Oregon's Death with Dignity law replicated in other states
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — An estimated 66% of Americans said assisted suicide should be legal. Today, it's legal in ten states and Washington D.C.
News 2 's Mark Kelly spoke with the law's original champion.
'For me, it's about honoring how that person wants to live their final days,' said Geoff Sugerman, national legislative director at Death with Dignity, a group that advocates for aid in dying legislation in the U.S.
Sugerman was one of the first in the country to bring to life what is sometimes called Death with Dignity legislation.
'They are at the point in their illness where there is no treatment options left for them.'
The work to pass the new legislation started in Oregon in 1994. By 1997, the Death with Dignity legislation became law. And according to a state report from Oregon, the following year, 16 people chose to use the law and take a prescription to end their life. In 2023, that number rose to 367 people. Sugerman said Oregon's law has become a model for other states.
'There's a really solid and strong process in place that really protects patients and yet still allows this choice for those people who are really at the end of life.'
Sugerman said Oregon's law has four key guardrails to prevent abuse:
The patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness and two doctors agree that the patient has six months to live.
The patient must be mentally competent to make their own decisions.
The patient must make their decision voluntarily.
And the patient must self-administer the medicine.
Supporters believe these guardrails are critical because they differentiate Death with Dignity from suicide and euthanasia, which is when a doctor deliberately kills a patient. Euthanasia is illegal in the U.S.
'A person with a disability just doesn't qualify to use the law, unless they also have an underlying terminal illness; a person with a mental health issue does not qualify to use the law; a person with Alzheimer's or dementia is not allowed to use the law because they're not deemed capable of making their own healthcare decisions,' said Sugerman.
⏩
Interestingly, a new Gallup poll found 66% percent of Americans not only support assisted suicide, a great many also support euthanasia – and that spans political parties: 79% of Democrats; 72% of Independents; and 61% of Republicans say they support legalizing euthanasia.
'The general public, as it is on most issues, is far ahead of most legislatures in support for this,' said Sugerman.
Ten states and Washington D.C. have legalized physician-assisted suicide. New York and Massachusetts may very well be next. But Sugerman says that here in Tennessee a Death with Dignity law doesn't seem to be on the horizon in the near future.
'We look at states that have strong organizations and strong legislative champions. And those tend to be the states where we focus more of our efforts legislatively,' said Sugerman.
A recent change in Oregon law allows people from other states to travel there for physician-assisted suicide, opening up the procedure to more Americans.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republican lawmaker's raucous town hall reflects challenges in promoting Trump's bill
By Helen Coster MAHOPAC, New York (Reuters) -Democratic voter Joe Mayhew, a union representative living in a New York swing district, was one of several people at a rowdy town hall with Republican Representative Mike Lawler on Sunday keen to point out potential pitfalls with President Donald Trump's budget. He fears proposed changes to Medicaid requirements could have a devastating effect on people unable to work through no fault of their own. "If your cuts to Medicaid pass, a person working in a low-paying job as an individual contractor who falls ill or has work interrupted because it's seasonal, or because it was a job shutdown - something not of any fault of their own - could not make your 80-hour requirement on a particular month," Mayhew, 63, told Lawler at the town hall in Mahopac, New York. Lawler defended the bill's Medicaid provision, which requires recipients age 19-64 who have no dependents to work, volunteer or be in school at least 80 hours a month starting in 2027. "The objective is to help people get into the workforce ultimately," he said. The exchange at the Sunday night event, where boos were more common than cheers, reflects the kinds of issues that are vexing some Republicans as they seek to promote and defend Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill. The two-hour-long town hall, attended by roughly 500 people, was also an indication of how voters in a swing district that narrowly voted for Lawler feel about the bill and Trump's agenda more broadly. Topics ranged from the justification of Trump's June 14 military parade to attacks on higher education, to whether ICE agents should wear masks during raids and how to fund social security in the future. A moderate Republican representing New York's 17th District, Lawler won re-election in November, defeating former Democratic Representative Mondaire Jones with over 52% of votes. He has expressed interest in running for governor. Lawler's district was the scene of one of the 2022 general election's biggest upsets when he beat Democratic Representative Sean Patrick Maloney – who was head of the Democrats' House campaign arm. Lawler has scheduled four public town hall meetings with voters this year, despite guidance from U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who urged fellow Republican lawmakers to avoid them after some events turned into angry confrontations over Trump's moves to fire federal workers and defund government programs. Lawler's two previous town halls were even more raucous events where several attendees were removed by law enforcement. FIELDING JEERS Trump's 1,100-page bill passed in May in a 215-214 vote, and will add about $3.8 trillion to the federal government's $36.2 trillion in debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It would extend corporate and individual tax cuts passed in 2017 during Trump's first term in office, cancel many green-energy incentives passed by Democratic former President Joe Biden and tighten eligibility for health and food programs for the poor. Tesla and SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk denounced Trump's bill as a "disgusting abomination" last week, prior to the two men exchanging public insults. Other Republican representatives have also had to field jeers at town halls. During a May 28 town hall in Decorah, Iowa, Republican Congresswoman Ashley Hinson was booed after she told attendees: 'I was also proud to vote for President Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' last week.' The previous day, Republican Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska told attendees at his town hall that when he voted for the bill, he was unaware it would limit judges' power to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. The response was met with boos from the crowd, with one attendee calling his behavior 'ridiculous.' Flood said he would work to ensure the provision isn't in the final version of the bill. That said, such town halls have been few and far between. Lawler said he felt it was important to have this type of forum. "Almost all of my colleagues are not doing it, and I've been asked why I would do it. But this is your right to come and engage in this dialog. So that's why we're here." He also noted his work on pushing for increases in the so-called SALT deduction for state and local tax payments. He and other Republicans from Democratic-led, high-tax states had previously threatened to oppose Trump's legislation unless there were increases. Trump's current bill would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $40,000 for state and local tax (SALT) payments, up from $10,000 now, with benefits phasing out for households that make more than $500,000. A previous version of the bill had a cap of $30,000. Lawmakers next need to pass the bill in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority and are planning to use a legislative maneuver to bypass the chamber's 60-vote filibuster threshold for most legislation.
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
What's a Medicaid cut? Senate GOP tiptoes around $800B question
When is a Medicaid cut not actually a cut? That's the $800 billion question facing Senate Republicans as they write their own version of the sweeping House-passed tax and spending bill. Administration officials and senators defending against attacks on the bill have coalesced around a message that there will be no cuts to benefits, and the only people who will lose coverage are the ones who never deserved it to begin with: namely immigrants without legal status and 'able-bodied' individuals who shouldn't be on Medicaid. 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more commonsense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said during a recent CNN interview. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.' Among many provisions, the House bill would require states to deny Medicaid to people who can't prove they are working, looking for work, in school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It would prohibit states from using their own money to cover immigrants without legal status and would deny coverage to other lawfully present immigrants who are currently eligible. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation will result in nearly 11 million people losing health insurance coverage over the next decade. The Medicaid provisions alone would result in 7.8 million people losing their insurance. Those coverage losses would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for the federal government. However, GOP lawmakers and administration officials insist the legislation will protect Medicaid for 'deserving' people such as the elderly and disabled, while forcing others to prove they aren't freeloading. 'It's important for us to provide a nudge to some Americans to remember that they have agency over their future,' Mehmet Oz, the administration's Medicare and Medicaid chief, told reporters on Wednesday, following a closed-door meeting with GOP senators. Later Wednesday in an interview on Fox Business, Oz elaborated. 'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he said. Republicans are wary about being attacked over health care cuts, and they're eager to reframe the debate and try to go on offense. Voter backlash over the 2017 ObamaCare repeal effort led to widespread GOP losses and cost them control of the House in the 2018 midterms. 'Give me a break, This is just fear-mongering from Democrats,' Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on the social platform X. 'No one's losing health care—unless you count the 1.4 million illegal immigrants getting Medicaid on your dime.' Most immigrants without legal status can't qualify for Medicaid at the federal level, but some blue states have extended health care coverage to them. The legislation would penalize those states if they continued to offer coverage by lowering their federal matching rate. In a CNBC interview Thursday, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said the people who lose Medicaid coverage will merely transition to employer-sponsored health care. 'It's not kicking people off Medicaid. It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care. So yes, we've got 10 million people that are not going to be on Medicaid, but they then are going to be on employer-provided health care,' Lankford said. Yet according to the CBO, 'few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage.' A bloc of Republican senators has been raising concerns about some of the Medicaid provisions, and some have said they do not like the idea of anything that could be interpreted as a cut. But by and large, they've signaled the coverage losses aren't what's troubling. '[We need to] protect the program for the people that really deserve and need the help and need the program, you know, and that's children, disabled, seniors, on and on and on,' said Sen. Jim Justice ( 'That's what we got to do. You know, at the end of the day, we shouldn't be protecting the program for people that are abusing or people that shouldn't be eligible, or whatever.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has said he worries about the bill's potential impact on rural hospitals and pledged to withhold support from any bill that cuts Medicaid benefits. But what is a benefit cut? 'If my state tells me that, because of legislative changes in the House bill, the Senate bill, we're going to have to cut benefits. That's a benefit cut,' Hawley told The Hill. Missouri has 1.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries, but Hawley said he thinks there would only be a small number impacted by the work requirements. 'I'm fine with people who are able-bodied and not working … I'm all for that. So you know what, cut benefits from illegal aliens. Yeah, I'm fine with that, but I'm concerned about people who are here legally, residents of my state, citizens of my state, who are working and would lose health care coverage,' he said. Hawley has said that President Trump reiterated his opposition against any Medicaid cuts during recent conversations about the 'big, beautiful bill,' though the president supported the House version. Health experts say the impact of the cuts will go far beyond the small slice of the population Republicans claim. Work requirements will likely add layers of red tape for people to prove they meet the threshold. 'The people losing coverage aren't people who aren't working … but they're actually people who should satisfy the work reporting or should qualify for an exemption, but they can't navigate the complex systems for either reporting one's hours for work or other activities,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. The legislation includes some exemptions, like for caregiving, but it doesn't specify what would qualify or how beneficiaries would prove they qualify. There's no requirement that states exempt people automatically, Park said, so many people who would be eligible likely wouldn't be enrolled. No matter how Republicans spin it, Park said, 'these are huge Medicaid cuts. They're going to take away coverage from millions of low-income people.' 'And those cuts are going to affect everyone throughout the Medicaid program, not just the expansion group, but also kids, seniors and people with disabilities,' he added. 'And it's going to have big ripple effects throughout the health care system.'
Chicago Tribune
31 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Dr. Richard Goldberg: Preventive care and cancer screenings are critical to your health
The news of President Joe Biden's prostate cancer diagnosis came as a shock to the country. But preventive screening can protect you from having a similar shock of your own. While we don't know all the details about the former president's personal medical decisions, what we do know is this: Preventive care is absolutely critical to our health. Everyone should get the screenings appropriate to their age and individual health profiles. I have served as an oncologist for over four decades, helping thousands of cancer patients and their families navigate difficult diagnoses as well as helping thousands of other Americans catch a problem early when taking appropriate action can be curative. I have seen too many heartbreaking situations among my patients that could have led to better outcomes if a problem had been caught earlier. I have also seen firsthand the startling rise in the incidence, in particular, of colorectal cancer among younger adults at a time when incidence rates in older Americans are falling. Colorectal cancer is now the second-deadliest cancer for men and the third-deadliest cancer for women. The rise in early-onset colorectal cancer has been so dramatic that the recommended age for regular colonoscopy in people with no special risk factors was lowered in 2021 from age 50 to age 45. Some might think that moving up the screening age by five years is a small step, but it is not — certainly not in terms of outcomes. I have already witnessed examples where screening five years earlier has been consequential in identifying premalignant polyps and identifying early cancers before they metastasize when they are most likely to be cured. In many cases the polyps and even early cancers can simply be removed during a colonoscopy. I cannot urge this message strongly enough: All Americans of average risk that are over 45, and especially those exhibiting symptoms, need to get tested. One alternative is to have a colonoscopy at least every 10 years or more often if there are abnormal findings. Alternatives include stool-based studies such as Cologuard or Hemoccult testing, which need to be done more often to be most effective. New technologies are unlocking the potential for blood-based screening tests as well. The reason for this alarming increase in colorectal cancer incidence in younger adults is still being studied and the potential causes are debated in the scientific community. It is possible that there are several or even many different causes compounding the problem. As someone who practices risk-reducing dietary and activity strategies to protect my own health, I commend President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. for their emphasis on disease prevention and identifying the causes of America's chronic illness epidemic and finding measures to prevent disease like colorectal cancer. It is critical for all Americans to know what screenings are recommended at each stage in life. In general, everyone should get an annual physical, and see a dentist regularly — and everyone should receive the standard childhood vaccines. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends women over 21 should get screened for cervical cancer and women over 40 to be screened for breast cancer. The task force recommends that smokers over 50 get checked for lung cancer. And men aged 55 to 69 are recommended to be screened for prostate cancer with a prostate specific antigen test. These and other screenings can help catch cancer or even precancerous growths as early as possible. Unfortunately, surveys show that a large number of Americans don't get these tests done, including for reasons of cost. I understand why people might do this, but getting a checkup and talking to your health care provider about what screening tests are appropriate for you is the first step to taking action to improve our health and our lives. Fortunately, there are also some positive trends in oncology to celebrate. Science continues to deliver great promise for the most vulnerable among us: the sick. In spite of some concerning short-term trends, cancer mortality has dropped by one-third since 1991, mainly because of a dramatic decrease in smoking. Life expectancy rose by almost a full year from 2022 to 2023. In my field, recent studies have shown exciting potential for people with confirmed cancers that are called immuno-oncology approaches. These are cancer treatments that enable the immune system to kill cancer cells, rather than using the more traditional treatment methods including chemotherapy, radiation and radical surgery, which often have harrowing and sometimes lifelong side effects. These approaches are changing the model in cancer care and particularly in my area of clinical practice and research, colorectal cancer. The benefits of these immune targeted therapies are changing treatments in many types of cancer. However, only a small subset, about 5%, of colorectal cancers respond to this approach using currently approved therapeutic regimens. More research is needed on this treatment approach to determine how to best harness this powerful tool and get new drugs approved by the FDA to help the large majority of colorectal cancer patients. But doctors, patients, and their loved ones can reasonably hope that the thousands of scientists around the world who are working to find better treatments and cures will change our current standards of care. All of us should ensure that we receive the screenings and vaccines appropriate to our age — and that our kids do the same. An ounce of prevention is still worth at least a pound of cure.
