Joel Connelly To Booth Gardner: "My Anecdote Is More Compelling Than Your Life"
Former Washington governor Booth Gardner has Parkinson's. He's been using his leftover political capital to campaign for a "Death with Dignity" initiative, to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Washington state. And it's been working. Even the New York Times took note of Gardner's labors.
But P-I columnist Joel Connelly disagrees with Gardner's stance. To Connelly or his headline writer, it's a "last selfish act." So, "for balance," Connelly says, he retails the story of Chris Carlson:
Chris Carlson, 61, found out eight years ago that he has Parkinson's disease, and was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer late in 2005. His physicians were unable to locate the generating tumor, which usually means the patient will be dead within six months.We wonder how good Connelly's balance is these days. For one thing, Gardner is 71, ten years older than Carlson, so how soon is "any time soon"?He has fought back with an experimental treatment and regained lost weight and describes the cancer as "dormant." It's still "a matter of time," Carlson observed, but he isn't planning on checking out at any time soon.
For another, it takes a colossal amount of chutzpah for Connelly to tell Gardner he's "self-absorbed" for empathizing with those with six-month futures -- as the Seattle Times points out, the initiative doesn't do much for Gardner at all:
It would allow doctors to prescribe lethal medication for a mentally competent, adult resident with a terminal condition that is expected to be fatal within six months. The patient must self-administer the drugs.Very likely, if Washington voters passed the measure, it wouldn't help Gardner, whose Parkinson's isn't considered terminal. But he's still backing it.
To minimize Gardner's deliberation, his appreciation of his own suffering, as egotism is peculiar behavior. It seems to frustrate Connelly, that Gardner, having Parkinson's, has a credible personal perspective. But Connelly doesn't want to hear it, so he reaches for the moral label. Who exactly wants to "snuff out debate"?


