For most of us, Question 2 is personal.
We see this ballot measure — which would allow some gravely ill people to get medication with which to end their lives — through the lens of our own experience. Here is a husband whose wife’s passing was far more drawn out, and difficult, than she wanted. He will vote yes. Here is a wife who saw her terminally ill husband live far longer, and with more fulfillment, than doctors predicted. She will vote no.
Comments
The group running the opposition ads is really warped. They have no business imposing themselves into my life choices in the first place, but I think their ads are fictional. Is that guy that dumps out the pills really a pharmacist. Come on. He looks looks like a used car salesman (with apologies to used care salesmen).
All I care about is being able to control my life if some fatal malady makes life not worth living. It is *my* life.
Most frustrating are the robo calls. You can't stop them. You can even yell back at them.
Do you have a Living Will? That is step one in control of your life.
I do, but that doesn't address Question 2 such as having to endure absolute misery while still living and breathing. A living will is for when you're basically non-responsive and can't make your own decisions.
The TV ads on this issue have been bizarre! Are the anti-Question 2 ads secretly PRO-Question 2? In it, they talk about getting the narcotic & drinking it. No doctors must be present & family needn't be notified. What? To me, that is a prime reason to vote YES! I have watched loved ones die & it is not pretty. I don't know that they would have chosen the drugs but I am certain I want others to have the peace of mind to know it's available should the suffering become unbearable.
Would I have voted Yes if it were more clearly written? Maybe. I have always felt that if stricken with incureable cancer, I would want to plan my own death, and I have always felt that I would have the means to do so with great dignity so as long as I am competent. My concern is for people who may be more easily swayed to adopt or acquiesce to other's beliefs that they trust perhaps too much.
With my dad's dying this year, I saw the harsh and irreversible damage done by too much trust in family members and doctors who were all well-intended. I'm sure my dad's doctor thought she was not only medically but morally right in her treatment choice for him, knowing his deterioration was imminent and his response to a sure side effect and its treatment would kill him. Members of the family felt the end justified the means and lied in their representation of facts and his wishes. Most agreed he was better off dead, and even angrily declared so a couple of times, but it was more about having been moved to a nursing home. This man was largely ignored by family members who couldn't handle his anger, the "disgusting" nursing home and the unsightly residents, his changed appearance and behavior, and his imminent decline and death, absent until it was time to speak about "his" wishes. Who's wishes?
But my first concern about the proposed act was the wording and how vague the communication of intent to suicide could be. Communicated by the person or a person "who is very familiar with the patient's communication". I am deaf and have seen good interpretations and bad ones and know that with important things like court and medical appointments, it is critical to have a higher level of interpreter. I personally have had interpreters travel hours for such appointments. But far more freqently are the cases where a person goes along with a family member or friend or even neighbor who "knows the language". Ouch, very unreliable. And then add to that the said interpreter's own stake, emotional or otherwise.
Well stated, Yvonne!
But let's not tip toe around who the opposition is - the opposition is comprised mainly of religious groups - just another example of how organized religion tries to control every facet of our lives - truly disgusting.
Yes on 2.
The answer is relatively easy....my body...my choice...MY life.
Yvonne Abraham continues to produce informative columns that tackle the tough issues. My mom "willed" herself to a slow death in a nursing home and she died alone. Would she have qualified for what Question 2 would provide? Probably not. But, her death and the way she absolutely loved her active life would make me vote "Yes" on this ballot issue. Watching a loved one die really changes a person. So, I might be different from the next guy.
The NYTimes recently had an article, "Suicide by Choice? Not So Fast" written by a disabled man in which he talks about the attitude of medical personnel towards his choice to continue living despite extreme disabilities. He notes that MA registered nearly 20,000 cases of elder abuse in 2010. How many people would encourage their elderly relatives to choose death? "But you also can’t truly conceive of the many subtle forces — invariably well meaning, kindhearted, even gentle, yet as persuasive as a tsunami — that emerge when your physical autonomy is hopelessly compromised." "Advocates of Death With Dignity laws who say that patients themselves should decide whether to live or die are fantasizing. Who chooses suicide in a vacuum? We are inexorably affected by our immediate environment. The deck is stacked." He concludes, "I can’t help wondering why we’re in such a hurry to ensure the right to die before we’ve done all we can to ensure that those of us with severe, untreatable, life-threatening conditions are given the same open-hearted welcome, the same open-minded respect and the same open-ended opportunities due everyone else."
So you say if there's some remote possibility that it could be abused by some murder-minded individual, it shouldn't be available?
Your advocacy that it's okay for people to have to endure a horrible life leading to a horrible death makes you more of a monster than a human being. I know that you don't think of yourself in that way, but that's exactly what you're saying. Maybe you should stimulate your empathy a little instead of holding to some cold, unfeeling dogma.
