So someone who ODs at home with their own medications would be locked up on Psychiatry and possibly forced into psychosurgical treatments like ECT against their will, but the same person could go to a willing doctor, convince them that they are 'seriously ill' and legally kill themselves? Uh-huh. *Bangs head*
Mr. Sheen, let's hope you don't suddenly find yourself slowly rotting to death froma long term incurable painful ugly disease without any money for creature comforts. Sometimes dying poor have ant colonies attack them in their beds, other times they are taken advantage of as they lay helpless. When you have AIDS, or cnacer or emphysema etc. then we'll see what you feel at the end. Even John Wayne cried in pain in his final days.
Physician Assisted Suicide was Developed BY GREEDY Physicians, Insurance Companies etc..
AND
How do you know that they DIDNT LIE about the disease so they can GET RID OF PEOPLE!!!
But WHY do they want to die??? HAPPY people DON'T want to die!! Perhaps if we could make their life, or what's left of it better than they wouldn't want to die until it was their time??
Most money spent on healthcare is end-of-life care, the health insurers Big Phrma and nursing home, hospitals know that and that's why they don't want death with dignity laws to take their profits away. And the insurers make money both ways, by having dual investments across the industry spectrum.
There is no doubt that Sheen is a knowledgeable man, but when you begin to apply your celebrity to an Initiative like this in an attempt to possibly sway a voters opinion is really kinda whack.
there will be many elderly living in fear. plus, most some hospice people dont like it because it will introduce a "disposability" into the system that will deteriorate inovative pain treatments and care, etc. its just not a good idea. no matter what kind of emotional feeling people have towards it.
My comment was very insensitive. Your argument is fair. However the concept of the elderly living in fear seems far from accurate. They must personally request the pill, two doctors have to okay it along with 2 psychological assessments. I just don't see how foul play could come into the picture unless through some intense means of persuasion. Perhaps mind control? Idk sir, but this matter doesn't seem like its going to create a global trend or new paridigm
The psychological evaluation is a requirement to recommend, however, there is no legal requirement to follow through with it. As far as foul play, who monitors the actually use of the prescription? It can be held onto for months. There is no control over the meds once dispensed. Legally, no one is required to monitor. Sadly, it is too late, this has already passed without any real controls.
In Oregon, a women was diagnosed with lung cancer, and the doctor prescribed a (very expensive) cancer medication that may cure her, or even possibly cure her. But, her insurance wouldn't cover it; however, they would pay for the killing drug.
Also, The Netherlands legalized doctor-assisted suicide, and it's evolved into genuine euthanasia, and doctors are allowed to kill a patient completely without their consent.
I'm just praying these things don't occur in Washington.....
@baconpie2112 Diagnosed with TERMINAL lung cancer; prescribed an "exotic" medication without significant proven results. Cut off the dogma, you'll feel better.
by initiating this, you're hurting other people's choices. You'll have lots of elderly living in fear. There's been great trouble with this kind of thing in the Netherlands. Corrupt family members pressuring them, somebody nonvoluntarily euthanising them, the lack of accountability and truthfulness in the process, i could go on. there are so many problems with this initiative. people need to think it through. the dignity, the mercy, and choice arguments will work here. slippery slope.
apparently you've never heard of one and are the kind of people I'm talking about. Im sorry you're angry, but apparently you havent thought this through enough. If you want to make it about choices, what about the choices of everyone else this affects huh? what about the elederly that will be hurt by various abuses? what about their choices? the choice argument doesnt work. neither does the mercy argument. its not that simple. this is a slippery slope. look it up sir.
This video has nothing to do with washington politics. Its one of the dumbest things anybody ever voted for. really sad. Its like people in this country have never heard of a slippery slope.
No one is talking about what the insurance companies will do. Fox News ran an article: "Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care", July 28, 2008. Basically, people are denied coverage on health care by insurance companies but offered the EOL pill instead. And personally, I would rather not come home to find a dead relative due to them committing suicide. Remember, although a doctor must recommend it, the person is not legally obligated to tell anyone.
