"Death With Dignity" initiative deserves dignified consideration

I first began to think about a "death with dignity" law for Washington when I was preparing some remarks for an event honoring me for my lifetime contributions to the state. These events are good for the ego; but, they are also a reminder that the road ahead is far shorter than the road behind.

As I looked ahead, I thought of the many Parkinson's disease patients I have come to know since being diagnosed with this affliction in the mid-1990s and the terrible suffering that many endured in the last days of their lives. I know a similar fate awaits me.

All my life, I have made the important choices for myself. Some were easy and turned out well. Others were very difficult. As I looked ahead to my final days, I wanted the right to make a final choice — to have some control over the time and manner of my death.

When I first announced my plans to field a "death with dignity" campaign, I was deluged with stories about loved ones suffering terribly in the last days of their lives. These stories increased my commitment and gave me needed energy.

My first inclination was to craft a "best in the nation" law governing how and when a physician could assist a terminally ill patient in dying. I wanted the law to be available to people like me who suffer progressively debilitating terminal diseases like Parkinson's. But the more I looked, the more convinced I became that Oregon already had the best possible law on its books even though a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease could not qualify a patient to receive aid in dying.

Most important, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act has passed the test of time. Every independent analysis over the 10-year period that the law has been in effect comes to the same conclusion: the safeguards work and abuses have not occurred.

None of the frightening outcomes predicted by opponents came true. It is used infrequently: only one in six requests is granted, 36 percent of the patients who are given the prescriptions do not use them, and its use has been entirely voluntary. It is an important fact that 80 to 90 percent of patients who use the Oregon law are in hospice, and hospice workers there support the system. In other words, the Oregon system provides an additional choice but does not replace existing hospice and palliative care. Such a law does not increase and may decrease hastening death, and gives patients the comfort of knowing they have an option whether or not they choose to use it.

The basic provisions of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act that have been included in Washington's Initiative 1000 include:

• The patient must be diagnosed by two physicians as being terminally ill with less than six months to live

• The patient must repeat the request in writing twice with at least two weeks between requests

• If either physician suspects the person is not mentally competent to make the decision, a mental-health evaluation is required.

• The patient must be provided with information about and access to palliative (hospice) care.

• A prescription may not be written if there is any indication of coercion. Coercion is punishable as a felony.

• The patient must self-administer the medication.

Support for a Death With Dignity Act in Washington is high. The I-1000 campaign has thousands of volunteers across the state. Despite rotten spring weather, they have gathered many thousands more signatures than required to put the initiative on the ballot. Our initial polling shows that two out of three voters favor the proposed law.

Despite the fact that every independent analysis of Oregon's law concludes that its safeguards work, I-1000 will be opposed by the same groups that fought passage of the Oregon measure and then tried to repeal it. They will use the same claims — now disproved by experience — that HMOs and greedy families might coerce people into choosing to end their lives or that dying patients who are depressed would make inappropriate decisions.

Based on their religious beliefs, many people think that a person should not under any circumstances choose to end their life. I respect this moral belief, but it should not be the basis for state law — and the people who hold those beliefs would not choose to use the provisions of the Death With Dignity Act. It is a matter of choice, after all.

Booth Gardner served as governor of Washington state from 1985-93.