Ensure Your Long-Term Support with a Bequest

.
Dee, Death with Dignity supporter since 2001
Dee, Death with Dignity supporter since 2001

Dee has supported and advocated for clearly written and safe Death with Dignity laws since 2001.

I watched my mother, father, and two brothers die slow, horrible deaths. I’ve included the Death with Dignity National Center in my estate plans because I want to ensure future generations won’t have to suffer like my loved ones did.

My way of advocating for Death with Dignity is to help ensure the Death with Dignity National Center’s long-term financial strength. A wonderful way to accomplish this is to do what I’ve done and include them in your estate plans. In doing so you’ll leave a legacy of dignity to future generations.

Two of the most common ways are bequests and planned gifts. It’s never too late to plan ahead, and tax time is a good annual reminder to look at one’s estate plans. It’s very easy to include Death with Dignity National Center in your bequest; here’s some sample language to use:

I give, devise, and bequeath to the Death with Dignity National Center, 520 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1220, Portland, Oregon 97204, EIN #: 93-1162366, ______% of my estate or the sum of $____________ (or describe stocks, bonds, life insurance, or other assets) to be used for the general purpose of defending and promoting Death with Dignity laws throughout the United States.

You can even designate the Death with Dignity National Center as a beneficiary on your life insurance or retirement plan to create a permanent legacy for change. If you have questions about including the Death with Dignity National Center in your estate planning, please email or call DeVida at 503.228.4415 or speak with your attorney.

View full post on Death with Dignity National Center



Why I Support Death with Dignity

Jim and Margie Carberry
Jim and Margie Carberry

A Message from Jim

My name is Jim Carberry, and like many of you who’ve come to support Death with Dignity, I watched a loved one die a painful and protracted death. My wife, Margie, didn’t have the option to die on her own terms, something she so desperately wanted.

I’m sharing my story with you because I strongly believe people should have the right to end their suffering when dying of a terminal illness. The only way to guarantee that right is to pass Death with Dignity laws modeled on the time-tested and safe Oregon Death with Dignity law.

My wife, Margie, was diagnosed with a Clival Chordoma in 1995. We had two small children, Alissa and Andrea, at the time and all she wanted was to see them graduate from high school. That would mean surviving 16 years from date of diagnosis, a highly improbable likelihood. She underwent numerous procedures to increase her chances. But the tumor was unrelenting and began stripping away various abilities.

Starting in 2008, Margie endured several very invasive procedures and had significant issues with her sight and mobility. She wanted to be there when our younger daughter graduated in 2011. At the same time, she was in a lot of pain. She was no longer the person she used to be, unable to participate in any meaningful activities for more than a few moments at a time.

Margie did make it to graduation, and a week later, she spoke with her family, clergy, and medical team and decided to remove her feeding tube and meet death on her terms. Though she was ready, she suffered another five weeks before her body gave out. Margie wanted the option to shorten her suffering, but that option doesn’t yet exist in her state.

Margie’s mother, Claire, and I have been vocal and public advocates for a Death with Dignity law in Massachusetts. Even though the law didn’t pass, it was a close one. This tells me our state is ready and many people want this choice. Just by being on the ballot, it ignited a critical conversation about Death with Dignity and end-of-life care.

I hope you’ll join me in supporting the Death with Dignity National Center—the organization behind the oldest Death with Dignity law in the nation. I know we can keep the conversation going and hopefully, not too far in the future, permanently change the dialogue in Massachusetts and beyond.

We all deserve to live in a society where we have the right to make our own end-of-life care decisions.

Margie would’ve wanted that for herself, and I know she would’ve wanted it for any terminally ill adult who’s enduring pain and suffering.

I hope you’ll consider a tax-deductible gift of $35, $50, $100, $250, or more today to keep our nation working toward improved end-of-life care policy everywhere.

Thank you on behalf of myself, my family, and above all, my wife, Margie.

View full post on Death with Dignity National Center

Two-Thirds of Likely Voters Support Massachusetts Death with Dignity

Suffolk University logo
Suffolk University logo

Another independent poll released this week showed winning support for the Massachusetts Death with Dignity initiative which will appear on the state’s November ballot. Tuesday’s poll conducted by Suffolk University and 7News, demonstrated 2/3 of likely voters would vote yes on the Death with Dignity initiative. The poll question had the same wording as what will appear on the November ballot:

Question #2 is the Prescribing Medication to End Life Proposed Law. A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at the request of a terminally-ill patient meeting certain conditions, to end that person’s life. A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws. At this point would you vote yes or no?

Yes………………………………….. 64%
No ………………………………….. 27%
Undecided…………………………. 10%

With just seven weeks before the general election, this poll echoes others indicating Bay Staters want more legal and safe options at the end of their lives. Learn more about what’s going on in Massachusetts from Dignity 2012 the coalition working in support of Death with Dignity. Most of us around the country don’t have the opportunity to vote on this issue, but but all eyes are on Massachusetts.

After all, the key to new Death with Dignity laws is an informed public. Your tax-deductible donation will help people in all states learn more about this critical end-of-life option. Please consider a gift today.

View full post on Death with Dignity National Center

Majority of Massachusetts Voters Support Death with Dignity

Public Policy Polling logo
Public Policy Polling logo

If Massachusetts voters had their say today, they’d approve of their Death with Dignity initiative by a winning margin. A new independent Public Policy Poll showed 58% of Bay Staters would vote yes for Death with Dignity. The poll question had the same wording as what will appear on the November ballot:

Question 2 would allow a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at the request of a terminally ill patient meeting certain conditions, to end that person’s life. If the election was today, would you vote yes or no on Question 2?

Yes………………………………….. 58%
No ………………………………….. 24%
Undecided…………………………. 18%

This is an excellent sign; however, the race is far from over. With 77 days left until the election, opponents who object to Death with Dignity based on their own moral beliefs will waste no time in firing up their lie machine in an effort to mislead voters.

The key to new Death with Dignity laws is an informed public. Will you help people in all states learn more about this critical end-of-life option with a tax-deductible donation today?

View full post on Death with Dignity National Center

Allow Doctors to Support Patient Wishes

Why should anyone—the state, the medical profession, or anyone else—presume to tell someone else how much suffering they must endure while dying? Doctors should stand with their patients, not against them.

- Dr. Marcia Angell

This statement gets right to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it? People deserve more options at the end of their lives and doctors should be allowed to help their patients get the end-of-life care they want.

Dr. Angell is former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School. Her quote is from a guest article published in the Health & Wellness section of the Boston Globe. Throughout her life, Dr. Angell has had extensive professional and personal experiences with difficult end-of-life care decisions. These experiences have shaped why she supports safe and legal assisted dying through Death with Dignity laws.

From time to time, she encounters medical colleagues who disagree with her positing, “a doctor’s role is only as a healer.” In the article, she addresses this concern:

When death is imminent and dying patients find their suffering unbearable, then the physician’s role should shift from healing to relieving suffering in accord with the patient’s wishes. This is not a matter of life versus death, but about the manner of dying, and it’s not primarily about doctors, but about patients.

Another common claim Dr. Angell has encountered is, “Good palliative care can relieve all suffering, so permitting assisted dying is unnecessary.” She counters with several facts:

Probably most dying patients, even when suffering greatly, would choose to live as long as possible. That courage and grace should be protected and honored, and we should put every effort into treating their symptoms. (Palliative care in Oregon is among the best in the country.) But not all suffering can be relieved. Most pain can, but other symptoms can be harder to deal with—symptoms such as weakness, loss of control of bodily functions, shortness of breath, and nausea—and the drugs to treat them often produce side effects that are as debilitating as the problems they treat. Even worse for many patients is the existential suffering. They know that their condition will grow worse day after day until their deaths, that their course is inexorably downhill, and they find it meaningless to soldier on.

This echoes how Dr. Kate Morris explained the Hippocratic Oath in one of her interviews in the documentary How to Die in Oregon:

“First do no harm” is going to be different for every patient. Harm for some patients is saying, “No, no, no. You’ve got to do this the way your body decides as opposed to the way you decide.”

Death with Dignity laws are about giving patients more options for their end-of-life care. As Dr. Angell explains, “No physician is required to participate in assisted dying; he or she may refuse for any reason whatsoever. This is a choice, not a requirement, for both patients and physicians.”

The entire process is voluntary for all involved—patients, physicians, and pharmacists. Truly, why would anyone feel it’s their place to deny a dying person as many options as possible? Whose life is it anyway?

View full post on Death with Dignity National Center