ON TUESDAY, the voters of Washington State defeated Initiative 119, which would have legalized what proponents euphemistically termed "aid-in-dying." That means legalized euthanasia.

Supporters of Initiative 119--led by the Hemlock Society, a national organization which advocates the complete legalization of all euthanasia and suicide--argued that "aid-in-dying" would allow people to control the most important personal decision possible, whether to live or die. They said that, because doctors' traditional role is to decrease the suffering and increase the well-being of their patients, allowing doctors to end suffering through ending their patients' lives is a natural extension of this role.

Let us be thankful that the voters thought twice before voting "Yes." Euthanasia, no matter what compassionate rhetoric it comes cloaked in, is a fundamentally dangerous practice. Also being considered in California, Oregon and Florida, euthanasia would destroy the trust of the doctor-patient relationship. More importantly, it would open the door to a subjective standard of the value of life which would destroy the very foundations of human liberty--personal autonomy--by giving doctors the right to kill patients at their own discretion.

WASHINGTON STATE already has laws on the books that allow patients or their authorized proxies to refuse life-sustaining treatment, except in the case of nutrition and hydration, which cannot be withheld. Proponents of Initiative 119 argued that this law fails the test of compassion. In its place, they wanted this:

"This initiative expands the right of adult persons with terminal conditions to have their wishes, expressed in a written directive, regarding life respected. It amends current law to:

"Expand the definition of terminal condition to include irreversible coma and persistent vegetative state which will result in death in six months;

"Specify which life-sustaining procedures may be withdrawn;

"Permit adult persons with terminal conditions to request and receive aid-in-dying from their physicians, facilitating death."

"...aid-in-dying... facilitating death." What benevolent, even compassionate little phrases these seem. Proponents of Initiative 119 and similar proposals count on the emotional weight that arguments in favor of personal autonomy carry in our society.

Suffering patients, euthanasia advocates say, should not be forced to continue their lives in extreme pain and suffering. Doctors are healers and comforters, they say, so they should be allowed to ease the pain of their patients by terminating their pain in the most final fashion.

Medical technology has prolonged our lives, but it cannot improve their quality, the argument continues. To counteract the negative effects of technological prolongation of life, doctors should now be able to end a patient's life peacefully, to stem the agony of an illness artificially prolonged by life support systems and other technology.

This argument, however, ignores the definition of a doctor. Professor Leon Kass, M.D., of the University of Chicago, notes that euthanasia "would change the meaning of being a physician from being a healer to that of being an annihilator." He reminds us that the role of the physician has been that of a person who benefits "the sick by the activity of healing."

The healing aspect of meidicine has indeed been perverted by misuse of technology, Kass says. But he maintains that it is misleading to argue that euthanasia is a solution to the problems which medical technology has caused.

To address the real problems of technology, Kass says, physicians need to return to the ideal of caring and healing, instead of acting as medical technicians obsessed with sustaining life at any cost. Life itself is not the ultimate value. The ultimate value which physicians must hold is that of healing, actually making sick people feel better. With the overuse of technology, doctors have changed from healers, or life-affirmers, to life-prolongers.

But with euthanasia, they would become life-destroyers.