March 2007--The Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) released its ninth annual report in March on the Death with Dignity Act that confirms Oregonians benefit from improved end-of-life care under the statute.

A tiny number of Oregon’s dying patients accessed the law in 2006 – 65 out of approximately 31,000 – while an even smaller group of 46 hastened their deaths by self-administering medications. All but one of the terminally ill residents who chose the option had health coverage and all had access to hospice services. Oregon has the lowest rates of in-hospital deaths and the highest rates of home deaths in the nation.

In 2006, more than three-quarters (76%) of the patients who took the medications were enrolled in hospice. Executive Director of the Oregon Hospice Association (OHA) Ann Jackson summed up the results saying, “In its first nine years, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act has been responsibly implemented with none of the predicted dire consequences.” The OHA takes a neutral position on the law but supports the right to receive optimal hospice care, regardless of whether a patient is considering aid in dying.

The report is also notable this year for its use of value-neutral language to describe a patient’s choice for aid in dying. ODHS no longer uses the inflammatory term “assisted suicide,” instead referring to “persons who use the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.” The new language reflects the intent of the law which states, “Actions taken in accordance with (Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act) shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law."

Compassion & Choices President Barbara Coombs Lee told reporters, “Those who died using the law in the last nine years were able to fulfill their wishes for safe, peaceful deaths. The time has come for other states to follow Oregon and stop obstructing the dying wish of many mentally competent, terminally ill patients.”

March 2007--The Vermont House, on March 21, voted 82-63 to defeat H. 44,  the Patient Control at the End of Life bill, late Wednesday. Legislators ignored the grassroots call and overwhelming support for decriminalization of aid in dying and gave in to the misinformation campaign of bill’s opponents. Nine years of independently verified data from Oregon indisputably proves the Death with Dignity Act has not resulted in the dire consequences opponents predicted, yet those same scare tactics eroded support for the measure in Vermont. The “no” votes keep aid in dying covert, unregulated and unsafe in the state. According to excerpts from an article in the Burlington Free Press: "The bill would have applied to people who have been diagnosed with a terminal disease and have a prognosis of six months or less to live. They would have had to have two different physicians determine that they would qualify for a prescription that would hasten their deaths. They also would have had to undergo counseling to determine they were mentally competent to make the decision. Additionally, patients would have had to take the medication to end their lives on their own. Advocates estimated, based on Oregon’s decade-long experience, that 10 Vermont patients per year would receive prescriptions under the law and six would actually take the medicine and die as a result. They rejected arguments that the procedure amounted to suicide. “Suicide is really an act of desperation,” said Rep. William Frank, D-Underhill. Someone who chose to take advantage of the law would be someone who wanted to continue living but who sought the medicine to give him or her the choice of ending life if it became unbearable. “It is important to have choice,” Frank said. “No one should dictate what these values should be.”

March 2007--The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) is now on the list of health care provider organizations that recognize language matters when it comes to a dying patient’s choice to request aid in dying. In an updated position statement, the AAHPM rejected what it calls the “emotionally charged” term “physician-assisted suicide” and noted the importance of using accurate, unbiased language. AAHPM’s membership is comprised of physicians and professionals from many specialties dedicated to furthering the practice of hospice and palliative care. In spite of mounting support for appropriate language, reporters continue to use the term “assisted suicide” to describe this deeply personal decision. How can we make the media understand that language matters now? When you read a newspaper or Web site, watch or hear a news program that uses the term “assisted suicide,” make your voice heard. Send them a letter, e-mail or fax that calls out their inaccurate, biased use of language. Sample letters to the editor can be viewed, modified and sent from the national Compassion & Choices Action Center. With your help, we can get end-of-life language right. • Visit the Compassion & Choices Action Center • Send a letter to the editor