The indignity of I-1000: Backers' claims misleading
I am a lifelong Democrat. I am also an attorney whose practice includes probate and guardianship disputes. As part of my job, I have seen...
Special to The Times
I am a lifelong Democrat. I am also an attorney whose practice includes probate and guardianship disputes. As part of my job, I have seen firsthand how families act at the death of a loved one. Sometimes, especially when the loved one has assets, there can be bad behavior.
Up until two months ago, I had no strong opinion on the proposed Death with Dignity Act, which is on the ballot as Initiative 1000. That was, until I read its actual language. I urge you to read it now: The backers' claims are misleading; the proposed safeguards are illusory.
"Voluntary" decision making
The Initiative's campaign literature states: "All decisions made by the patient must be entirely voluntary," and that the application to obtain the lethal dose has "objective witnesses." The proposed act, however, allows one of two required witnesses to be an heir.
When signing a will, the same situation would create a presumption of undue influence, for example, that greedy son pressured dad to sign. The probate statute states that when one of two witnesses is a taker under the will, there is a rebuttable presumption that the taker-witness "procured the gift by duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence."
The initiative's campaign literature also states: "No one other than the eligible patient may administer the [lethal dose]." The proposed act, does not, however, say this. It states only that the patient "may" self-administer the lethal drug. The act also defines "self-administer" as merely the act of ingesting. The act states:
"Self-administer" means a qualified patient's act of ingesting medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.
In other words, greedy son putting the lethal dose in dad's mouth qualifies as "self-administration."
No witness at death
Under the act, there is no requirement that the death itself be witnessed. With no witness, greedy son could force feed the lethal dose to dad. Who would know? It would be the perfect crime.
The act states that persons who act wrongly, for example, by exerting undue influence, are guilty of a Class A felony. But, how would this be proved? Dad would be dead. The only witness to his death would be greedy son. No "death with dignity."
Under present law, people with assets, that is, middle class and above, can find themselves in a pressure cooker of "put me in your will." With passage of the act, there will be a new refrain: "Die now so that there will be something left for me."
This is not a "dignified" way to end one's life, knowing that your loved ones want your stuff more than they want you and/or spending the last moments of your life trying to fight them off. I mean, what did your life stand for if this is how it ends?
I am against the act because it would put vulnerable persons at risk of abuse (and worse) at the hands of others. My objection is based on the act's actual language.
I also note that the backers' Web site has a link to a copy of the act with font so small, you can barely read it. Apparently, they hope you won't. I urge you to instead read the larger-font version on the secretary of state's Web site, www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1000.pdf.
Read I-1000 and vote no.Margaret Dore is a Seattle attorney in private practice.
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
Sam and Sara Lucchese create handmade pasta out of their kitchen-garage adjacent to their Ballard home. Here, they illustrate the final steps in making pappardelle pasta.
Furniture & home furnishings
POST A FREE LISTING