MargaretDore

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:28:41 -0800

Your blog’s description of my position is not accurate. I am opposed to I-1000 because it is a recipe for elder abuse. You can read I-1000 for yourself at http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1000.pdf. I-1000 allows someone with a financial interest in dad's estate, help him apply for the lethal dose. That person is even allowed to witness the request form and talk for him. (I-1000, Sections 3, 22 & 1(3)). This person could be an adult child or a new “best friend.” Would it really be “dad's choice” with that person standing there urging him on, incidentally securing his own inheritance? The biggest problem is that I-1000 does not require a witness at the death. This creates the opportunity for someone to administer the lethal dose to dad without his consent. Even if he struggled violently, who would know? I-1000 would give the perfect alibi. Family members often have their own agendas and may also have financial interests that dovetail with a patient’s death. In Oregon, the majority of patients who have used its law have been “well educated” with private insurance. http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year10.pdf In other words, people with money. Was it really their “choice?” Vote “no” on I-1000. Margaret Dore Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S. www.margaretdore.com 1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor Seattle, WA 98154 206 389 1754

Seattlest: Seattlest Vote 2008 Poll: I-1000

MargaretDore