"A life well ended"

"A life well ended." That's the headline for the latest installment of a yearlong multimedia project of the Oregon Statesman-Journal. It's about Dr. Peter Rasmussen.  (HT: How Appealing)

Friends who oppose state-sponsored suicide, this is what we're up against: advocacy that parades as journalism; journalists who are advocates without even knowing it; redefinition of words to suit political purposes; active, long-term efforts to shape public opinion.

And we'll probably end up at the Supreme Court again, where we must deal with the doctrinal ripple effects of a similar type of cultural/political/social/legal campaign that recently yielded a federal command for states to redefine marriage in their laws. 

There's much in the story of Dr. Peter Rasmussen that rings true to my family's experiences surrounding my mother's death from advanced lung cancer earlier this year. But there is one discordant false note, which unfortunately appears to be the whole point of the project to advance. This last story's resulting message is precisely opposite of what my mother would have wanted. The message of the story is that hospice is not good enough; if you have advanced terminal illness and want a peaceful death, you need the option of taking suicide drugs.

The story describes Dr. Rasmussen as an advocate of physician aid-in-dying. That is inaccurate. Hospice care is aid in dying. Assisting suicide is assisting suicide. Self-killing is different from dying.

The text of the story says that Dr. Rasmussen died from a"deadly dose of barbiturates--90 capsules' worth in all." The video and the photo caption say that he died "using Death with Dignity." What of someone who refrains from self-administering lethal drugs? Does he or she not also die "using Death with Dignity"? Or do we reserve that newspeak for state-sponsored suicide?

May Dr. Rasmussen rest in peace. May his family be consoled in their loss.