As it is, they don't have to tell you they're bed ridden and dieing in a hospital. I would be really interested in hearing more about Insurance Companies in all this, and preferably from an org less biased than Fox.
Indeed - go Martin Sheen! Go home!! Go back to your own state! If you want to push your morals on someone, why don't you start with California?
Don't you dare come up here and pretend you know more than the Washingtonians who fought to put this initiative on the ballot. This is our state, and we're not going to change our minds based on some high-paid spokesman in a nice suit. We know the truth. We're voting Yes on I-1000.
I just saw the ad. The first thing I thought is that he did it because he's Catholic. The claims in the ad differ from what I've heard about the initiative. However maybe there are things in the initiative that the pro-initiative supporters don't tell you about.
The discussion isnt (or shouldnt be) about the messenger its about the issue. What you, or I, think about Martin Sheen is irrelevant.
The issue is about the ending of a human life. Shouldnt the taking of human life — whether in self-defense, capital punishment, war, or end-of-life care — only be a last resort? Society hasn't exhausted all the alternatives — including better pain control, more and earlier referrals to hospice care, and effective education on advance directives.
Hello, I'm a celebrity who looks authoritative because I once pretended to be an authority on television. I can also remove my faux glasses as if I have an important point to make. Believe whatever comes out of my mouth; just hold your nose and swallow.
Mr. Sheen's statement that "...your spouse could die by assisted suicide and you wouldn't have to be told" needs some explanation.
I have the explanatory statement from the voters' pamphlet right here in my hands...here it is: "The attending physician would be required to recommend that the patient notify the patient's next of kin, but the patient would not be required to do so."
So it seems it's about an individual's right to communicate with his or her family as he or she wishes.
Let's not kid ourselves here. The legalization of physician-assisted suicide does not give any new rights to patients. There are, sadly, plenty of suicides already. I-1000's purpose is to legally protect doctors who write prescriptions for lethal drugs. Those who ask for a "right to die" have to give someone else the "power to kill". And that's not a good idea.
As Spyscience said I also have lost respect for Martin Sheen. He puts it like a doctor would just perscribe somthing lethal to a patient without them even knowing. This is not the case. Its for people that are suffering and have around 6 months to live (says that on my ballot). It also says it would be "self-administered" not somthing the doctor would do to the patient.
Just because you're a wealthy celebrity with access to lighting, cameras, and an editing staff, that does not qualify your claims. It does not make your views exceptionally right. Nothing that the opponents to I-1000 are saying is true. Their willful neglect for and distortion of the facts is astounding, and intelligent Washingtonians should be worried that these people are able to make false claims so easily.
MY death is not YOUR moral issue. It's that simple. Freedom to live=freedom to die.
Actually, I'm just for it. Meeting death on your own terms is a powerful expression of freedom. You don't have to use it. No one can impose it against your will. It's your choice.
but by initiating this, you're hurting other people's choices. You'll have lots of elderly living in freedom. There's been great trouble with this kind of thing in the Netherlands. Corrupt family members pressuring them, somebody nonvoluntarily euthanising them, the lack of accountability and truthfulness in the process, i could go on. there are so many problems with this initiative. people need to think it through. the dignity, the mercy, and choice arguments will work here. slippery slope.
I meant living in fear. there will be many elderly living in fear. plus, most some hospice people dont like it because it will introduce a "disposability" into the system that will deteriorate inovative pain treatments and care, etc. its just not a good idea. no matter what kind of emotional feeling people have towards it.
How many people that are going to vote against this initiative have actually seen a loved one dieing of a terminal disease? I was with my 57 yr old sister the day she died, two months after she had been diagnosed with colon and liver cancer. It's not pretty and had this option been available to her, I'm sure she would have taken advantage of it. You folks that are against it should mind your own business and find a hobby.
The problem is, is precedence. It always starts out as the terminally ill, but then goes for the elderly, the poor. That is history, that is known, All the defective can be eliminated from society and we no longer have to be responsible for our family members. It is Soylent Green. Not too far from fiction. While the suffering of a terminally ill person is difficult, the ease of disposing of inconvenient burdens is much too easy. They didn't wipe out all the Jews FIRST, you know.
