 12 people who died ingestion status is unknown. Since Washington's law was passed in 2008, a total of 938 people have had prescriptions written under the Act.

These figures highlight that

1. only a small number of people use the law to die; and

2. about one third of those who do obtain the medication prescribed under the law never take it.

The existing Death with Dignity Acts continue to work flawlessly, to protect patients and physicians, and to provide ease of mind and relief to people facing the end of life.

Who uses physician-assisted death laws? What are their demographics?

People who access physician-assisted dying laws tend to be well educated and have excellent health care, good insurance, access to hospice, and financial, emotional, and physical support. Two out of three are aged 65 years or older; the median age at death is 71 years.

Most patients have cancer (77.1 percent in Oregon) or ALS (8.0 percent). Most people die at home (94.0 percent) and are enrolled in hospice care (90.5 percent).

The three most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns are loss of autonomy (89.7 percent of patients cited this concern), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (91.6 percent), and loss of dignity (78.7 percent).

Do aid-in-dying statutes obligate or encourage anyone to use them?

Participation in assisted dying is strictly voluntary, for both patients and physicians. No one is encouraged or obligated to use these laws; they merely provide an option to those who wish to use them.

No one qualifies under aid-in-dying laws solely on the basis of age or disability. Many seniors and people with disabilities support physician-assisted dying laws, not because they are disabled but because they are people.

Opponents of aid-in-dying laws like to allege that the mere existence of these laws encourages the elderly, people with disabilities, minorities, or poor, undereducated, uninsured and other marginalized persons to prematurely end their lives. Physician-assisted death laws, however, provide a voluntary option to anyone who qualifies and wishes to voluntarily use it. No one is forced, obligated, or encouraged to use these laws; access to these laws by any one person does not preclude others from opting out.

Do people move to states with assisted dying laws in order to use them?

There are no statistics about people moving to Oregon, Washington, or Vermont in order to use physician aid-in-dying laws. Because only residency matters under aid-in-dying laws, annual reports released by the Oregon Department of Human Services and Washington State Department of Health do not contain information about how many individuals moved to theses states in order to avail themselves of their respective Death with Dignity Acts (Vermont's Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act does not have a reporting requirement).

Anecdotally, there is evidence that people are compelled to move to states with aid-in-dying laws. We believe that no one should have to move to use medical aid in dying as an end of life option.

Can the federal government overturn Oregon's law?

The George W. Bush administration in the early 2000s attempted to use the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to overturn the Oregon law, both through Congress and the courts. However, since the CSA bans the use and trafficking of illegal drugs and regulates the use of legal narcotics for approved medical purposes, and the Oregon Death with Dignity Act specifies only the use of legal narcotics for physician-assisted dying, their efforts failed.

In the U.S., it is the states, not the federal government, that licenses physicians and determines what is and is not legitimate medical practice. In 2006, the US Supreme Court affirmed this by ruling, in the case Gonzales v. Oregon, that the federal government overstepped its authority in seeking to punish doctors who prescribed drugs to help terminally ill patients end their lives.

Impact of Death with Dignity

What are the benefits of Death with Dignity laws for terminally ill people and their families?

Death with Dignity legislation yields numerous direct and indirect benefits.

For the terminally ill, the greatest comfort these laws provide is having the freedom to control their own ending. Most people who obtain medications under these laws value being able to make their own decisions, including the where and when of their death. We know this because people using the law cite loss of autonomy as their chief end-of-life concern.

In addition, if you are terminally ill the option to die a peaceful death at a time and place of your choosing provides you with invaluable peace of mind, which is especially important at the end of life. In fact, so many people get reassurance from simply filling the prescription that one in three choose not to use it.

Most people who are dying wish to die at home. While on the national level only about 20 percent of people die at home, almost 95 percent of people accessing the Oregon Death with Dignity Act do. The stringent safeguards in these laws also protect patients from possible abuse, coercion, and wrongful medical practice.

The relief from my terminally-ill patients and their families is palpable. I've helped families accept their family members' final wishes in the face of terrible illness. Aid in dying for terminal patients is an essential part of good, compassionate end of life care.

-Nicholas Gideonse, MD

Family members, too, derive peace of mind from knowing they will not have to helplessly endure watching a loved one die a horrible death.

What are the benefits of Death with Dignity laws for physicians?

