Good morning and welcome!

Notice that I'm deliberately not wearing a tie! The informality of Tucson is one of many things I like here and moreover, after having worn a tight clergy collar almost every day for 22 years, my neck is still relishing a breath of fresh air! And of course there's always the tradition set by Earl Wettstein to maintain: the wearing of Hawaiian shirts.

First and foremost, I want to let you know that I am pleased and privileged to be serving End of Life Choices Arizona as Executive Director as we continue to pursue our cause based upon the excellent leadership of the past.

Over the years, I have worked with scores of volunteer organizations. And I must tell you that one of the great benefits of this job is interacting with you - with exactly you. By that I mean that the caliber of our members' values, dedication, kindness, sincerity, and commitment is unsurpassed. Simply put, it's an honor to be with you.

On behalf of End of Life Choices I thank all of you for your support and contributions made to our effort. Many of you have given of your time and talent to a tremendous degree, and it's important that you know we are grateful.

At the risk of naming some and omitting others, I want specifically to thank several people without whom we would not be where we are nor be able to carry on as well as we shall. Would all members of the Tucson Chapter Board please stand (please hold your thunderous applause until the end).

And, at the risk of having some stand up again, for extraordinary service on a statewide basis, I'd like us to acknowledge: Earl Wettstein (founder and former director of our statewide organization), John Westover (the Godfather of End of Life Choices in Tucson and former National Board member and President), Stanley and Ruthie Steinberg (Ruthie is Executive Coordinator, Stanley is our Treasurer), David Brandt-Erichsen (Webmaster extraordinaire and Legislative Director), and Jean Osborne (our Public Relations Director). Please know that we are grateful for your many contributions.

One matter I'd thought of addressing today is our future: my vision of where we go from here and what lies ahead to be accomplished. But I'm going to postpone telling you my vision until our statewide meeting of November 6, simply because time does not allow me to do it justice today.

So, finally, I get to the chosen topic: "We're Not About Death Any More." What this means is a shift in language, a paradigm shift, and a shift in emphasis. This is a new thrust throughout our educational activities, advocacy work, and legal efforts.

We're not about death - we're about the last part of LIFE! -- and the fullness of that life.

Rather than use the language of Death (Death with Dignity, Aid in Dying, Right to Die, and the like), I'd like to suggest we use and emphasize the language of life.

Why? Because, in spite of the enlightenment of some of us, death is very off-putting in our society. It is still taboo. (If anyone had ever told me, in 1976 when I began teaching death education at Auburn U., ..) It makes people uncomfortable, nervous, and reluctant to engage in serious dialogue about the end of life.

So, rather than "physician aid in dying" how about saying: We're about the right to life -- life in its fullest until the end. We're about living life without needless suffering (notice -- not "pain" but "suffering"). We're about the right to exercise free choice. We're about living well throughout life.

What we are really about is not death: We are about life - all of life (one can complete Advance Directives at the age of 18), and of course we are especially concerned with the last part of life.

We're about people living life to its fullest!

Death and life go hand in glove. For me, death is a natural part of life. It is one hundred percent relevant. Therefore, we are 100% relevant! The end of life is perfectly natural.

One of our members recently wrote: I liked the line, "Life is fatal." When our opponents go on and on about "God is pro-life," I always think, "and pro-death, since every form of life has germination and a death, beginning and end." Isn't it about time physicians and nurses and the general public accept the fact that life is fatal -- that death is inevitable and natural and nothing to be feared, dreaded, or avoided as a natural topic of conversation?

Well, yes, that's true -- it certainly is about time. But because of the aversion so many of us have to death, I suggest we'll get farther in promoting our cause by using the language of life.

You know, sometimes we treat the terminally ill as though they were somehow dead already! There is no in between -- one is either alive or not alive! And, generally, hearing is the longest living of the senses. Sometimes we "tip-toe" too much around those who are near life's end. Or, worse yet, we act upon them without consulting them, we ignore their sense of humor, and institutional staff speak demeaningly to them in "baby talk." And we shy away, of course, because of their reminder of our own mortality.

The terminally ill in our society are subject to and vulnerable to the will of others. They are dehumanized and marginalized, drugged and plugged, medicalized and bureaucratized, under appreciated, needlessly emaciated and overly sedated, alive but deprived, isolated and denigrated, neglected and rejected.

But guess what - someone terminally ill is as alive as you or I! We treat them as though they are about DEATH. But they are really concerned about LIFE.

And so are we!

After all, what do we advocate and affirm? We don't advocate death or having to die now. We advocate having a decent life until the end by having autonomy and control and choice. We're not about death -- we are LIFE-AFFIRMING!

Besides choice, another principle of our movement is the uniqueness of each individual and each case. It's up to us to be sure that those who are terminally ill are respected as unique and vibrant individuals. It's up to us to be sure that the variables and vicissitudes of each individual's case be recognized and honored. One has the right to rage against death to the grave, as well as the right to choose one's own end.

Instead of fear and aversion, those who are terminally ill deserve the very best that humanity has to offer: Using the language of life, some of what we can offer is:

Respect
Truth
Honesty
Kindness
Empowerment
Nurture and Support
Freedom to speak their piece
Freedom to make their wishes known
Freedom to live in dignity,
Freedom from pain and freedom from the fear of recurring pain
Freedom from undue financial concern
Love
Spiritual fulfillment
Solace
Relief
Tenderness
Enjoyment or happiness
Pleasure
Calm
Dignity
Peace of mind
Autonomy
Advocacy (Advocate needing to be an SOB or Witch on Wheels!)
Affirmation
Assistance
Control over their lives
Choice about how they lead and end their lives
Compassion
Care
Comfort
Companionship
And solitude when they so desire

This is the kind of language people welcome and understand and embrace.

When the medical industry proclaims: "There is no more we can do" it's up to us to say, "Yes, there's plenty we can do!"

We can see to it that those near life's end are kept free from physical pain. Beyond continuing to push for adequate palliative care in terms of pain abatement, there's plenty more we can do. We can be loving companions for those near life's end.

Even a mere presence can help. We can see to it that someone need not die alone.

We can help eliminate the suffering brought about by the anxiety, fear and dread that one's wishes may not be followed.

We can be advocates that one be permitted to live life's end in friendly, familiar surroundings -- preferably at home, with one's own belongings, in one's own place -- that may mean with one's favorite picture on the wall, a pet at one's side, or the accustomed view out the window.

In other words, we can help people maintain control as much as is possible -- to make their own decisions regarding their care, and to have those decisions honored.

We can touch the dying, hold them, or leave them alone as they desire.

We can help people to be free near life's end to express their emotions -- to be angry, to cry, to retain a sense of humor, to laugh, to love.

We can advocate that those living life's last days know the truth -- even painful truth. So often the truth is withheld from them.

We can help people live near the end of life without being financially exploited, and without the fear of being financially exploited (it's hard to be cost conscious when you are unconscious!).

We can help people recognize that they have led a purposeful life -- and we can help to affirm that life.

We can help people to be free of emotional suffering by being at peace with themselves. This may include having taken care of literal and figurative unfinished business -- perhaps having made funeral plans, body donation plans, set financial plans in order, updating the will, and so on. And it may include having made an effort to reconcile former interpersonal conflicts, to put relationships straight (including saying goodbye).

Finally, and by no means least, we can see to it that legislation is adopted that allows us in Arizona to end our life's journey as we see fit!

The Oregon Death with Dignity Law has been in effect since 1997. Most observers feel that not only have there been no abuses, but that the law has spurred improved end-of-life care, making it the best state in the nation for utilizing hospice care, providing pain relief, and allowing people to die at home.

Someone said about the Oregon law, "This is a permissive law. It forbids nothing and taxes no one. It enhances freedom. It lets people do a little more of what they want, without hurting anyone else. It removes a slight bit of the weight of government that hangs over all of us."

In every social movement there are always those predicting catastrophic consequences. The 42 Oregon people who have chosen to use the Death with Dignity Law in the last six years comprised 1/8 of 1% of all the people who died in Oregon during that period. (Many more asked for assistance and didn't use it, but had peace of mind knowing it was available.) More than 2/3 of the public is with us! When we use the language of the Patient Comfort and Control Act, more than 3/4 of the public is with us.

Why must there be only one way to die? In his book, Dying with Dignity, Father Hans Kung, a German Catholic theologian, wrote,

"I am convinced that the all-merciful God has left to dying people the responsibility for making a decision about the time and manner of their deaths..There should be no compulsion to die, but there should be no compulsion to live either."

Someone will make all of the decisions that accompany the end of life, decisions we advocate being made. Why not have that someone be you?

Since before 1980 when I joined the Hemlock Society, and until I die as a member of End of Life Choices Arizona, I maintain that no one, and I mean no one, is better equipped or entitled to decide where you will die, with whom you will die, how you will die, and when you will die -- no one is better equipped or entitled to decide that than you are!

Let's keep fighting the good fight!

Thank you.