Oh, yeah, it's definitely going to be expanded. Just like Oregon's law has been extended to terminate the lives of all elderly and poor people.
Oh, wait. That never happened.
Soylent Green was a movie. It was never a reality. If you don't want death with dignity, don't choose it. But don't you dare impose your own choice on every single person in the state.
TPV525 -- it might interest you to know that 64% of the YES campaign money comes from outside Washington . In comparison only 42% of the NO campaign funds are from out of state, according to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission. Remind me again who's imposing their views on us Washingtonians?
It interests me that you're repeating a popular line of the opposition. This initiative was launched, written, and placed on the ballot by Washingtonians. Both sides are getting money from out-of-state, so that's a wash. You're arguing about percentages.
My point is that the lead spokesman against I-1000 (judging by the tv ads) is a paid actor from out of state. He's a hired gun.
How do percentages of funds correlate to morally vindicate the rightness of a view? Interesting. I'd forgotten we were conflating morality with money these days.
Here's one, for starters - my mother wasted away as Alzheimer's took her mind and body. I still intend to vote against this initiative. There is NEVER dignity in death!
I personally think Mr. Sheen hasn't done any studying on this initiative and isn't informed enough to make the kind of statement he has here. He and his sponsors are clearly trying to cloud the issue.
I was reading about Oregon and i read a case of a woman who had dementia and her daughter coached her to get help to get pills to take her life. Its up to God when to take life. THis law is danerous. In Oregon patients have been deneyed teatement because they were stage four
Wow, what piece of crap, illogical, incoherent, slippery slope argument. Oh wait, it's Martin Sheen removing his faux glasses, accompanied by patriotic music--so he must be some kind of expert! Right? right?
Never mind the ethical complexity of the issue, listen to the talking celeb on the screen. Total idiocy.
I just lost a Shit-Load of respect for Martin Sheen.
MrSupertwo 1 month ago
So someone who ODs at home with their own medications would be locked up on Psychiatry and possibly forced into psychosurgical treatments like ECT against their will, but the same person could go to a willing doctor, convince them that they are 'seriously ill' and legally kill themselves? Uh-huh. *Bangs head*
RainShowers2505 1 month ago
Hypocrite, He supports a pro abortion President. Shame on you. A water down catholic who believes in homosexual marriage.
GodFamilyCountryCorp 4 months ago 2
Yes they need real medical care Martin, so as soon as America gives them real medical care we'll be just fine!
croc97 10 months ago
@croc97 Where in America is the medical care not greater than the rest of the world?
deliveryboy1 5 months ago
I don't know ... sounds all too simplistic to me
Why not let the person who it is happening to make their decision.
I don't know about "big pharma" or "big medicine", sounds more like "big-emotionally-misleading-politics" to me.
sparrow111260 1 year ago
God bless Martin Sheen for lending his voice to this important cause.
Progo35 1 year ago
I LOVE MARTIN SHEEN! THANK YOU, MAN!!
Progo35 1 year ago
Mr. Sheen, let's hope you don't suddenly find yourself slowly rotting to death froma long term incurable painful ugly disease without any money for creature comforts. Sometimes dying poor have ant colonies attack them in their beds, other times they are taken advantage of as they lay helpless. When you have AIDS, or cnacer or emphysema etc. then we'll see what you feel at the end. Even John Wayne cried in pain in his final days.
kassandrasduplex 2 years ago
@kassandrasduplex and you are gonna cry in pain when martin sheen reads this noobsauce.
theotherguitarmansam 1 year ago
Physician Assisted Suicide was Developed BY GREEDY Physicians, Insurance Companies etc..
AND
How do you know that they DIDNT LIE about the disease so they can GET RID OF PEOPLE!!!
But WHY do they want to die??? HAPPY people DON'T want to die!! Perhaps if we could make their life, or what's left of it better than they wouldn't want to die until it was their time??
laurajdahl 2 years ago
Most money spent on healthcare is end-of-life care, the health insurers Big Phrma and nursing home, hospitals know that and that's why they don't want death with dignity laws to take their profits away. And the insurers make money both ways, by having dual investments across the industry spectrum.
kassandrasduplex 2 years ago
martin sheen is from dayton, ohio and what a guy. I have to take my hat to his candor here. very well spoken indeed.
wad5859 3 years ago
Sheen usually knows of which he speaks. Are you sure he missed the boat this time? :(
lavendergirl63 3 years ago
There is no doubt that Sheen is a knowledgeable man, but when you begin to apply your celebrity to an Initiative like this in an attempt to possibly sway a voters opinion is really kinda whack.
TrUthSmith 3 years ago
I dunno, truthsmith. You might be right, but I also think that Sheen has the right as an American citizen to speak his truth.
I would hope people would do their homework on matters such as these, then decide and vote.
It's a tough call as to if it's better for celebrities to not speak out. I guess I'm one of those that aren't easily swayed by Hollywood. ;)
lavendergirl63 3 years ago
there will be many elderly living in fear. plus, most some hospice people dont like it because it will introduce a "disposability" into the system that will deteriorate inovative pain treatments and care, etc. its just not a good idea. no matter what kind of emotional feeling people have towards it.
southernsem 3 years ago
My comment was very insensitive. Your argument is fair. However the concept of the elderly living in fear seems far from accurate. They must personally request the pill, two doctors have to okay it along with 2 psychological assessments. I just don't see how foul play could come into the picture unless through some intense means of persuasion. Perhaps mind control? Idk sir, but this matter doesn't seem like its going to create a global trend or new paridigm
TrUthSmith 3 years ago
The psychological evaluation is a requirement to recommend, however, there is no legal requirement to follow through with it. As far as foul play, who monitors the actually use of the prescription? It can be held onto for months. There is no control over the meds once dispensed. Legally, no one is required to monitor. Sadly, it is too late, this has already passed without any real controls.
RobertEO1 3 years ago
In Oregon, a women was diagnosed with lung cancer, and the doctor prescribed a (very expensive) cancer medication that may cure her, or even possibly cure her. But, her insurance wouldn't cover it; however, they would pay for the killing drug.
Also, The Netherlands legalized doctor-assisted suicide, and it's evolved into genuine euthanasia, and doctors are allowed to kill a patient completely without their consent.
I'm just praying these things don't occur in Washington.....
baconpie2112 3 years ago
@baconpie2112 Diagnosed with TERMINAL lung cancer; prescribed an "exotic" medication without significant proven results. Cut off the dogma, you'll feel better.
enwinor 1 year ago
@baconpie2112 "doctors are allowed to kill a patient completely without their consent."
Don't be absurd.
MrToadful 1 year ago
by initiating this, you're hurting other people's choices. You'll have lots of elderly living in fear. There's been great trouble with this kind of thing in the Netherlands. Corrupt family members pressuring them, somebody nonvoluntarily euthanising them, the lack of accountability and truthfulness in the process, i could go on. there are so many problems with this initiative. people need to think it through. the dignity, the mercy, and choice arguments will work here. slippery slope.
southernsem 3 years ago
apparently you've never heard of one and are the kind of people I'm talking about. Im sorry you're angry, but apparently you havent thought this through enough. If you want to make it about choices, what about the choices of everyone else this affects huh? what about the elederly that will be hurt by various abuses? what about their choices? the choice argument doesnt work. neither does the mercy argument. its not that simple. this is a slippery slope. look it up sir.
southernsem 3 years ago
Thank martin. Good video. Glad somebody has some sense and compassion out there.
southernsem 3 years ago
I like you Martin but BUTT OUT of Washington politics!
beatledawg 3 years ago
This video has nothing to do with washington politics. Its one of the dumbest things anybody ever voted for. really sad. Its like people in this country have never heard of a slippery slope.
southernsem 3 years ago
@southernsem And it's like you've never heard that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, not a cogent argument.
enwinor 1 year ago
Dead is the New Alive
Sad, but thank you ! ! !