For physicians, medical aid-in-dying laws codify and bring to light the common practice of giving life-ending medications to their patients. Death with Dignity legislation protects physicians by stipulating the steps they must follow and, provided they follow the law, providing them with immunity from civil and criminal liability as well as professional disciplinary action.

Where do physicians stand on physician-assisted dying?

A http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/public/ethics2014-part1#2 " target="_blank">2016 Medscape survey found that 57 percent of medical doctors favor physician-assisted dying, up from 46 percent in 2010. We also know that many physicians who support the end-of-life option are reluctant to declare so publicly for fear of repercussions in their workplace or medical community.

The American Medical Association opposes aid-in-dying laws. However, not only does the AMA represents a declining number of physicians (only about 1 in 3 doctors are AMA members), a 2011 survey of physicians conducted by Jackson & Coker found that 77% of physicians believe the AMA no longer reflects their views. In 2015, the California chapter of the AMA changed its position on physician-assisted dying from opposed to neutral, stating that they "believe it is up to the individual physician and their patient to decide voluntarily whether the End of Life Option Act is something in which they want to engage."

A number of medical associations have endorsed physician-assisted dying, including the American Public Health Association, the American College of Legal Medicine, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Medical Student Association, and the Denver Medical Society.

For my patients who have used this law, I was honored that I could be with them every step of the way, ensuring that they were cared for, and that they had control of the final days of their lives. That's what death with dignity really means.

-Nicholas Gideonse, MD

Do Death with Dignity laws have any broader, societal effects?

Death with Dignity legislation leads to improvements in end-of-life care.

Oregon consistently ranks as a top state in end-of-life care. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act has dramatically improved end-of-life care, particularly in pain management, hospice care, and support services for family members. Reports show that up to 97 percent of people using Oregon's Death with Dignity Act are on hospice at the time of death, as compared to 45 percent in the US overall, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. Oregon has the best pain, palliative and hospice care in the nation because the law made physicians get better at diagnosing depression, pain management, and hospice referrals.

Residents of states with aid-in-dying laws are better-versed in end-of-life care issues than of those with no such statutes. A poll by National Journal and The Regence Foundation has found residents in Oregon and Washington to be more knowledgeable and supportive of a variety of end-of-life options, including hospice and palliative care, than most Americans. According to the same poll, support for Death with Dignity legislation has grown in both Oregon and Washington, and a 2012 poll found 80 percent of Oregonians support the Act.

Many healthy Oregonians and Washingtonians today discuss end-of-life issues with their doctors and increasingly demand active participation and decision making in their own end-of-life care. Oregon and Washington doctors, as a result, today work harder to prolong patients' lives and enhance quality of life, while respecting patients' final wishes when their suffering becomes intolerable. Because of the law's protections, most Oregonians know their doctors won't abandon them when the suffering becomes unbearable and use of the law is requested.

Oregon's medical aid in dying law has also helped foster an open and honest conversation between doctors and patients about end of life.

In the video below, end-of-life care experts in Oregon speak about the impacts of the Act:

The experience in California after the End of Life Option Act passed in 2015 has shown that the passage of a physician-assisted dying law, even before it takes effect, heightens the urgency of improving end-of-life care. Whereas conversations in the Golden State are only beginning, we are confident that the End of Life Option Act will ultimately lead to improvements in end-of-life care there.

These effects also occur in states without physician-assisted dying legislation where a campaign for passage took place, regardless of whether it succeeded. In Massachusetts, in 2012, media reported that interest in and preference for hospice rose in response to our campaign to get an aid in dying bill passed in a ballot initiative.

What is the current state of physician-assisted dying in America?

With a history of more than 100 years, and accelerated development beginning in the early 1990's, the aid-in-dying movement enjoys more momentum than ever.

While in the past, only two or three states at the time considered physician-assisted dying bills, in the 2015 legislative session no fewer than 25 states and in the 2016 session 20 jurisdictions considered such bills. We saw our greatest victory in California, where the End of Life Option Act went into effect on June 9, 2016.

Though elsewhere aid in dying bills failed, that's the way progress happens: victories beget more victories, and even our losses teach us the lessons we need to advance. With polls showing up to 7 in 10 Americans favoring right-to-die legislation, every day we are closer to the day when a large majority of Americans will have what they are asking for: more freedom and control at the end of life.

About Death with Dignity Organizations

What is the Death with Dignity family of organizations?

