New ads, barbs over I-1000

In the last days before the election, both sides in the battle over Initiative 1000 have unleashed new ads and are calling foul on one another's claims.

The initiative, modeled on a decade-old Oregon law, would allow doctors to prescribe lethal-dose medications for terminally ill patients.

The initiative campaign is by far the costliest of this year's statewide initiatives. Supporters have raised about $4.9 million while opponents have raised about $1.5 million.

Throughout the campaign, proponents have spent roughly $2 million for ads that seek to reassure voters the measure is safe and has worked as intended in Oregon. They've also run ads to debunk what they call their opponents' lies.

Opponents, who have spent about $1 million for ads, have labeled the initiative dangerous, with inadequate safeguards whose effectiveness would be tough to assess.

Here are some major points of contention in the ads:

• Opponents say I-1000 "tells doctors it's OK to give a lethal drug overdose to a seriously ill person."

In fact, the initiative applies only to terminally ill patients who are expected to die within six months. And while a doctor does write the prescription, the initiative states the patient must "self-administer" the medication — meaning ingest it. Opponents argue there's no way to ensure that a patient doesn't have help from others in taking the medication, and that medical science can't say for sure whether someone has only six months or less to live.

• Opponents say the initiative would allow doctors to give a lethal-dose prescription even to a patient suffering from depression. They further contend that in Oregon, one in four getting the drugs suffer from depression.

In fact, the initiative states that if a doctor believes a patient's judgment is impaired by depression, the doctor must refer the patient for counseling.

The one-in-four figure is not correct, either — it's one in six, based on a study by a Portland psychiatrist of 58 terminally ill patients in Oregon who pursued the option. Of those, 18 actually got a prescription. Of the 18, three were clinically depressed.

• Opponents say a spouse wouldn't have to be informed of a patient's decision to die by assisted suicide.

It's true that the initiative does not require a patient to notify family members. Requiring such notification would breach doctor-patient confidentiality laws. But the law does say the doctor "shall recommend" notification.

• Opponents say health plans would recommend assisted suicide to save costs. They cite the case of Barbara Wagner, an Oregon woman who was turned down by the Oregon Health Plan for a new drug but was informed of the "physician aid in dying" option.

Supporters say the Oregon Health Plan covers nearly all chemotherapy treatments for cancer patients. What it denied Wagner, supporters say, was an expensive experimental drug with little evidence of effectiveness. No one in Oregon has been denied coverage because death would be cheaper, the supporters maintain.

• Supporters say nine independent studies prove the safeguards in the Oregon law are working and that none of the worst-case scenarios have happened.

Opponents say some findings trouble them, such as a study that pointed out no one seeking assisted suicide in Oregon last year was referred for psychiatric evaluations.

Overall, opponents say that in Washington, as in Oregon, there would be no way of really knowing if the safeguards are working.

They say that though doctors are required to file records with the state, I-1000 doesn't specify penalties for not doing so. They say further that very little information about assisted-suicide cases would be public, making it very difficult to verify if the proper steps were taken.

Supporters point out that health records are confidential by law. And they say that doctors who don't file records would be breaking the law.