Showing posts with label Ballot Question 2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ballot Question 2. Show all posts

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Papers Say "NO" to Question 2

1.  The Boston Globe:  End-of-life discussions, care should come before Question 2 
2.  The Cape Cod Times - Vote No on Question 2
3. 
The Salem News - Our View: No on Question 2
4. 
The Worchester Telegram and Gazette - Vote "No" on Question 2
5. 
The Boston Herald - No on Question 2
6. 
The New Bedford Standard Times - Our View: Death with Dignity law fatally flawed
7. 
The Bay State Banner - Vote No on Question 2
8. 
The Lowell Sun - Vote No on Question 2
9The Springfield Republic - recommend voting “no” on Question 2, physician-assisted suicide
10.  The Waltham News Tribune - Endorsement: 'Death with dignity' is not good enough

Question 2 will put the vulnerable at risk

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x1272750569/Coiro-Question-2-will-put-vulnerable-at-risk#ixzz2BCKQGRss

Dear Editor:

The desire "not to be a burden," has been part of all five suicides I have experienced as a priest.  Pre-death interviews in Oregon and Washington show that those who make use of Physician Assisted Suicide there often state the desire "not to be a burden" as their primary motivation.  Not suffering, but rather the challenge of being dependent on the aid of others.

The greatest misconception about legalizing Assisted Suicide is that it is strictly about giving individuals the right to make choices for themselves - that it will not impact others.  The reality is that once suicide is introduced as a legal option in some circumstances, it becomes a more acceptable and likely option for society as a whole.  Consider Oregon.  Oregon passed doctor-assisted suicide in 1994.  Now, suicide is the leading cause of "injury death" there, and the second leading cause of death among 15 to 34 year olds.  The suicide rate in Oregon, which had been in decline before 1994, is now 35 percent higher than the national average.

As one who ministers to the dying and the depressed, I am deeply concerned that if passed, Question 2 will put many more vulnerable persons at risk.  Do you know a teen, or family member, or coworker who suffers from depression?  A yes vote for Question Two would tell those individuals that yes, sometimes the deliberate taking of one's own life is an appropriate choice.  On their behalf, please join in defeating Question 2.

 REV. MARK J. COIRO


Pastor, St. Mary's, Holliston
Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x1272750569/Coiro-Question-2-will-put-vulnerable-at-risk#ixzz2BCKQGRss

Doctor-assisted suicide won't bring "peace and comfort"

http://www.wickedlocal.com/brookline/news/x255964445/Letter-Doctor-assisted-suicide-won-t-bring-peace-and-comfort#ixzz2BCHxVAkS

"The incantatory phrase, 'in a humane and dignified manner,' is incessantly repeated throughout the pages of the proposal of Question 2. It scares me."

Dear Editor:

Suicide's tragedy is in its failure, on both the personal level of caring and the societal level of caring for people who are not going to get well. The training of doctors and nurses, geared toward the recovery of health, can engender frustration in the face of death, a defeat in the battle for a cure. Dying is fearsome, not death itself. In the abstract, one can be tempted toward ending one's life, especially where there is physical and/or mental suffering. On the practical level, suicide is never the answer, is never a comfort, always leaving distressing questions afterward. Killing attacks life and is an affront to the art and science of medicine.

A mother's vote against assisted suicide

http://www.patriotledger.com/letters/x346791105/DOTTY-McLAUGHLIN-Randolph-A-mothers-vote-against-assisted-suicide#ixzz2BCFhdnk2

I was disappointed in your editorial, “Vote yes on Question 2; allow death with dignity” (Nov. 2).

Question 2 makes it legal to obtain a lethal prescription if a person has a terminal illness that carries a prognosis of six or fewer months to live.   As a mother whose son outlived his six-month prognosis by six years, I oppose Question 2 for that reason alone.  The years we had with my son are a precious gift; I would not want to see another family deprived of days, months, or years with a loved one because of this law.  

Question 2 also has other deep and serious flaws.  To begin, a patient’s mental health does not have to be evaluated before making such a significant life-ending decision.  Today, if a patient confides in their doctor that they are having suicidal thoughts or intend to do harm to themselves, it is the doctor’s professional obligation to do everything they can to prevent such actions.  Taking a lethal dose of 100 Seconal pills should not be an exception to this rule.

Once the patient picks up this lethal prescription from his or her local pharmacy, there is absolutely no tracking method to ensure that the medication does not end up in the wrong hands.  In your editorial, you correctly state that such a thing is not required for any other sorts of medications. However, none of these medications have an expressed intent to kill anyone. The importance of a tracking method for this medication is distinctive and necessary. Moreover, as a resident of the South Shore, I am shocked at the Ledger’s loose attitude toward this serious issue under the banner of prescription monitoring, given the paper’s strong coverage of the region’s oxycontin epidemic in the past.

Your newspaper cited Oregon – where assisted suicide is legal – as a model case, since only about 600 people had actually taken their lives.  Since when did 596 lives become insignificant? How many of them could have outlived their prognosis, or had more time to spend with friends, their families and children? How many of them could have been suffering from a treatable form of depression or misdiagnosed in the first place? My son enjoyed five years and six extra months more than he was predicted to live. Time which may have been lost if physician assisted suicide had been legal. 

We should be focusing more on options such as hospice and palliative care for patients with terminal illnesses, rather than the finality of death, because let’s face it – how many doctors can say with absolute certitude that a patient has only six months left to live? The answer: zero. 

I stand with the Massachusetts Medical Society and its 23,000 physicians across the state in opposing Question 2, and I urge all voters to do the same on Nov. 6.

DOTTY MCLAUGHLIN
Randolph


Read more: DOTTY McLAUGHLIN, Randolph: A mother's vote against assisted suicide - West Bridgewater, MA - Wicked Local West Bridgewater http://www.patriotledger.com/letters/x346791105/DOTTY-McLAUGHLIN-Randolph-A-mothers-vote-against-assisted-suicide#ixzz2BCFhdnk2

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Mayor, Full Council Oppose Assisted Suicide Question


The following was submitted by City Councilor Diane LeBlanc.
Mayor Jeannette McCarthy and the City’s 15 Councilors will be voting No on Question 2 and they are urging Waltham residents and residents across the state to do the same.  While it is not common for elected officials to speak out on ballot questions, they are making an exception because of the life and death issue at stake, and what they unanimously agree, are gross flaws in the proposed law.

Support plunges for assisted suicide question

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1757123000/Support-plunges-for-assisted-suicide-question


By Laura Krantz


Support has plummeted for a ballot question to legalize assisted suicide, a poll released Tuesday shows.
Support for the Death with Dignity measure waned from 64 percent to 47 percent since a similar poll was released last month.

Fourty-one percent of voters oppose it, according to the Suffolk University/7News poll, giving the question only a six-point lead compared to the 37 point advantage it had six weeks ago.

The poll surveyed 600 likely voters using live telephone interviews of landline and cell phone users and reported a 4 percent margin of error.

Killing with kindness: Why the Death With Dignity Act endangers people with disabilities

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/146648-killing-with-kindness-why-the-death-with-dignity-/#ixzz2AvS5wlXH

 
By S.J. Rosenbaum

I think my opinions about doctor-assisted suicide crystallized the night Mike — my wheelchair-using, ventilator-breathing boyfriend — choked on pineapple juice, passed out, and died.

He was dead for several minutes, on a steel table in the ER. The doctor shocked the pulse back into his heart and dropped him into an induced coma, but it still wasn't clear whether he would make it. As I stood by his bedside, shaking, one of the nurses touched me on the shoulder.

"Maybe it's better this way," she murmured.

I'll never forget that moment. We'd been watching a movie together a few hours before. We had plans to go clubbing. Maybe it's better this way?

I'm not a violent person, but I wanted to punch that lady in the face.

NY Times: Suicide by Choice? Not so Fast


NEXT week, voters in Massachusetts will decide whether to adopt an assisted-suicide law. As a good pro-choice liberal, I ought to support the effort. But as a lifelong disabled person, I cannot.

There are solid arguments in favor. No one will be coerced into taking a poison pill, supporters insist. The “right to die” will apply only to those with six months to live or less. Doctors will take into account the possibility of depression. There is no slippery slope.

Fair enough, but I remain skeptical. There’s been scant evidence of abuse so far in Oregon [and] Washington . . . , the [two] states where physician-assisted death is already legal, but abuse — whether spousal, child or elder — is notoriously underreported, and evidence is difficult to come by. What’s more, Massachusetts registered nearly 20,000 cases of elder abuse in 2010 alone.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Assisted Suicide Users are Older People with Money

By Margaret Dore, Esq., Updated October 29, 2012

Users of assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington are overwhelmingly white and generally well-educated.[1]  Many have private insurance.[2]  Most are age 65 and older.[3]  Typically persons with these attributes are seniors with money, which would be the middle class and above, a group disproportionately at risk of financial abuse and exploitation.[4] 

In the United States, elder financial abuse costs elders an estimated $2.9 billion per year.[5] Perpetrators include strangers, family members and friends.[6]. The goals of financial abuse perpetrators are achieved "through deceit, threats, and emotional manipulation of the elder."[7]

The Oregon and Washington assisted suicide acts, and the similar Massachusetts proposal, do not protect users from this abuse. Indeed, the terms of these acts encourage abuse. These acts allow heirs and other persons who will benefit from an elder's death to actively participate in his or her lethal dose request.[8] There is also no oversight when the lethal dose is administered, not even a witness is required.[9] This creates the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the person's death, to administer the lethal dose to that person without his consent.[10]  Even if he struggled, who would know?

This is not to say that all persons who use the Oregon and Washington acts are subject to abuse or that their actions are not voluntary.  Rather, the Oregon and Washington acts do not protect such persons from abuse.  Neither will the Massachusetts proposal.

For more information about problems with the Massachusetts' proposal, click here and here. For a "fact check" on the proposal, click here.

[1] See the most current official report from Washington State, "Washington State Department of Health 2011 Death with Dignity Act Report, Executive Summary ("Of the 94 participants in 2011 who died, . . . 94% were white, non-Hispanic . . .75 percent had at least some college education"), available at http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/5300/DWDA2011.pdf  See also the most current official report from Oregon, also for 2011 ("most [users] were white (95.6%) [and] well-educated (48.5% had at least a baccalaureate degree) . . .", available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year14.pdf
[2] See Washington's report in note 1, page 5, table 2 (46% had private insurance only, or a combination of private and Medicaid/Medicare).  See Oregon's report in note 1("patients who had private insurance (50.8%) was lower in 2011 than in previous years (68.0%). . ."
[3] See Washington's report in note 1, page 5, Table 2 (74% were aged 65 or older).  See Oregon's report in note 1, page 2 ("Of the 71 DWDA deaths during 2011, most (69.0%) were aged 65 years or older; the median age was 70 years").
[4]  Educated persons are generally financially better off than non-educated persons; persons with private insurance have funding to pay for it; seniors generally are well off.  See "Broken Trust:  Elders, Family, and Finances, a Study on Elder Financial Abuse Prevention, by the MetLife Mature Market Institute, the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, and the Center for Gerontology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, March 2009, Executive Summary, page 4 ("Elders’ vulnerabilities and larger net worth make them a prime target for financial abuse").
[5]  The Met Life Study of Elder Financial Abuse, " Crimes of Occasion, Desperation, and Predation Against America's Elders," June 2011, page 2, key findings ("The annual financial loss by victims of elder financial abuse is estimated to be at least $2.9 billion dollars, a 12% increase from the $2.6 billion estimated in 2008"). 
[6] Id.
[7] Id., page 3.
[8] See e.g. Margaret K. Dore, "'Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009; and Margaret K. Dore, Memo to Joint Judiciary Committee (regarding Bill H.3884, now Ballot Question No. 2), Section III
[9] Id.  See also entire proposed Massachusetts Act at http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ma-initiative.pdf
[10]  The drugs used, Secobarbital and Pentobarbital, are water and alcohol soluable, such that they can be injected without consent, for example, to a sleeping individual.  See "Secobarbital Sodium Capsules, Drugs.Com, at  http://www.drugs.com/pro/seconal-sodium.html  If the person wakes up and trys to fight, who would know? 

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Ballot Question 2: A Recipe for Elder Abuse

A repeat post brought back by popular demand; for a more in depth analysis, please  click here.

By Margaret Dore
December 2, 2011

A ballot initiative to legalize physician-assisted suicide is pending in Massachusetts.[1]

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in just two states: Oregon and Washington.  In both states, acts to legalize the practice were enacted via sound-bite ballot initiative campaigns.[2]  In a third state, Montana, there is a court case that gives doctors a potential defense to prosecution for homicide.  No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature.  Just this year, bills to legalize assisted suicide were defeated in Montana, New Hampshire and Hawaii.[3] Just this year, Idaho enacted a statute to strengthen its law against assisted suicide.[4]

The proposed Massachusetts act is a recipe for elder abuse.  Key provisions include that an heir, who will benefit financially from a patient's death, is allowed to participate as a witness to help sign the patient up for the lethal dose.  See Section 21 of the act, allowing one of two witnesses on the lethal dose request form to be an heir, available here.  This situation invites undue influence and coercion.

Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight.  See entire proposed act, available here.  For example, there are no required witnesses when the lethal dose is administered.  See act here.  Without disinterested witnesses, an opportunity is created for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the patient's death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent.  Even if he struggled who would know?

In Massachusetts, proponents are framing the issue as religious.  In Washington state, proponents used a similar tactic and even religious slurs to distract voters from the pitfalls of legalization.  What the proposed law said and did was all but forgotten.
        
Do not be deceived.
* * *

Margaret Dore is an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide.  Her publications include Margaret K. Dore, "Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and the Illusion of Personal Choice," The Vermont Bar Journal, Winter 2011.
* * *
[1]  To view the proposed Massachusetts initiative, click here:  http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ma-initiative.pdf 
[2]  Oregon's physician-assisted suicide act was enacted via Ballot Measure 16.  Washington's act was enacted via Initiative 1000.
[3]  In Montana, SB 167 was tabled in Committee and subsequently died on April 28, 2011.  In New Hampshire, HB 513 was defeated on March 16, 2011.  In Hawaii, SB 803 was defeated on February 7, 2011 .
[4]  On July 1 2011, Idaho's new statute strengthening Idaho law against assisted suicide went into effect:   http://www.choiceillusionidaho.org/2011/07/idaho-strengthens-law.html

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Legalization Will Not Prevent Violent Deaths

By Margaret Dore

Assisted suicide proponents claim that legal assisted suicide will prevent violent deaths such as those by murder-suicide and suicide involving a handgun.[1] In Oregon where assisted-suicide has been legal since 1997, murder-suicide has not been eliminated.[2]  Indeed, murder-suicides follow "the national pattern."[3]  As discussed below, suicides involving a handgun have also not been eliminated.  Oregon's suicide rate has instead increased with legalization of assisted suicide.

Oregon’s overall suicide rate, which excludes suicides under Oregon’s assisted suicide act, is 35% above the national average.[4] This rate has been "increasing significantly since 2000."[5]  Just three years prior, in 1997, Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide.[6] Other suicides thus increased, not decreased, with legalization of assisted suicide.  Moreover, many of these deaths are violent.  For 2007, which is the most recent year reported, "[f]irearms were the dominant mechanism of suicide among men."[7] The claim that legalization will prevent violent deaths is without factual support.

* * *

[1]  See e.g. Lindsey Anderson, Associated Press, "Mass. Voters Consider Physician-Assisted Suicide," October 20, 2012, at http://www.wbur.org/2012/10/20/physician-assisted-suicide ("Dr. Marcia Angell ... believes [her father] would've lived longer and not turned to a pistol had assisted suicide been available").
[2]  See Don Colburn, "Recent murder-suicides follow the national pattern," The Oregonian, November 17, 2009 ("In the span of one week this month in the Portland area, three murder-suicides resulted in the deaths of six adults and two children") (Available at http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2009/11/recent_murder-suicides_follow.html); Baldr Odinson, "Fourth Murder-Suicide for the Eugene Area," New Trajectory:  A blog for Ceasefire Oregon, March 2, 2011, ("Harry Hanus, age 74, shot and killed his wife, Barbara, before taking his own life")

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Robert Joyce on Elder Abuse, Other Reasons to Vote No on Question 2

"The referendum shockingly increases the risk of abuse to elders ..."


Dear Editor:

It’s not clear why The Bulletin titled Joe Galeota’s recent column as it did [“Terrible,” October 11, 2012].

If it’s because the column offered no information about the content of the physician-prescribed suicide referendum, I agree. That is terrible. . . . 

Let’s get serious, and consider just a few of the many reasons why voters should defeat this flawed bill.

The referendum shockingly increases the risk of abuse to elders, many of whom do not have loving families and/or have lost their circle of friends and/or have no one to advocate for them. We should consider that Massachusetts had 19,500 reported cases of elder abuse in 2011. There are insufficient elder abuse investigators to keep up with the 54 new cases reported each day. One study has suggested that there are 23.5 unreported cases for every one reported case.

The referendum does not even provide the level of protection required when a person signs a will in Massachusetts (i.e., two disinterested witnesses), and there is absolutely no oversight at the time the lethal drugs would be administered. 

The Massachusetts Medical Society, representing more than 24,000 physicians and medical students, opposes the bill. So does the American Medical Society.

Insurance companies, hospitals and governmental medical providers have a clear and compelling financial interest in denying us of adequate end-of-life care.

How much do you trust insurers, hospitals and governments? Unless you answer “with my life,” you should oppose physician-prescribed suicide and vote NO on Question Two.

It would indeed be “terrible” if we allow this referendum to pass!

Robert W. Joyce

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Vote No on Question 2

"Ignoring any moral issues, the initiative is vulnerable to abuse and should not be passed into law."

By Anthony Speranza


http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x1684126269/Column-Vote-no-on-Question-2

This year in Massachusetts, voters will decide on Question 2: an initiative petition to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the commonwealth. Ignoring any moral issues, the initiative is vulnerable to abuse and should not be passed into law.

Dignity 2012, a group in support of the issue referred to as "Death with Dignity," claims the proposed law "contains strict safeguards to ensure that the patient is making a voluntary and informed decision." The safeguards written into the law, however, are insufficient. First, nearly all responsibility rests in the hands of a patient's physician. Section 6 of the initiative states that no patient shall be prescribed the life-ending medication if either of two physicians deem that the patient suffers from a "psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression." While the theory behind this precaution is practical, it falls short of effective. Only 15 days separate the date of request from the date of prescription of the lethal dose. There is no clear definition of what tests must be run in this time to check a patient's mental capacity. According to Jennifer Popik, a medical ethics attorney, "There is no requirement that the patient be given a psychiatric evaluation... This means that a physician ... can prescribe suicide to that patient without even a specialist's evaluation." The "safeguard" concerning mental health is rendered useless because a psychiatric evaluation is not compulsory. A similar law in Oregon serves as a warning: According to a report by the Oregon Public Health Department, of the 71 patients who chose physician-assisted suicide last year, only one was referred for psychiatric evaluation.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Ballot Question 2: Whose Choice?

By Margaret Dore

I am an attorney in Washington State, where assisted suicide is legal.  Our law was passed by a ballot initiative in November 2008 and went into effect in March 2009.  Our law is similar to Ballot Question 2. 

In Washington State, my former clients own two adult family homes (small elder care facilities).  Four days after the election, the adult child of one of their residents asked about getting pills for the purpose of causing his father's death.  It wasn't the older gentleman asking for his "right to die."[1]

At that time, our law had not yet gone into effect; the man died before it did.  But if our law had been in effect, whose choice would it have been?  The choice of his son, or the choice of the older gentleman?

In Washington state, we have already had suggestions to expand our law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal people.[2].  More disturbing, there was this discussion in the Seattle Times suggesting euthanasia for people unable to afford care, which would be on an involuntary basis for those persons who want to live.  Columnist Jerry Large stated:

"After Monday's column, some readers were unsympathetic [to people unable to afford care], a few suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out.  At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution."[3]

I never saw anything like this prior to our law's being passed in 2008.  Be careful what you vote for.

* * * 

[1]  Letter from Juan Carlos to the Montana Board of Medical Examiners, posted July 1, 2012, at http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2012/07/dear-montana-board-of-medical-examiners.html 
[2]  See e.g., Brian Faller, "Perhaps it's time to expand Washington's Death with Dignity Act," The Olympian, November 16, 2011, available at http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/16/1878667/perhaps-its-time-to-expand-washingtons.html 
[3]  Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," The Seattle Times, March 8, 2012 at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017693023.html