Death with Dignity is an umbrella name for the Death with Dignity National Center, which focuses on education, and Death with Dignity Political Fund, which focuses on political advocacy and lobbying.

What is the Death with Dignity National Center and what does it do?

The National Center expands the freedom of all eligible terminally ill Americans to make their own end-of-life decisions, including how they die. We achieve this by promoting Death with Dignity laws around the United States based on the groundbreaking Oregon model and by providing information, education, and support about Death with Dignity as an end-of-life option to patients, family members, legislators, advocates, healthcare and end-of-life care professionals, media, and the interested public.

What is the Death with Dignity Political Fund and what does it do?

The Political Fund is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization that acts as the political arm of the National Center. The Fund drafts Death with Dignity laws based on the groundbreaking Oregon model; campaigns, lobbies, and advocates for Death with Dignity legislation in the states that lack them; and defends Death with Dignity statutes against legal and legislative challenges. The Political Fund staff and volunteers authored, passed, and defended the Oregon law ( 1994/1997/2006); spearheaded the successful efforts to pass Death with Dignity statutes in Washington ( 2008), Vermont ( 2013), California ( 2016), and District of Columbia (2017); and led the Maine (2000), Hawaii (2002), and Massachusetts (2012) campaigns, which were all defeated by narrow margins.

How long have Death with Dignity organizations been in existence?

The Death with Dignity family of organizations have been advancing physician-assisted dying policy reform for more than 20 years. The earliest predecessor organization, Oregon Right to Die, was established in 1993. In the current form, the Death with Dignity family of organization has been in existence since 2003.

What is your charity evaluation ranking?

Death with Dignity is a Better Business Bureau-accredited charity; we meet all of the BBB Wise Giving Alliance's Standards for Charity Accountability.

Charity Navigator only rates 501(c)(3) organizations with budgets over $1 million. The combined budget of our 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations, the Death with Dignity National Center and Death with Dignity Political Fund, respectively, this year is $600,000. We are not rated by Charity Navigator because we do not meet their budget criterion for evaluation.
Back to top ↑
Supporting Death with Dignity

How can I promote Death with Dignity in my community?

Anyone can be an advocate for Death with Dignity. From contacting your legislator to spreading the word on social media to sharing your story to volunteering, your voice matters.
Learn more about becoming a Death with Dignity advocate →
How can I financially support Death with Dignity?

There are many ways you can contribute funds to promoting and passing Death with Dignity laws:
Back to top ↑

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page includes information adapted from FAQs by Oregon Department of Human Services, Washington State Department of Health, and Vermont Department of Health as well as from a guest article by Dr. Carol Parrot, MD. Download a print-ready version of this page. * What is Death with Dignity?

# data[].attributes.headline
        Learn some more about Assisted Suicide

# data[].attributes.subject
        Learn some more about Assisted Suicide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Euthanasia - Learn | American Life League

# data[].attributes.headline
                                              Reasons?

# data[].attributes.subject
                                              Reasons?

# data[].attributes.body
Only 25% of those who died from lethal medication said that they were worried about pain control. More common reasons for choosing aid-in-dying were loss of autonomy (92%), being less able to engage in activities that made life enjoyable (90%) and burdening family or caregivers (41%).

# data[].attributes.headline
                             The Patient/Supporter Side

# data[].attributes.subject
                             The Patient/Supporter Side

# data[].attributes.body
The law is intended to help terminally ill patients avoid suffering. When he signed the bill into law in October, Gov. Jerry Brown wrote that he believed it would be a comfort to have this option if he were "dying in prolonged and excruciating pain."  More than three-fourths of Californians were in favor of such a law, including 82% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans, according to a poll conducted last year by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

# data[].attributes.headline
                           The Doctor/Opposer Side

# data[].attributes.subject
                           The Doctor/Opposer Side

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. William Toffler, a distinguished professor of family medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Ore., testified before Congress in 2015 about abuses of the law and about the state health department's negligence. "There is a shroud of secrecy enveloping the practice," he said. "Doctors engaging in this practice are required by state law to fabricate the cause of death stating that the cause is 'natural' rather than suicide."

# data[].attributes.body
Assisted Suicide is a topic not typically found in a book about a utopia, but Lois Lowry gives readers "Release." A form of suicide preformed by an injection. Please remember that the right is support and the left is opposition. Anything in the middle is neutral.