Talk:1994 Oregon Ballot Measure 16

How is it done?

This article really doesent say how the euthanasia. Frankly I dont give a damn about the poll numbers HOW they do it is slightly more important.

"a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life." That's all the law says as well. It's up to the doctor I assume... --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

From one of the links in the article, they mention that the doctors prescribe a lethal dose of barbituates, which are drunk. Kairos 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that its in direct violation of the hippocratic oath. "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." --Darthvader ^(talk) 17:24, 1 Feb 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how that has any barring on the current discussion. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

death not suicide

"physician-assisted suicide" is not an accurate name for what Measure 16 legalized. "Physician-assisted death" is, I believe, the term in common usage. Suicide is a crime, and to assist it would be a crime. (I'm not a lawyer, but that much is apparent in the simple passage quoted below.)

The act, as passed by voters, used the word "suicide" only twice. Those uses were as follows:

"Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law. [1995 c.3 s.3.14]"

-Pete 07:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal technicalities aside, it's a physician assisting someone who commit's suicide.Kairos 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's no mere legal technicality. The Act was passed by ballot initiative, and as such, is frequently considered in terms of its expression of the will of the people. That the people passed a measure that did not include the word suicide is perfectly relevant to many contexts. If the choice is between a relatively uncontroversial rendering (physician-assisted death) and a controversial one (assisted suicide), and both express the meaning clearly and accurately, the less-controversial one should be used. That will keep the article less "Point-Of-View." -Pete 06:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1)It IS a legal techinicality, I live in Oregon. So I know for fact that everyone that I've talked to with and/or heard talking about it has used the term "physician assisted suicide". SO don't talk to ME about the "will of the people".

2)If you want to be technically correct then it's not physician assisted death, It's physician assisted dying. See the http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ the official government website about the law that repeatedly talks about being neutral and uses that term, NOT Physician Assisted Death. And since a NPOV is what we're trying for here....Kairos 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) I'm not sure I understand your point here. (For what it's worth, I said it's not a mere legal technicality, but I understand it's a legal technicality. Also, I made no assertion about the will of the people - only pointed out that such assertions are commonly made; an encyclopedia should serve as a neutral foundation for such discussion.)

Anyway, are you saying that the fact that people commonly refer to the law as "assisted suicide" merits mention in the article? I'd be fine with that, provided that the problems with that designation are mentioned as well. Supporting citations are out there, I remember a full OPB story on the choice of words in the last few months.

(2) Good catch, on this and on the phrase "euthanasia" (below.) I don't think the distinction between "death" and "dying" is a major issue, but I'd support editing that substitutes "dying."

-Pete 08:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support editing. "Suicide" carries a POV. Calling it suicide has legal significance since the act deliberately omits the term, which means there's no prosecuting "assisting" this process under the crime of aiding and abetting suicide. There're also the bioethics thought exercises as to what counts as suicide: a soldier jumping on a bomb to save other soldiers, jumping out of a burning skyscraper when there's no alternative. Suicide? Questionable. Jordan 03:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's Not Euthanasia

For the same reasons you've mentioned above. It's not called euthanasia in the voter initiative, and from the website, http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml:

Q: Does the Act allow euthanasia?

A: No. Euthanasia is a different procedure for hastening death. In euthanasia, a doctor injects a patient with a lethal dosage of medication. In the Act, a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication to a patient, but the patient - not the doctor - administers the medication. Euthanasia is illegal in every state in the US, including Oregon. The Act has been legal in Oregon since November 1997.

I've therefore removed a link to euthanasia. If you want to put them back please explain why before you do so. Kairos 09:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can this statement be proven or removed.

From the Controversy and aftermath Section, First paragraph last sentence: "Some members of Congress tried to block implementation of Measure 16, but failed." If no one can offer any evidenc eof this occuring then I'll remove it in, say two weeks from now. Unless a consensus of people think something else should occur? Metatron's Cube (talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Ah, it now it sourced..... Kairos 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

proposed merge

Some ballot measures are naturally related; in this case, Measure 51 was specifically related to Measure 16. I think the reader is better served if both measures are treated in one article, with a title that reflects that it's about more than just one measure. For a similar example, see Oregon Ballot Measure 40 (1996) and subsequent measures. In this case, maybe Oregon ballot measures 16 (1994) and 51 (1997), with redirects from the current pages. Any thoughts? -Pete 07:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge per Peteforsyth. They are effectively the same measure and topic. —EncMstr 03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep them seperate but I could see essensially folding measure 51 into this article, as they are connected. Just read meaure 51's entry and it's pretty much a stub. I'd have no problem with it being folded ino this article. Kairos 09:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge vs. Split

Lestatdelc, I see you've made links to the individual measures -- are you looking to split, as you did with Oregon Ballot Measures 41 and 48 (2006)?

Please look at the (admittedly thin) discussion above. I believe that for topics like this, where there's a strong conceptual tie between the measures, that the reader is better served by having a single unified article. (I do think that maps and charts, like you and Athelwulf have done for other measures, would be helpful, but I think they can be included on this article.)

But not too many people have expressed an opinion, so I'm interested what you think too. -Pete (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Error I don't know how to fix

In the analysis section it says that the 400ish deaths correspond to 19.4 deaths per 10,000. I read the source for it and it does have the 405 statistic and the 19.4 deaths per 10,000 line, but in totally different sections.

The per 10k line is only correct for the deaths in 2008 according to the source material. I don't know how to reword that in terms that makes the information useful still.S.R.Osuna (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch -- but I'm not 100% sure I understand you. You're talking about this line, right?

From the act's passage to 2008, 401 patients used the DWDA, representing an estimated 19.4 deaths per 10,000 total deaths in the same time period.

And you're saying the first part of the sentence (before the comma) applies to ~1994 to 2008, while the second part refers only to the time period during 2008? Is that right? -Pete (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)