Sequim Gazette Editorial and Letters to the Editor
Life-or-death choice faces hospital tonight
Read More Editorial
Olympic Medical Center commissioners tonight must choose between two constituencies, one in favor of the hospital's participating in Death with Dignity decisions, the other against Initiative 1000.
Their choice has little practical, immediate significance. If they approve participation, no OMC doctor or staff member can be forced to assist a patient's suicide. And if they decide not to permit participation, any doctor or staff member can do so elsewhere.
Furthermore, a Death with Dignity decision is tied in knots of red tape that would dissuade all but those people most determined to end their lives.
But the issue isn't one of life or death, observers say.
The crux of it is control.
Donna Davison, OMC administrative director, and Dr. Sandra Tatro, chairwoman of OMC's Ethics Advisory Committee, briefed commissioners Feb. 25 on Initiative 1000.
Both women said fear of having no control over the last stages of a terminal illness drove Initiative 1000's passage by a 58-percent margin across Washington, 61 percent in Clallam County.
Those voters form one constituency.
Lined up in opposition are people who believe the end of a person's life should be in other hands, those of a higher power. They say people should not be able to take the lives that were given to them by their creator. They warn against those persons "playing God."
Opponents' other fear is that Death with Dignity will be the pry bar that could open legal euthanasia to kill not only the infirm but the inconvenient.
The Gazette surely won't take a side for or against anyone's issue of faith, but I'll make one observation.
Christian religious leaders for nearly two millennia have consigned the souls of people who commit suicide to the lowest depths of damnation.
Allowing individuals to choose their own checkout time is anathema not only on religious principles; it defies the authority of priests and pastors of all denominations.
Suicide for whatever reason is the ultimate act of self-control.
On Feb. 25, commissioners heard that the Ethics Advisory Committee unanimously had endorsed Death with Dignity decisions at OMC.
One member of that panel, Commissioner John Beitzel of Sequim, told the Gazette he hadn't been at the meeting where the vote was taken.
"Had I been present, that vote would still have been unanimous," he wrote in an e-mail.
"I find that list of reasons crafted by the committee members to be quite compelling. I also think that the process of achieving self-imposed death is so convoluted and time-consuming that few people would ever try, let alone succeed."
As of late last week, commissioners Arlene Engel of Sequim and Jim Cammack of Lake Sutherland weren't so sure how they'd vote, especially after receiving sackfuls of messages - many of them form letters - from right-to-life advocates.
"Myself, I have a hard time [with the issue]," Engel said. She added that health care providers hadn't done a good job of reassuring patients that much of the pain of a terminal illness can be relieved.
"I would not do this [approve Death with Dignity] myself," she said, but if this is what the board feels is the community mandate, then that's the way I would have to go."
Cammack likewise said he'd received a mass of messages urging him to vote against the hospital's participation.
"I'm still a little bit up in the air about it," he said.
Like Beitzel, he said, "The processes ... are so complex. There's 200 pages of forms to fill out."
Before the Gazette could contact commissioners Gary Smith, Jean Hordyk, Jim Leskinovitch and Cindy Witham, OMC administrators advised them to refrain from commenting on the issue.
"I have always asked the board to consider that their comments to the press on controversial issues may be construed as the opinion of the entire board, which is not appropriate," said Rhonda Curry, OMC's assistant administrator for strategic marketing and communications.
"That is where caution is advised in an issue as big as Death with Dignity."
That means no one will know until tonight whether OMC will give what amounts to lip service for or against Initiative 1000 - or which constituency it will honor.
Anti-initiative forces have promised to pack the meeting that will start at 6 p.m. in Linkletter Hall in the basement of the hospital, 939 Caroline St., Port Angeles.
The session will start with public comment on the issue, with speakers limited to three minutes each.
In the meantime, if you'd like more information on the issue, visit www.wsha.org/page.cfm?id=webcasts for the Washington State Hospital Association's slide show on the question.
Despite all the emotion that will be invoked for and against Death with Dignity tonight, the only question for commissioners is clear:
Should a person be permitted to take his or her life into his or her own hands?
Jim Casey is the editor of the Sequim Gazette. He can be reached at editor@sequimgazette.com.
Their choice has little practical, immediate significance. If they approve participation, no OMC doctor or staff member can be forced to assist a patient's suicide. And if they decide not to permit participation, any doctor or staff member can do so elsewhere.
Furthermore, a Death with Dignity decision is tied in knots of red tape that would dissuade all but those people most determined to end their lives.
But the issue isn't one of life or death, observers say.
The crux of it is control.
Donna Davison, OMC administrative director, and Dr. Sandra Tatro, chairwoman of OMC's Ethics Advisory Committee, briefed commissioners Feb. 25 on Initiative 1000.
Both women said fear of having no control over the last stages of a terminal illness drove Initiative 1000's passage by a 58-percent margin across Washington, 61 percent in Clallam County.
Those voters form one constituency.
Lined up in opposition are people who believe the end of a person's life should be in other hands, those of a higher power. They say people should not be able to take the lives that were given to them by their creator. They warn against those persons "playing God."
Opponents' other fear is that Death with Dignity will be the pry bar that could open legal euthanasia to kill not only the infirm but the inconvenient.
The Gazette surely won't take a side for or against anyone's issue of faith, but I'll make one observation.
Christian religious leaders for nearly two millennia have consigned the souls of people who commit suicide to the lowest depths of damnation.
Allowing individuals to choose their own checkout time is anathema not only on religious principles; it defies the authority of priests and pastors of all denominations.
Suicide for whatever reason is the ultimate act of self-control.
On Feb. 25, commissioners heard that the Ethics Advisory Committee unanimously had endorsed Death with Dignity decisions at OMC.
One member of that panel, Commissioner John Beitzel of Sequim, told the Gazette he hadn't been at the meeting where the vote was taken.
"Had I been present, that vote would still have been unanimous," he wrote in an e-mail.
"I find that list of reasons crafted by the committee members to be quite compelling. I also think that the process of achieving self-imposed death is so convoluted and time-consuming that few people would ever try, let alone succeed."
As of late last week, commissioners Arlene Engel of Sequim and Jim Cammack of Lake Sutherland weren't so sure how they'd vote, especially after receiving sackfuls of messages - many of them form letters - from right-to-life advocates.
"Myself, I have a hard time [with the issue]," Engel said. She added that health care providers hadn't done a good job of reassuring patients that much of the pain of a terminal illness can be relieved.
"I would not do this [approve Death with Dignity] myself," she said, but if this is what the board feels is the community mandate, then that's the way I would have to go."
Cammack likewise said he'd received a mass of messages urging him to vote against the hospital's participation.
"I'm still a little bit up in the air about it," he said.
Like Beitzel, he said, "The processes ... are so complex. There's 200 pages of forms to fill out."
Before the Gazette could contact commissioners Gary Smith, Jean Hordyk, Jim Leskinovitch and Cindy Witham, OMC administrators advised them to refrain from commenting on the issue.
"I have always asked the board to consider that their comments to the press on controversial issues may be construed as the opinion of the entire board, which is not appropriate," said Rhonda Curry, OMC's assistant administrator for strategic marketing and communications.
"That is where caution is advised in an issue as big as Death with Dignity."
That means no one will know until tonight whether OMC will give what amounts to lip service for or against Initiative 1000 - or which constituency it will honor.
Anti-initiative forces have promised to pack the meeting that will start at 6 p.m. in Linkletter Hall in the basement of the hospital, 939 Caroline St., Port Angeles.
The session will start with public comment on the issue, with speakers limited to three minutes each.
In the meantime, if you'd like more information on the issue, visit www.wsha.org/page.cfm?id=webcasts for the Washington State Hospital Association's slide show on the question.
Despite all the emotion that will be invoked for and against Death with Dignity tonight, the only question for commissioners is clear:
Should a person be permitted to take his or her life into his or her own hands?
Jim Casey is the editor of the Sequim Gazette. He can be reached at editor@sequimgazette.com.
![[Post to Twitter]](/module-resources/article/tt-twitter-big3.png)
© 2009 Sequim Gazette. All rights reserved. 147 West Washington, Sequim, WA 98382 • 360.683.3311 • Email the Webmaster