Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Mossback »

Apr 5, 2008 12:00 AM | last updated Apr 4, 2008 3:00 PM
Booth Gardner.

Former Washington Gov. Booth Gardner on the cover of The New York Times Magazine.

Weekend Essay.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Booth Gardner's campaign is selfless, not self-centered

The former governor's death-with-dignity initiative has been described as the last ego trip of a control freak. But it's really a selfless act that helps restore a basic right.

By Knute Berger

Call it patient-directed dying or assisted suicide. However you frame it, everyone has an opinion about former Governor Booth Gardner’s campaign to pass an initiative this year that would allow some terminally ill patients to receive medication to end their lives. Opponents of the measure have come out swinging. In the early going, there wasn’t much dignity in Gardner’s effort to pass the Death with Dignity Act.

While Gardner has been working on the initiative for some years, the public controversy began with a feature story last December in The New York Times Magazine that painted Gardner as a kind of control freak whose motivations were driven by his own medical condition. The former governor suffers from Parkinson’s disease, the symptoms of which have had an impact on his quality of life. The article also explored the inner tensions of Gardner’s relationship with his son (first reported by Seattle magazine in 2006), a Christian who opposes his father’s initiative and seems to feel that his father wasn’t a very good dad. The piece highlighted the Gardner family’s dysfunction.

When Gardner filed the initiative in January, his plan was immediately attacked, opposed by anti-abortion activists, thousands of whom rallied against it on the steps of the Capitol in Olympia; Catholic organizations, which promised to work hard against it; and some disability-rights advocates who fear such laws will lead to medically sanctioned killing of the handicapped.

Criticism crossed ideological lines. Governor Christine Gregoire immediately announced that while she respected fellow Democrat and one-time mentor Gardner and felt sorry for his physical condition, she couldn’t support the measure. She said she prays for him. Under a headline calling Gardner’s effort a “selfish last act,” liberal Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Joel Connelly blasted the former governor, accusing him of being “self-absorbed.” The rhetoric on the right was even harsher. The Family Policy Institute of Washington, a conservative values group, issued a press release claiming that Gardner was leading us down the slippery slope toward Nazi Germany’s worst excesses.

If the well-liked former governor thought he was going to be a poignant poster child for difficult end-of-life issues, he was mistaken. Instead of being praised for empathy and self-sacrifice, he stood accused of being on an ego trip and plotting to bring back the glory days of the Third Reich. So much for the sympathy vote.

All of this underscores how emotional — and personal — the issue is. Should dying people in the last months of life be permitted to go out on their own terms? Oregon has the only such law on the books, one found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Gardner’s initiative is based on it. To qualify, a person must be diagnosed as having a terminal illness with only six months to live and must have a mental health check. And, of course, a person doesn’t have to go through with it. Very few people in Oregon qualify or take advantage of the law — 40 or so per year. In Washington, which has a larger population, that might mean about 70 per year. Despite the accusations of selfishness, Gardner would not be able to benefit from the law if it were to pass: Parkinson’s is not considered a terminal disease.

But Gardner’s illness has sensitized him to something faced by many who have had a terminally ill member of the family: The process of dying can sometimes be made more bearable if a patient can control the end or has a means to smooth the path toward the inevitable. In Oregon, quite a few people who order life-ending medications choose never to use them. The Oregon law restores the promise of choice, and sometimes that is comfort enough.

That is the crux of the matter. Gardner’s law wouldn’t mandate anything. It’s not euthanasia, it doesn’t legalize suicide, it doesn’t ask doctors to do the killing. It strings safety ropes across the slippery slope to prevent abuse. It permits a type of self-administered care that gives dying patients a choice in how and when they “go gentle into that good night.” Rather than a narcissistic act, the chronically ill Gardner is spending his remaining political capital on what he calls his “last campaign,” one that restores the right of adults to choose how they live right up to the end.

  • Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut's chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Gray Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.
Comments
yes
Report a violationPosted by: Jeanp246 on Apr 5, 2008 8:33 AM
yes to Booth Gardner's initiative and to giving "his last full measure of devotion" to the state he served so well.
Disability Pride
Report a violationPosted by: frenchdm on Apr 5, 2008 12:42 PM
Editor's Pick In his article "Booth Gardner's campaign is not selfless, not self-centered" Knute Berger states that the assisted suicide initiative is opposed by "some disability rights advocates who fear such laws will lead to the medically sanctioned killing of the handicapped."

Author and journalist John Hockenberry states: "When a teenager suggests suicide as an option, it's a five alarm fire, it's a serious mental health issue. When a person with a disability wants to commit suicide, we call a lawyer and ask ‘How can we help?’” The fact that Mr. Berger uses the word "handicapped" reflects his complete lack of understanding of modern-day disability rights.

Disability rights leaders have worked for years to advance the civil rights of people with disabilities to move our society beyond long-held prejudices and discrimination against people with disabilities. When Booth Gardner characterizes his life as so awful and pathetic that he'd rather be dead; he does a great disservice to those of us with disabilities who see our lives as rich and filled with wonder.

During slavery many slaves thought their life was awful and pathetic because they were black. Other slaves realized that their life was awful and pathetic but not because they were black but because of slavery and the prejudices and discrimination underlying it. By changing laws and attitudes African-Americans are today living rich lives filled with wonder and are on the cusp of seeing the first African-American President of the United States.

The only American President elected four times had a disability just like Booth Gardner. FDR experienced the same depression and suicidal thoughts that Booth Gardner is struggling with now. When he finally moved beyond his despair FDR went on to change laws to enrich the lives of other people so their lives could be filled with wonder. FDR understood what it was to be truly "selfless and not self-centered" and committed himself to helping people improve their lives not to find ways to end it.
RE: Disability Pride
Report a violationPosted by: FlyintheOintment on Apr 6, 2008 10:19 AM
I don't see how the social and legal institutions underlying slavery can be compared with a State initiative legalizing voluntary euthanasia under specific conditions. What I really don't understand, though, is how you can engage in the narrow minded thinking associated with the prejudice and discrimination you oppose.

The characterization of Mr. Gardner as depressed, plagued by suicidal thoughts, describing life as pathetic, and the back-door insinuation of a mental health problem smacks of the pigeon-holing you would presumably scorn. There is a world of difference between someone being overcome by a declining quality of life after living a full life, and someone seeking to overcome a condition that impedes the living of life.

That Mr. Gardner appears to recognize that fact suggests a state of mind in opposition to your characterization. On the other hand, "disability pride" is the marriage of condition and identity, explaining how a personal decision with regards to a personal condition can threaten the basis of another's identity. Mr. Gardner's response to his condition speaks to a quality of character consistent with his years of public service, while those who oppose his efforts seem motivated by the selfish need to guard the frail identity which gives their life meaning.
Yes: Expanding legal freedoms for personal choices about one's own body
Report a violationPosted by: glbt on Apr 5, 2008 2:53 PM
I applaud former Governor Gardner and Knute Berger for their courage in advancing the principle of expanding legal freedoms to make personal decisons about one's own body.

In this era when the Republican nominee for U.S. president advocates amending the Constitution to outlaw reproductive freedom and when some outspoken people with disabilities use their podium to try to deny self-determination and autonomy to people in their dying days under the guise of "disabilty pride," it's refreshing to read this essay in Crosscut.

The ACLU of Washington has endorsed the Death with Dignity/ YES! on I-1000 campaign. So has the WA State Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Women's Law Center, the American Medical Women's Association, and other organizations--- for good reasons.

Hopefully this November a majority of registered voters in WA state will vote in favor of granting the legal freedom to terminally ill, mentally competent adults to have this profoundly personal choice in their final days.
the right to end one's own life should not be dictated by others
Report a violationPosted by: sentient being on Apr 5, 2008 7:02 PM
When we talk about slippery slopes with regard to the right of an individual to end his or her own life, the real slippery slope is one we have already embarked upon, and it is slippery, indeed. But the slippery slope is not the threat of state sanctioned euthanasia, it is the danger that comes from chipping away at an individual's right to pursue his or her own destiny, as long as it doesn't harm others.

When we start to tell a person that he or she has to suffer to the very end, we've taken control from that individual over the very thing which an individual should have ultimate control, without the intervention of the state. And we have started down that slope by trying to legislate eating habits, vices, and all manner of other 'vicitmless' crimes. Sure, there are always victims in the non-legal sense, as those of us who are the children of parents who have committed suicide know. However, there are all manner of victims in all sorts of situations. What gives us the right to legalize some forms of victimization and outlaw others? As our experience with the failed war on drugs, prostitution, etc have shown, people will find a way to get what they want or need. We (our government) should just stay out of it.
Agree a person should have control over how the end of life's journey happens
Report a violationPosted by: summerwind on Apr 6, 2008 7:35 AM
Having watched several loved ones suffer with terminal cancer waiting for their body to shut down slowly, I want the option to die with dignity.

Having all these religous cults demanding my suffering be prolonged is insulting to my right as an individual.

Having to end life's journey in the shadows due to these believers in folklore and myths is not what the US founders were about.
Bruce Gardners choice
Report a violationPosted by: davidrsmithdvm on Apr 7, 2008 10:49 AM
I have voted for this before and will again if given the chance. I do not encourage the death choice but if a person has thought it out and has enough pain or loss of life it should be their choice and not totaly stoped by the state. It does not seem to be a big problem in Oregon. In my life I must put a lot of animals to sleep and it is always (sad to say) best medicine. I do not think I or the horse get any good Karma out the terminal suffering they are going through. I have thought about end of life for me and so far it is not something I choose to do but my life is good. I can envission a change and will do it on my own.
My Choice; My Accountability
Report a violationPosted by: Snoose Junction on Apr 9, 2008 11:07 AM
Society makes me accountable for all of my decisions other than when I choose to leave it. This is an individual decision, not a religious one. While I may have to account to my higher power if I make this decision, that too is a decision for which I am accountable. It is a sad commentary that we even need such an initiaitve, and give Booth credit for bringing it to the people.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement