1. The Cape Cod Times - Vote No on Question 2
2. The Salem News - Our View: No on Question 2
3. The Worchester Telegram and Gazette - Vote "No" on Question 2
4. The Boston Herald - No on Question 2
5. The New Bedford Standard Times - Our View: Death with Dignity law fatally flawed
6. The Bay State Banner - Vote No on Question 2
7. The Lowell Sun - Vote No on Question 2
Sunday, October 28, 2012
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?
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.
* * *
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.
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
[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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)