GeraSchmidt 3 years ago
No one is talking about what the insurance companies will do. Fox News ran an article: "Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care", July 28, 2008. Basically, people are denied coverage on health care by insurance companies but offered the EOL pill instead. And personally, I would rather not come home to find a dead relative due to them committing suicide. Remember, although a doctor must recommend it, the person is not legally obligated to tell anyone.
RobHep 3 years ago
As it is, they don't have to tell you they're bed ridden and dieing in a hospital. I would be really interested in hearing more about Insurance Companies in all this, and preferably from an org less biased than Fox.
flamesplash 3 years ago
Indeed - go Martin Sheen! Go home!! Go back to your own state! If you want to push your morals on someone, why don't you start with California?
Don't you dare come up here and pretend you know more than the Washingtonians who fought to put this initiative on the ballot. This is our state, and we're not going to change our minds based on some high-paid spokesman in a nice suit. We know the truth. We're voting Yes on I-1000.
tpv525 3 years ago
Martin Sheen is a devote Catholic, there's little other reason necessary for him to do this endorsement.
flamesplash 3 years ago
I just saw the ad. The first thing I thought is that he did it because he's Catholic. The claims in the ad differ from what I've heard about the initiative. However maybe there are things in the initiative that the pro-initiative supporters don't tell you about.
melora72 3 years ago
The discussion isnt (or shouldnt be) about the messenger its about the issue. What you, or I, think about Martin Sheen is irrelevant.
The issue is about the ending of a human life. Shouldnt the taking of human life — whether in self-defense, capital punishment, war, or end-of-life care — only be a last resort? Society hasn't exhausted all the alternatives — including better pain control, more and earlier referrals to hospice care, and effective education on advance directives.
LAScrimshaw 3 years ago
Hello, I'm a celebrity who looks authoritative because I once pretended to be an authority on television. I can also remove my faux glasses as if I have an important point to make. Believe whatever comes out of my mouth; just hold your nose and swallow.
gnomerroamer 3 years ago
Mr. Sheen's statement that "...your spouse could die by assisted suicide and you wouldn't have to be told" needs some explanation.
I have the explanatory statement from the voters' pamphlet right here in my hands...here it is: "The attending physician would be required to recommend that the patient notify the patient's next of kin, but the patient would not be required to do so."
So it seems it's about an individual's right to communicate with his or her family as he or she wishes.
MishaVargas 3 years ago
Let's not kid ourselves here. The legalization of physician-assisted suicide does not give any new rights to patients. There are, sadly, plenty of suicides already. I-1000's purpose is to legally protect doctors who write prescriptions for lethal drugs. Those who ask for a "right to die" have to give someone else the "power to kill". And that's not a good idea.
LAOliver25 3 years ago
As Spyscience said I also have lost respect for Martin Sheen. He puts it like a doctor would just perscribe somthing lethal to a patient without them even knowing. This is not the case. Its for people that are suffering and have around 6 months to live (says that on my ballot). It also says it would be "self-administered" not somthing the doctor would do to the patient.
jmg128 3 years ago
martin sheen lost all respect i had for him as an actor by doing this. like gnomerroamer said, my life, my death, stay out of my business.
Spyscience 3 years ago
Just because you're a wealthy celebrity with access to lighting, cameras, and an editing staff, that does not qualify your claims. It does not make your views exceptionally right. Nothing that the opponents to I-1000 are saying is true. Their willful neglect for and distortion of the facts is astounding, and intelligent Washingtonians should be worried that these people are able to make false claims so easily.
MY death is not YOUR moral issue. It's that simple. Freedom to live=freedom to die.
gnomerroamer 3 years ago
Well, if Sheen is against it, I'm for it.
Actually, I'm just for it. Meeting death on your own terms is a powerful expression of freedom. You don't have to use it. No one can impose it against your will. It's your choice.
