Seattle Times endorses Death with Dignity, opposes Tim Eyman's Initiative 985

The Seattle Times is taking progressive stances on two of the three statewide ballot measures before voters this November, according to the paper's Sunday advance edition, which became available earlier today on newsstands throughout the region.

The endorsements for I-1000 and against I-985 are somewhat surprising given the Seattle Times editorial board's conservative bent, but nevertheless welcome.

In endorsing Initiative 1000, the Times stated:

Make no mistake: This is assisted suicide. It is a grim decision, and many may think it is a wrong one, but we believe it should be the right of the terminally ill to decide for themselves.

Several paragraphs later, the Times described the measure's built-in safeguards:

I-1000 aims to protect the patient by making him or her ask for the lethal dose several times, once with witnesses and in writing. It requires two doctors to certify the patient has an untreatable disease likely to be fatal within six months.

Finally, the Times concluded:

But for the voters to reject I-1000 is to deny the patient the right to make the decision at all. On the grounds of compassion for the suffering, and recognition of the individual as a moral agent, death with dignity is a right that should be allowed.

Agreed.

Each of us will always entitled to our own personal views on this issue, regardless of whether I-1000 passes. We can make the choice for ourselves.

I-1000 does not force anyone to do anything, it merely decriminalizes a choice that people are already making.

We at NPI believe it is immoral to dictate to other people what their choices in life should be. Imposing beliefs on other people inevitably leads to a loss of freedom all around. That's not the kind of society we want.

We also applaud the Times editorial board for urging voters to "get smart" and "say No to Initiative 985". We're heartened to see the Times take such a strong position on Tim Eyman's latest scheme to wreck our common wealth.

An excerpt:

I-985 is a poorly packaged jumble of different proposals that will - please listen carefully - worsen traffic in certain areas. It makes no sense to design a functioning, complicated traffic system by initiative.

Exactly. The Times nails the consequences, too:

Within a few weeks of this measure's effective date, fewer commuters will ride the bus because they lose the time advantage. The result will be more cars on the road and more congestion by mid-December. Happy Holidays to you.

This is part of the reason why we call I-985 the More Traffic Measure. Instead of providing attractive alternatives to driving, I-985 encourages people who are already using transit to get back into their cars. That's a stupid and irresponsible idea. Air pollution and sprawl are already bad enough.

What's more, I-985 will create new safety hazards:

Consider westbound Highway 520 approaching the bridge across Lake Washington. The three-occupant HOV lane is narrow shoulder not design to handle a crowded lane of traffic. It works today because fewer cars and buses use it. Put more cars in the skinny lane and it becomes dangerous and backs traffic up to Interstate 405 as cars jostle to fit three lanes into two.

There's also an excellent paragraph debunking Eyman's nonsensical provision that takes away red light camera money from cities.

This is one of the most concise and accurate Seattle Times endorsements we've ever seen. They have ably described most of the major problems with Eyman's initiative - although the one major thing they left out is the harmful fiscal impact.

(Initiative 985, if passed, would make our looming deficit much worse because it eats up hundred of millions of dollars from our state's treasury that have already been committed to our schools or other public services.)

Our thanks to the state's paper of record for rejecting the folly that is Initiative 985 and recognizing the true spirit of Initiative 1000.