go to mobile version »

2008 Election »

 
 

Unlike father, unlike son: The Gardners are split on 'death with dignity'

Or whatever it's called. Just don't call it suicide.

Former Washington Gov. Booth Gardner, a Democrat battling Parkinson's disease, this week filed his Oregon-style right-to-die initiative. Gardner has until July to collect roughly 225,000 valid voter signatures to get the measure placed on the November ballot.

Supporters turned out in force for the filing on Wednesday, Jan. 9, as did opponents led by disability rights advocates in wheelchairs. Also attending the event at the Secretary of State's office in Olympia was Gardner's 45-year old son, Doug, who was recently profiled along with his father in a cover story in The New York Times Magazine.

Doug Gardner is a Christian who opposes assisted suicide. Asked if he will actively campaign against his father's initiative, the younger Gardner said: "I don't know the future. For now I'm comfortable with where it's at ... and I'm not planning on doing debates right now with dad ... So we'll just debate in private."

But Gov. Gardner predicts his son will take a public role in opposing his old man. "Yes, I think he will, because he believes in Democracy and he believes in fighting for what his rights are and he feels the existing system is right for him."

The whole "unlike father, unlike son" dynamic adds a bizarre and discomfiting element to what already promises to be an emotional and fiery debate over assisted suicide in the coming months.

Speaking of the S-word, supporters have launched a parallel campaign to vanquish the term "assisted suicide" from the lexicon – calling it a "biased and pejorative" description of their proposal. They even handed out to reporters a document titled, "It's Not Suicide," with the word "suicide" crossed out.

Arline Hinckley, a social worker and one of the leaders of Gardner's right-to-die campaign, and others are asking Washington reporters and editors to adopt the phrase "aid in dying."

"Suicide in our culture has a negative connotation," argues Hinckley. "It conjures up images of terrorists or severely depressed people or even teenagers whose romance has gone awry. Suicide is an act of an otherwise healthy person."

By contrast, says Hinckley, "Controlling your own dying process is a well-thought-out, rational decision by a person who would want to live if their physical circumstances were otherwise."

Hinckley did not address whether a suicide bomber who's terminally ill - a not uncommon scenario in the Middle East - should thus be called a "hastening-death-bomber."

To bolster their argument, right-to-die supporters cite a number of organizations that are on the record as opposing the term "physician-assisted suicide," including the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, the American College of Legal Medicine, and the Washington State Psychological Association.

Supporters also point to a 1996 Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that says "to hasten by medical means a death that is already in process should not be classified as suicide." Finally, they note that the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) has stopped using "assisted suicide" to describe that state's "Death with Dignity Act."

But Dr. Katrina Hedberg, with ODHS, says that decision was made under threat of legal action. "At that point, we decided that it was easiest for us to ... refer to this as the 'Oregon Death with Dignity Act' and 'participants in the Act,' so that we wouldn't get into this big discussion or confrontation about exactly what to call this."

Hedberg notes the department decided to comply in part because the Oregon law - which was written by right-to-die proponents - specifically says people who take advantage of the law are not committing suicide. Arguably, this distinction in the law could be important for life insurance benefit reasons.

As if to stick a thumb in the eye of the pro-right-to-die forces, opponents have organized themselves as the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide. Duane French is a quadriplegic who's leading that group. He suggests proponents are trying to rewrite the dictionary. "Suicide, if you look up the definition in Webster's, is someone taking their own life. And when you ingest a lethal does of medication, that is taking your own life."

The debate is sure to get some people howling about the "thought police," "word police," or "PC police" run amok. Others, though, would argue that this is about having compassion for dying people and, after all, language does matter.

In case you're interested, here's a list of possible terms to describe Gov. Gardner's proposal. Feel free to weigh in in the comment section:

  • Death with dignity
  • Right to die
  • Physician-assisted suicide
  • Physician-assisted dying
  • Hastening one's death
  • Aid in dying

Austin Jenkins is the Olympia-based political reporter for Northwest News Network, a consortium of public radio stations in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. He covers Northwest politics and public policy as well as the Washington Legislature. You can find his work posted at the Web sites of KPLU-FM (88.5) and other network stations. You can e-mail him in care of editor@crosscut.com.


Comments:

Posted Fri, Jan 11, 9:04 a.m. inappropriate

What is the issue?: Here we go again. The fight between two family members seems more important than the question raised by the proposed initiative. It would seem that if the people of Washington State want this idea confirmed or rejected it would be smart to put it on the ballot.
It is interesting how far the political process has come in taking over the personal rights of the individual. It is too bad that this question has to be asked. Wouldn't it be amazing if life's decisions about my body were left to me and to you?

Posted Fri, Jan 11, 10:38 p.m. inappropriate

Why the controversy?: Try as I might, I just don't understand what there is to argue about here. If a person is terminally ill and decides that they no longer wish to suffer through their last days, how is this anyone else's business besides that person and his or her loved ones?

It baffles me that there are so many people who would interfere with such a personal decision made under such difficult and sad circumstances.

Posted Sun, Jan 13, 7:25 a.m. inappropriate

Hastening death bomber?: Are you kidding me? !

Right in the middle of a semi-legitimate discussion about terminology, you bring up images of terrorists with dynamite strapped to their chests?

Suicide bombers have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. if you want to talk about the proper technology for people who willfully kill other people while killing themselves violently, do it somewhere else. It adds absolutely nothing to the debate, except fuel the arguments of those who believe that the death with dignity initiative represents some kind of affront to morality.

I'm certain that soon, I will be hearing the "hastened death bomber" out of the mouths of Duane French and the rest of the opponents of this initiative. Like many of their arguments, it's inflammatory without actually being meaningful or even related to the topic at hand.

This is going to be an important issue in the coming year, and I hope that in your future dispatches, you address it with a bit more thoughtfulness and a bit less Stranger-esque snarkiness. We do expect better from you, Austin.

Posted Tue, Jan 15, 7:32 a.m. inappropriate

RE: Hastening death bomber?: Sky Bluesky,
Thanks for your comment. Snarky was not my intent. I only wanted to draw attention to the strict and narrow defitinon of suicide that advocates of the Initiative are using: when an otherwise healthy person takes his/her life. Furthermore, during the dueling news conferences the opposition group brought up the issue of suicide bombers. In retrospect, I should have explained that better for context. Thanks again for holding my feet to the fire.

Subscribe to Newsletter About Crosscut Advertise Web Feeds