AN OPEN LETTER TO DRAFTERS OF
  LEGISLATION TO PERMIT LIFE-ENDING CHEMICALS
by James Park

OUTLINE:

THE CALIFORNIA COMPASSIONATE CHOICES ACT
—AND ITS EMBEDDED SAFEGUARDS

MINOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TEXT OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMPASSIONATE CHOICES ACT

"MEDICATION" SHOULD BE CHANGED TO SOMETHING ELSE.

"HASTEN" SHOULD BE REPLACED BY "CHOOSE A TIMELY DEATH"


    I have not compared every right-to-die bill
that permits a physician to prescribe life-ending chemicals
for the purpose of bringing a quick and easy death,
but in my opinion, the California Compassionate Choices Bill
is the most advanced and comprehensive of such proposed legislation:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-CA-CC.html

    Other states that are considering such legislation
should begin with the California model
rather than the Oregon Death with Dignity Act:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-OR-DD.html

    The above paragraphs give the direct links to these two models
so that drafters of such legislation can see the differences.

    But even the California draft can be improved.
This open letter suggests one minor change in language,
which will make the bill more honest and straight-forward:
Instead of calling the lethal chemicals a "medication",
they should be called "life-ending chemicals" or some such expression.

    This small change will not affect
the application of this law if it is passed.
But this improved language might win a few people in the middle,
who would otherwise vote against the bill.
And even if this change does not swing any votes,
it will make it a better law.

THE CALIFORNIA COMPASSIONATE CHOICES ACT
—AND ITS EMBEDDED SAFEGUARDS

1. The complete text of the California Compassionate Choices Act of 2007.
This bill has not been changed in any ways,
except to divided the lines to make it easier to read on a computer screen.
And I have also highlighted the safeguards embodied in the proposed law:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-CA-CC.html

2. I have identified and explained 16 safeguards I found in the California bill.
These are listed at the top of the following file,
since I think the California bill is the best of this sort proposed so far:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-LAWS.html

    I would be happy to receive any feedback from anyone
concerning my explanations of how the safeguards would work.

    Also because the safeguards are disbursed thru-out the text of the California bill
rather than being gathered all in one place,
I might have missed some safeguards that are implicit in certain words or phrases.
If so, please call all such omissions to my attention.

    How do others count the number of safeguards incorporated?
And has anyone else created an organize list of the California safeguards?

3. My research into safeguards for life-ending decisions
has now yielded more than 30 possible safeguards.
Thus anyone revising or drafting such a law
might consider adding a few more safeguards.
Here is the organized list of possible safeguards:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-CAT.html

    If you are drafting legislation to permit voluntary death,
which of these safeguards are you already planning to include
and which additional safeguards might be worth considering?

    In my view, having more and better safeguards
is the best way to get agreement from people in the middle.
They are worried about possible abuses and mistakes.
I have also made a list of these objections:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-ABUSE.html

    I have organized the objections into 12 basic types.
And I show how the proposed safeguards will prevent
each of the problems articulated by the opposition.

    I welcome additional objections anyone has encountered
while working to pass such legislation.
Any such additional input
can help me to improve my list of objections
either by including these objections in the catalog already created
or by adding additional objections to the list.

MINOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TEXT OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMPASSIONATE CHOICES ACT

    As I said earlier, I believe this bill is the best of its type yet proposed.
But even this excellent bill has room for improvement.
And the delay in getting it passed
might offer an opportunity to make some minor improvements.

    The improvements in language I suggest
will not change the impact of the law in any way.
But such changes might help nudge some people in the middle
more toward the end of accepting the right-to-die.

    And even if the California bill is not changed,
other states drafting such bills might accept this suggested improvement.

"MEDICATION" SHOULD BE CHANGED TO SOMETHING ELSE.

    There are several places in the proposed bill
where the word "medication" is used to describe
the lethal chemicals that might be prescribed by a physician
to be taken by the patient
for the purpose of bringing a peaceful and painless death.

    I realize the word "medication"
was copied from the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.
And it does not seem to have created any problems in Oregon.
But now that we have the opportunity to create a new law,
we should make it say exactly what we mean.

    Life-ending chemicals should never be described as "medication".
How would this new use of the word affect such encounters as the following:
The nurse appears with pills in a small paper cup.
She says, "Are you ready to take your medication?"

    I have written an extensive critique of this use of the word "medication":
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/C&C-MED.html
This essay discusses eight alternative expressions that might be used:

1. "life-ending drugs"
2. "life-ending chemicals"
3. "deadly drugs"
4. "gentle poison"
5. "peaceful pill"
6. "death pill"
7. "peaceful-death chemicals"
8. "poison"

    If you decide to replace the word "medication",
you will find it appropriate to change the word "prescription" as well.
It always occurs in connection with the offending word "medication",
except in 7195.1 (h), definitions.

"HASTEN" SHOULD BE REPLACED BY "CHOOSE A TIMELY DEATH"

    Another misleading word appears only once in the California bill: "hasten".
This appears in the last paragraph before the signature of the patient
on the form requesting life-ending chemicals.

    And here is my extensive critique of the word "hasten" and related expressions:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/C&C-HAST.html

    Otherwise, I do not find anything I would change in the California bill
except the superfluous "in a dignified and humane manner" here and there.

    If and when any changes are made in the California Compassionate Choices Bill,
please let me know,
so I can change my version of the text on the Internet:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-CA-CC.html
 
    Best wishes to everyone trying to create better legislation
to guarantee our right-to-die.

Yours,
James Park

*********************************************************
:) James Park         e-mail: PARKx032@TC.UMN.EDU
1829 Third Avenue South #218      |  phone: (612) 871-PARK
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404-2185
Museum: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/
Bookstore: http://www.existentialbooks.com
*********************************************************
 


Created 9-1-2007; Revised 9-3-2007; 9-11-2007; 9-18-2007; 10-3-2007;
Go to the website exploring all
Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions.

Go to the opening page for this website:
An Existential Philosopher's Museum






The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.