Also on the ballot: Assisted suicide measure

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


There's renewed energy behind the right-to-die movement: A voter initiative on the Washington State ballot would allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to dying patients.

If residents approve the measure, known as Initiative 1000 or the "Washington Death with Dignity Initiative," the state would become only the second in the country to allow the terminally ill to die with the help of a doctor. Oregon approved its own law in 1994.

Washington State voters rejected physician-assisted suicide in 1991, as have those in California, Michigan and Maine, the Associated Press notes. But unlike the first, failed initiative in Washington State, this one—sponsored by a coalition led by former Washington State Gov. Booth Gardner, who has Parkinson's disease—wouldn't let doctors administer lethal medicines to patients who can't take them on their own. Only the patients themselves would be able to use them to commit suicide.

Here are the parameters of the proposed law, according to the Yes on I-1000 Web site: Patients would have to be state residents who are 18 or older, be diagnosed with a terminal illness that gives them six months or less to live, and be mentally competent. They'd have to make three requests for medication — two verbal, and one in writing — with a 15-day waiting period between the first verbal request and the written one. There would be another 48-hour wait between the written request and the writing of the actual prescription.

Two people would have to witness the signing of the written request.

Since Oregon's law went into effect in 1997, 340 people have taken their lives, the AP says. That law, as well as the proposed Washington State measure, stop short of allowing euthanasia as it works in the Netherlands, the Seattle Times notes. There, doctors can administer lethal drugs.

(Image by iStockphoto/Arne Trautmann)

 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe