Today’s POV blog

Six months after Washington passed a law to permit assisted suicides, nearly a dozen people have ended their lives according to a story at USA Today online. Considering that this accounts for one-tenth of 1% of Washinton’s 2008 deaths, it’s obvious that the concern some have had about the possibility of alarming numbers is unfounded.

At AssistedSuicide.org, Derek Humphry takes on the question about vernacular, in his article titled “What do you call an assisted death?”

In Oregon, specifically, there is discourse between those in favor, but who dislike terms such as suicide, euthanasia, and Hemlock, and those against who are in need of defined terms that they purport will clarify the situations and remedies. The Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) settled on the term physician-assisted suicide and that has been widely accepted for law and articles on the topic. Some consternation occurs when the media uses the terms suicide or assisted suicide because the terms do not make it clear that only licensed doctors may prescribe the medications for early termination.

Washington and Oregon are the only two states with voter-approved assisted suicide laws.

Compassionandchoices.org provides information on how the new health-care reform is expected to affect assisted suicides. House resolution 3200, Section 1233, would allow doctors to bill Medicare for end-of-life conversations. According to this site, patients who have spoken with their doctors about end-of-life options were left with significantly lower health-care costs in their final week of life.

In a BBC story earlier this month, it is reported that Montana’s Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments to determine if their severely or terminal ill residents have a right to the same physician-assisted termination now granted to Washington residents. In an earlier ruling, the right to assisted suicide was granted, but the state of Montana is trying to reverse that decision.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, likely the most famous and most staunch supporter of assisted suicide spent eight years in prison for having the courage of his convictions — in spite of the laws — and participating in at least 130 suicides, according to a June 2007 article at MSNBC online.

Obviously every situation will be different and there are many pros and cons to weigh. We might feel differently if deciding for ourselves than when deciding for our comatose and brain-damaged child. Is this a personal decision, or should it be legislated? You choose.

At a site such as Today’s POV, one can imagine the great importance of free speech. In the midst of our launch it seems as though our rights to free speech are perhaps more threatened than ever.

In spring 2009, the US Senate proposed a bill that would allow the White House to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. Does that really mean that your and my computer would be disconnected in the event the president declares a cyber-security emergency? Yes.

Recently, CNET News obtained a copy of the draft bill. This document contains a revised, but very vague iteration of the initial draft.

In the CNET article, Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, is quoted saying, “I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness. It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

The Internet Security Alliance has representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board — concern from such industry heavyweights should certainly raise caution amongst us, if not clear alarm.

On 5 August 2009, FOXNews.com reported on the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine running an ad campaign that compared what President Obama’s daughters eat at their private school to the lunches available at public schools.

The little girl featured in the ad is Jasmine Messiah, an 8-year-old vegetarian from a Florida public school. In addition to appearing in the ad, she wrote to Sasha and Malia Obama seeking their support in improved school menus.

In response, White House lawyers are said to have contacted the non-profit group’s president, Dr. Neal Barnard, seeking removal because the ad mentioned the names of the President’s daughters. Dr. Barnard reports that there was an implication made that legal action would be pursued.

On 28 August 2009, Computerworld magazine reported that a different physicians’ group and a social-policy think tank, are up for some legal action of their own as they sue for privacy and free-speech violations over a White House attempt to get people to email them with reports of health-care reform information they deem “fishy.”

The lawsuit, filed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CARE), is basically a cease and desist but goes one step further when it demands that collected information be destroyed.

The two organizations claim the White House has illegally used its power to collect information on political speech.

While the legal wrangling goes back and forth, those of us who value free speech should sit up and pay attention. Free vote follows closely on the heels of free speech.