HavocGunStar 3 years ago
but by initiating this, you're hurting other people's choices. You'll have lots of elderly living in freedom. There's been great trouble with this kind of thing in the Netherlands. Corrupt family members pressuring them, somebody nonvoluntarily euthanising them, the lack of accountability and truthfulness in the process, i could go on. there are so many problems with this initiative. people need to think it through. the dignity, the mercy, and choice arguments will work here. slippery slope.
southernsem 3 years ago
I meant living in fear. there will be many elderly living in fear. plus, most some hospice people dont like it because it will introduce a "disposability" into the system that will deteriorate inovative pain treatments and care, etc. its just not a good idea. no matter what kind of emotional feeling people have towards it.
southernsem 3 years ago
How many people that are going to vote against this initiative have actually seen a loved one dieing of a terminal disease? I was with my 57 yr old sister the day she died, two months after she had been diagnosed with colon and liver cancer. It's not pretty and had this option been available to her, I'm sure she would have taken advantage of it. You folks that are against it should mind your own business and find a hobby.
ppavlovsky 3 years ago
The problem is, is precedence. It always starts out as the terminally ill, but then goes for the elderly, the poor. That is history, that is known, All the defective can be eliminated from society and we no longer have to be responsible for our family members. It is Soylent Green. Not too far from fiction. While the suffering of a terminally ill person is difficult, the ease of disposing of inconvenient burdens is much too easy. They didn't wipe out all the Jews FIRST, you know.
Jauhara 3 years ago
You're an idiot. Slippery slopes are not logically sound arguments, and NONE of your arguments are true.
By what possible stretch of truth do you go from the freedom to die, to the freedom to kill?
Truly a credit to Washington's local-moron constituency. Dumb as hell.
gnomerroamer 3 years ago
Oh, yeah, it's definitely going to be expanded. Just like Oregon's law has been extended to terminate the lives of all elderly and poor people.
Oh, wait. That never happened.
Soylent Green was a movie. It was never a reality. If you don't want death with dignity, don't choose it. But don't you dare impose your own choice on every single person in the state.
tpv525 3 years ago 2
TPV525 -- it might interest you to know that 64% of the YES campaign money comes from outside Washington . In comparison only 42% of the NO campaign funds are from out of state, according to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission. Remind me again who's imposing their views on us Washingtonians?
LAOliver25 3 years ago
It interests me that you're repeating a popular line of the opposition. This initiative was launched, written, and placed on the ballot by Washingtonians. Both sides are getting money from out-of-state, so that's a wash. You're arguing about percentages.
My point is that the lead spokesman against I-1000 (judging by the tv ads) is a paid actor from out of state. He's a hired gun.
tpv525 3 years ago
How do percentages of funds correlate to morally vindicate the rightness of a view? Interesting. I'd forgotten we were conflating morality with money these days.
gnomerroamer 3 years ago
Here's one, for starters - my mother wasted away as Alzheimer's took her mind and body. I still intend to vote against this initiative. There is NEVER dignity in death!
dragonsrightwing 3 years ago
I personally think Mr. Sheen hasn't done any studying on this initiative and isn't informed enough to make the kind of statement he has here. He and his sponsors are clearly trying to cloud the issue.
hedwiggins 3 years ago
I was reading about Oregon and i read a case of a woman who had dementia and her daughter coached her to get help to get pills to take her life. Its up to God when to take life. THis law is danerous. In Oregon patients have been deneyed teatement because they were stage four
jay2christine 3 years ago
Who the hell does Martin Sheen think he is?
I-1000 will be "imposed" on rich white guys who can afford it, NOT the poor.
Oh and we in WA are going to take advise from a guy ashamed of his own NAME.
Someone get the hook and take this uninformed off the stage.
sign1in 3 years ago
Thank you Martin Sheen for doing speaking out.
jay2christine 3 years ago
Wow, what piece of crap, illogical, incoherent, slippery slope argument. Oh wait, it's Martin Sheen removing his faux glasses, accompanied by patriotic music--so he must be some kind of expert! Right? right?
Never mind the ethical complexity of the issue, listen to the talking celeb on the screen. Total idiocy.
gnomerroamer 3 years ago
Go Martin Sheen!!!!!!!
Progo35 3 years ago