In Thought and Action August 2007

Compassion & Choices Client Documents Her Final Moments
Lovelle Svart has lived with lung cancer since 2002. This past June her
doctor gave her the news that she could expect to survive only six
months or less. The prognosis motivated her to finalize her end-of-life
decisions and exercise her right as an Oregonian to access the Death
with Dignity Act.
A Compassion & Choices client, Svart became an unsung hero of the
battle to defend Oregon’s unique law from the Ashcroft directive as
one of the first patient-plaintiffs in the case that would make it all
the way to the Supreme Court.
As part of her desire to live each day to the fullest, Svart is sharing
stories from her life and documenting her final days in a video diary
series hosted by The Oregonian newspaper. In the first installment of
“Living to the End,” she shares her relief in letting go. “I’ve
been fighting my body for so long that it almost became – (sigh) –
OK, maybe I can stop fighting everything and just enjoy what there is
for the rest of my life,” says Svart.
• Watch Lovelle's video
diary:http://capwiz.com/compassionandchoices/utr/1/BSLQHNJSZT/IYYGHNJXDT/1358434371/
• Share with a friend or family
member:http://capwiz.com/compassionandchoices/utr/1/BSLQHNJSZT/FXSQHNJXDU/1358434371/
• Make a donation to Compassion &
Choices:http://capwiz.com/compassionandchoices/utr/1/BSLQHNJSZT/ARMJHNJXDV/1358434371/
------------------------------------------------------
On My Mind by Barbara Coombs Lee
Does Language Evolve? — Of Course It Does!
It should seem obvious that people who face an imminent, agonized death
from terminal illness and choose a peaceful exit do not “commit
suicide.” They do not choose to die. They would live if they could. A
multitude of additional factors confirm the distinction.
Thirteen years ago we wrote that truth into Oregon’s aid in dying law,
specifying that “actions taken in accordance with this Act shall not
… constitute suicide [or] assisted suicide.” Yet the term persists in
newspapers articles, commentary and speeches. Writers never label the
jump to escape World Trade Center torment “suicide” but they don’t
hesitate to label an act to escape cancer torment the same. Why is
that?
Journalists adopt new language all the time. As society deepens its
understanding of end-of-life choices, language evolves to reflect that
understanding. What was once “passive euthanasia” is now
“withdrawing life-sustaining therapy.” What was once “terminal
sedation” is now “palliative sedation.” After ten years of
exhaustively reported experience in Oregon, it’s long past time for
“assisted suicide” to give way to the more accurate and neutral term
“aid in dying.”
That’s one argument for change. The other is that the objects of
language, like Lovelle Svark in this case, get to say what they want to
be called. Long ago “Negro” gave way to “Black” and then to
“African American.” Lovelle Svart has said she doesn’t want to be
called a “suicide.” It seems cruel and pointless to persist in
labeling her with a term that makes her appear irrational, impulsive
and alienated from life, when she is none of those things.
At this point, it seems clear that those who persist in calling aid in
dying “suicide” are revealing their own bias. Opponents of choice
love the term, but responsible, supposedly unbiased journalists and
bio-ethicists have no excuse for perpetuating an inaccurate, offensive
label.
• Share with a friend or family
member:http://capwiz.com/compassionandchoices/utr/1/BSLQHNJSZT/MBMOHNJXDW/1358434371/
• Make a secure online
donation:http://capwiz.com/compassionandchoices/utr/1/BSLQHNJSZT/JUOXHNJXDX/1358434371/
------------------------------------------------------
Aid in Dying Not 'Suicide'
Hundreds of you have sent letters to editors all over the country
demanding the media not refer to aid-in-dying as "suicide,"
and it's beginning to make a difference.
However—as with the Lovelle Svart piece—some media outlets still
refer to aid-in-dying as "assisted suicide." We ask everyone
to continue to help change the language and stop these biased,
inaccurate references. As Char Andrews told the National Press Club, it
is “an insult” to her fight against cancer to call the choice she
wants “suicide.”
Our own Kathryn Tucker had the following piece published in the
Oregonian on Aug 8, 2007:
In "Living to the End" (Aug. 1), we are introduced to Lovelle
Svart, an Oregonian with terminal lung cancer, and her consideration of
what your reporter refers to as "doctor-assisted suicide"
under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.
Your story points out that Svart rejects that term. For good reason: It
is an emotionally charged and inaccurate term to describe the choice
Svart might make under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.
This law empowers mentally competent, terminally ill Oregonians to
obtain medication from their physician that the patient can
self-administer to bring about a peaceful death if the patient finds
her dying process intolerable.
This is not "suicide," and the term has been rejected by
patients as well as leading health and medical organizations, including
the American Public Health Association and the American Academy of
Hospice and Palliative Medicine, as well as the Oregon Department of
Human Services.
Those opposed to aid in dying on personal, moral or religious grounds
will continue to use the incendiary and inaccurate term "assisted
suicide"; responsible journalists ought not.
Kathryn L. TuckerDirector of Legal Affairs, Compassion & Choices
• Write a letter to the editor of your
paper:http://capwiz.com/compassionandchoices/utr/1/BSLQHNJSZT/JZVTHNJXDY/1358434371