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.


 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe