The controversial ballot referendum on physician-assisted suicide has prompted a flurry of late-breaking, heart-wrenching TV ads and fierce opposition from a broad coalition of religious, conservative, and antiabortion activists across the country who have dramatically outraised proponents.
Opponents, fearing that passage in Massachusetts would advance the movement nationally, have poured nearly $2.6 million into efforts to defeat it, with contributions coming from Catholic dioceses as far away as Minnesota, Kansas, and even the US Virgin Islands. And Catholic colleges have taken the extraordinary step of reaching out to their tens of thousands of alumni to warn them against the ballot question.
Comments
It would really be nice if all these churches would stay out of my life. Who do they think they are to dictate what people do who aren't members of their faith.
I think people should have a right to end their suffering with the help of their doctor and family. This law does not do that. It sends people home with some pills.
My family since I was very young was inundated with illness and tragedy. The suffering if one could put a price tag on it would have been in the millions. I am voting yes, on the question of assisted suicide for the terminally ill. I know there are many arguments against it. I know I get a lot of glances that tell me they are not utterly for this option but I know how I feel and how I think. I am not tied into any religious dogma or magical thinking. I do not think bad things happen to good people for any purpose nor do I think a magical being intervenes when he saves your child but lets an equally good child of someone else die. I am not torn by this question because I believe in the laws of nature, nature's DNA and nature's laws of physics. Even the Biblical Ecclesiastes says there is a time for every season; a time to be born and a time to die. Of that we are in agreement. If an animal is euthanized when the suffering becomes enormous and incapable to reverse then we as animals should be able to do no less. I understand it is not always that simple BUT it is simple enough for me. Suffering and pain with no chance of amelioration is suffering for no purpose. Remember the show Ben Casey from the 1960’s? It began with the wise aged Dr. Zorba played by Sam Jaffe writing symbols on a blackboard saying: Man, woman, birth, life, death, infinity. That is pretty much how I see it. There is a beginning and there is an end and we know it will happen to us all. Why not enjoy the life one has and when it ceases to be enjoyable but is inextricably lived with never-ending excruciating pain, end it. I am voting yes on Question 2.
Well said. Religion has its place with respect to getting people to be good to each other and, basically, being good people. Beyond that it's what man has created for its own agenda, and often times represents extremist views that go against common sense. Religious groups should be spending the $2.6 million on helping those in need instead of pushing their agenda and attempting to brainwash followers. Maybe they should think about why it is that people are leaving organized religion in droves.
Hey, people, this would allow for a CHOICE! No one would have to exercise that choice if they didn't want to. Please do not restrict my CHOICE, if it doesn't harm you personally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frankly, the ad with the 100 seconals, that explained how they would be obtained by a special prescription, and that the patient would break them open and mix the powder with water, was the turning point for me. While it was intended to dissuade voters from voting for the referendum, it had the opposite effect on me, instructing me in the process and showing how simple and humane it would be. I believe this is a perfectly reasonable approach to an end-of-life decision, and it would give dignity to that decision, if a person wanted to take it.
“Everyone who is involved in this believes that if it passes in Massachusetts, it’s a gateway to the rest of the country,” said Terrence C. Donilon, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. Let's hope so! It's not often I agree with Barney Frank but he's 100% correct, in my opinion. Next up, let's legalize marijuana and stop repeating the mistake made with prohibition. Both of these issues are common sense issues where extremist views have no place.
This comment has been removed.
Both this article and the comments seem to perpetuate the falsehood that those who oppose Question 2 are part of a religious fringe. Opponents of this proposition form a broad and diverse group. Some of the strongest opposition comes from disability rights activists (who, interstingly, have been marginalized by the press in coverage this issue - this article being a prime example) - as well as from the Massachusetts Medical Society, which is not known for being either religious, or right-leaning! Question 2 is fraught with problems, and if passed, is guaranteed to cause harm. I am a physician, and a Democrat, and I will be voting NO on question 2.