Taking sides on branding the right to die

Former governor Booth Gardner’s death with dignity initiative has a branding problem.

Supporters call Initiative 1000 "death with dignity." Opponents call it "assisted suicide." The ballot title, approved by the Attorney General and the local judge, calls it "aid in dying."

The local press has called it everything from the “right to die” to the “death initiative.” Now, in an effort the end the confusion, the Associated Press – style makers and trend setters that they are – have decided to side with the opponents and call it “assisted suicide.”

Adam Wilson at The Olympian has the story. David Postman at the Seattle Times and Goldy at HorsesAss weigh in as well.

The argument for one consistent term to avoid voter confusion is a strong one, but if the AP was really trying to avoid confusion then they should have picked the term approved by the court for the ballot, “aid in dying.”

The AP may as well have announced that they’ve picked a side, and it’s not the side that would allow self-determination.

The arguments against calling the right to die assisted suicide are semantic, functional and emotional.

Emotionally, sick patients very much want to live, it’s the cancer or HIV/AIDS or other terminal illness that is killing them. Terminally ill people have a different mindset than, say, a typical suicide bomber or despondent teenager. And out of respect for the dying, we ought to call terminally ill patients what they choose to be called – not suicidal, but capable of choosing the right to die.

Functionally, suicide happens when a person who would otherwise be alive chooses to die. In the case of death with dignity, a person who will otherwise be dead chooses the time and place of their dying, only after a terminal disease – like cancer – has functionally killed them already.

Semantically, if we start calling the right to die physician-assisted suicide, then why not jump back in the chain of causation for every death. By that logic, gun deaths are NRA-assisted and sheriff shootouts are police-assisted, car accidents are department-of-licensing-assisted, overdoses are drug-assisted and those suicides that are truly suicides might be family-assisted or psychologist-assisted.

Every death can be traced to some cause that could be labeled as providing assistance. In this case, the Associated Press arbitrarily decided to use their power to impose their choice of terminology on everybody else. Much like opponents of I-1000 are trying to impose their personal or religious morals and their refusal to allow the right to die on everybody else.

We think the right to die, or aid in dying, or death with dignity, or even assisted suicide ought to be a personal choice that every Washingtonian (like every Oregonian) can make for themselves – without being told what to do by the government or by the Associated Press.