223.2 - California adopts Death with Dignity law

California adopts Death with Dignity law

Some other good news which in a way feels strange to call good news. Not because it's actually bad news but because of the circumstances under which the good news will operate.

And if you're confused, this will surely straighten it out:

California has enacted a Death With Dignity law, one that allows terminally-ill patients to obtain lethal doses of medications in order to end their own lives early.

Specifically, the law will permit physicians to provide lethal prescriptions to mentally competent adults who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have a prognosis of less than six months to live.

The law will take effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns its special session on healthcare, which means it will not go into effect until sometime next year.

Governor Jerry Brown said he struggled with the decision about signing the bill and in fact didn't reveal his position on it until he signed it. He said he decided to sign it because, quoting, "The crux of the matter is whether the state of California should continue to make it a crime for a dying person to end his life no matter how great his pain and suffering."

Brown, who has had three brushes with cancer himself, said he didn't know what he would do if he was dying in great pain, but it would be a "comfort" to be able to "consider the option" offered under the bill and he wouldn't want to deny that right to anyone else.

More important than that "comfort" is the sense of control that the "death-wth-dignity" option gives terminally-ill people, who all too often feel as if they had become mere observers of their own lives, that their lives were something happening to them rather than something in which they participate. Which is why in Oregon, which has had a Death with Dignity law in place for 17 years, more than a third of those who got a lethal prescription never filled it: The fact that they could make that decision if things became unbearable, the fact that they had that degree of control, was enough.

There were, of course, opponents, who had both ethical and practical arguments, neither of them persuasive. The ethical arguments seemed to be based mostly on the notion of "preserve life at any cost," which frankly from my perspective sounds reasonable until you add the necessary addendum "no matter the degree of suffering of the patient."

The practical arguments, on the other hand, were usually of the "scare quote" variety: people will get pushed into dying early because it's cheaper or greedy children will want to get rid of elderly parents quicker. Such arguments seem to fall apart in the face of the fact that in Oregon, which again has the most experience with this, there have been an average of just 69 lethal prescriptions a year - and remember a third of the total were never filled.

So California does - or next year, will - join Oregon, Montana, Vermont, and Washington in giving terminally-ill patients the option - which is what it is, the option - to end their days as they will, in full control of their lives and their faculties.

And yes, while the conditions are sad, that still is good news.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-gov-brown-end-of-life-bill-20151005-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/california-assisted-dying-legislation/

I must learn to be kinder

I've had a couple of exchanges recently with people who flew off the handle at the prospect of a Ralph Nader run for president in 2008. I already mentioned the one with Tito at The Core 4; the other one was with Fred at Stone Court.

I've seem similar reactions the the existence of a Nader exploratory committee other places, some considerably worse than those above. I didn't get into more arguments, but I did say at one site that I sometimes think Nader has put his name out there just for the fun of watching the Democrats foam at the mouth, shudder, twitch violently, and otherwise go bonkers in response.

A significant amount of the vituperation revolved, as it always does, around the claim that Nader is actually a GOPper stalking horse, supported by the right wing for the sole purpose of electing Republicans. That always struck me as a nutso argument supported by the thinnest possible evidence. It still does. However, I should likely be kinder to those who make the argument because it seems Nader isn't the only one getting that treatment. A reader of Talking Points Memo, in the middle of a lengthy screed about the horrors of an Obama (rather than a Clinton) nomination, said that

[i]t's obvious that the Obama base relies heavily on right wing help, and launders stuff through them and their proxies.

So perhaps it is just endemic to a style of hyperventilating politics driven by, in Carl Jung's famous phrase, "the evil which one does not see in one’s own bosom but always in somebody else’s," as a certain great political philosopher has already pointed out.

:sigh: We are so screwed.

Footnote: If you really want to check it out, this is a link to the Nader Exploratory Committee website. But let me make it clear right here and right now that Ralph Nader lost me with his bizarre, last-minute injection of himself into the Terri Schiavo tragedy with a statement that called for the forcible continuation of her feeding tube. There is no way in hell I will support him in 2008.

My hope is to be able to support the nominee of the Green Party, possibly Cynthia McKinney. But if that nominee turns out to be Nader, I will vote for other Green candidates, but not for him.

Another hill to climb

The posturing hypocrites continue to hover over the Terri Schiavo case, circling like vultures eager to rip what bits of political gain they can from her body. In the latest ghoulish development, Congress has agreed on a so-called "compromise, bipartisan bill" that would allow for filing for habeas corpus relief in federal court, giving her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, a means to file yet another appeal in yet another court in yet another attempt to maintain their tragic illusion that their daughter is still with them.

Our Only President, meanwhile, is changing his schedule and flying back to Washington "to be in place" to sign the bill immediately on passage. Normally, it would be flown to him for his signature via overnight military plane but the White House gang, not wanting to miss a chance to strut, declared

time is important here. ... This is about defending life.

The idea that defending life is something of great importance to George Bush is something that will doubtless come as a surprise to a good number of people here and abroad, but there it is.

This flurry of self-promotion followed the failure of the spectacularly arrogant subpoenas issued by the House Government Reform Committee and the Senate Health Committee demanding that Terri Schiavo, her husband Michael, and her caregivers appear at hearings later in March and that her feeding tube be continued until the committees had finished their "investigations." They came accompanied by a glowering reference by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TurnipBrain) that it is a federal crime to harm or obstruct a person called to testify before Congress.

Such subpoenas, if upheld, would have conferred onto any Congressional committee the power to prevent anyone of their choosing from undertaking any otherwise-legal action simply by saying it was "investigating" something somehow related (in this case, something about health care for non-ambulatory persons), even if that action was specifically permitted under a court order.

Rep. Henry Waxman of California, senior Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, called the subpoenas a "flagrant abuse of power" and amounted to Congress dictating the medical care Terri Schiavo should receive.

"Congress is turning the Schiavo family's personal tragedy into a national political farce," Waxman said.

Fortunately, a few islands of sanity have appeared. For one,

Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer refused a request from U.S. House attorneys to delay the removal, which he had previously ordered to take place at 1 p.m. EST. Greer determined that removal must go forward about an hour after another judge issued a temporary delay blocking it.

"I have had no cogent reason why the (congressional) committee should intervene" ... Greer told attorneys in a conference call, adding that last-minute action by Congress does not invalidate years of court rulings.

More bluntly, he told the committees to take their threats and shove 'em, that they don't have the authority to overrule him - which they don't.

For two, the Florida state Senate refused to be stampeded and turned away a bill that would have prevented the removal of the feeding tube in the absence of specific prior instructions from Terri calling for it - a requirement, it must be noted, that would go considerably beyond the "no extraordinary measures" provisions many people who have living wills include in theirs.

But Congress has forged ahead, with House Majority Leader Tom DeLayMyIndictment (R-TheRealAmerica) calling the tube's removal "barbarism" and declaring "Terry [sic] Schiavo is alive. She's as alive as you and I." Well, Terri is brain dead so in his case that might be true, but it's hardly relevant.

What's relevant is that as even David Gibbs, the Schindler's attorney, admits, "everything is a longshot." Federal courts, right up to the Supreme Court, have so far been reluctant to intervene in the case even when given the opportunity. There is no real reason to believe this new legislation, set to be passed in a special session late Sunday or early Monday, will change that. And I have no doubt that those pushing it are fully aware of that fact and are already writing up their "activist judge" screeds and "I was for Terri" campaign ads. For seven years they've had the chance to "do something" if something is in fact what they wanted to do. They did nothing. All these "urgent" actions and "special sessions" and all the crocodile tears and all the paeans to the preciousness of life - paeans which turn to dirges when addressing Iraq, Afghanistan, or the poor here and abroad - aren't about Terri Schiavo, they are about pandering.

Still, just like in the Florida Senate, some refuse to be stampeded.

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., issued a statement late Saturday saying he will make an objection that would stop the vote Sunday. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said he was trying to gather enough votes to defeat the bill Monday.

"This bill would have the federal government intrude into the most private, personal and painful family decision," Blumenauer said. "What people need to think about is how would they feel if Tom DeLay or some other politician decided to second-guess your doctor, or your husband."

Personally, I fully expect that the bill will be passed and signed, it will cause more delays, more pain, more heartache, more bitterness, more expense - and will accomplish nothing of any value.

The thing here is that when the Schindlers look at the shell of their daughter, they are looking with their memories, not with their eyes. That is tragic, but it is understandable. When the political streptococcus pyrogenes look at this, they are looking with their ghoulish self-interest - and that is unforgivable.

Footnote: The New York Times, which ran a sharply-worded editorial on the matter on Saturday (it included the adjectives dangerous, grim, ghoulish, theatrical, rash, and breathtaking) also had an analysis of the case that notes the political motives involved. The part that struck me the most was this:

Many Congressional Democrats were biting their tongues Friday as they witnessed what they considered an egregious misuse of power by Republicans. They pointed to public opinion polls that show support for Mr. Schiavo's right to decide his wife's fate, but they also fear the power of the mobilized right.

I've said it before but it bears repeating: We are on our own.