And if you're an intelligent human being, you can certainly do better than filling a post with quotes for other sources. Can't you express your own opinions in your own words.?
Well done Yvonne Abraham. We all must decide if the principle is sound but the law is not, or if a principle that seems unsound to one means it must be legislated against for all. It seems to me that someone who cannot be cured may certainly be healed, if one is able to retain agency over one's life. The folks in Oregon who have the means but haven't chosen to use them are - I would imagine - grateful that their agency has been honored.
Yvonne - very well reasoned, but the opposition seems to be better funded and lies better. They are scaring people who have no need to worry and no stake in this battle...at least they do not have a stake in it today! This is way too personal for a ballot question, and more people will use guns to do this because they have no alternative. The no voters will only cause families more pain, and they should be ashamed.
Sometimes ballot questions are the only way for voters to have a decision at all. The better-funded side doesn't always win -- especially when the money buys ads as weak as the anti-Question 2 ads. Hoping for a Yes vote, for choice, and for dignity.
I agree with Barbara again. What a day! haha.
I think this issue is just too controversial for the legislature to deal with. The opposition are "true believers" who are very emotionally involved and, after the fact, look for ways to support their cause. If it was before the legislature there would be pickets on the steps of the capitol and emotional demostrations on the Common. It takes only a few thousand people to disrupt a legislative process that effects millions.
Of all the riches any human being could have, choice is the one that lends the most dignity. Those who take that choice away should be sentenced to that peril themselves. The bottom line is the money, as even the most decrepit health form, breathing with a heartbeat and some brain function, brings in money, and is, unfortuntately, the final legacy for too many terminal patients. When a gun is the only solution it's a clear sign we have far too much government and not enough true, humanistic, compassionate, governing. But the insurance checks clear, right? Don't take your eye off the ball on what's REALLY happening here. Dignify your family member, your friends, and your neighbors. Always vote for choice.
This article does not give or take away choice. A person is always free to take their own life--especially if they are competent and can swallow pills. Much progress has been made in end of life care. More people fear dying alone than experiencing intractable pain. Many people dislike dependence in any form. But we come into the world dependent on others and most likely we will leave it dependent on the care of others too.
I have always felt that if stricken with incureable cancer, I would want to plan my own death, and I have always felt that I would have the means to do so with great dignity so as long as I am competent. My concern is for people who may be more easily swayed to adopt or acquiesce to other's beliefs that they trust perhaps too much. With my dad's dying this year, I saw the harsh and irreversible damage done by too much trust in family members and doctors who were all well-intended. I'm sure my dad's doctor thought she was not only medically but morally right in her treatment choice for him, knowing his deterioration was imminent and his response to a sure side effect and its treatment would kill him. Members of the family felt the end justified the means and lied in their representation of facts and his wishes. Most agreed he was better off dead. He even angrily declared so a couple of times, but it was more about having been moved to a nursing home. This man was largely ignored by family members who couldn't handle his anger, the "disgusting" nursing home and the unsightly residents, his changed appearance and behavior, and his imminent decline and death, absent until it was time to speak about "his" wishes.
My first concern reaction to the proposed law was about the wording and how vague the communication of suicidal intention could be. It could be communicated by a person "who is very familiar with the patient's communication". I am deaf and have seen good interpretations and bad ones and know that with important things like court and medical appointments, it is critical to have a higher level of interpreter. I personally have had interpreters travel hours for such appointments. But far more freqently are the cases where a person goes along with a family member or friend or even neighbor who "knows the language". Ouch, very unreliable. And then add to that the said interpreter's own stake, emotional or otherwise.
Difficult decisions and I think this article provides some good points. When one is terminally ill and suffering, it
makes considerable sense to be able to choose the "right to die" a bit more quickly and perhaps more comfortably.
A choice made the individual. I would like to hear what medical professionals think as they "control" the medication.
Does it generate real conflict to their oath and/or comfort level.
Who cares how you're going to vote? The article was weak and poorly done. By the way, where is the Massachusetts Medical Society on this bill? Oh yeah, they're against it. Please stop assuming that you're readers are as uninformed as you are!!!
O.K. but why do people who choose this option need the approval of the voters of the state even going so far as to not list physician assisted suicide on the death certificate? The Hemlock Society has been around for years and gives instructions to people who want to end their lives. And no one is required to submit to medical treatment that is futile. Doctors presently give doses of morphine that they know are lethal in order to relieve pain in the end stages for their patients. There may, perhaps, be some wisdom in being open about this practice, but this bill is not about that. As you point out, many people would not be qualified to benefit from this bill. Not just ALS paitents, but those with parkinsons or alzheimers or any condition that impairs competency. This bill also does not require a second opnion. --Marcia Angell's father died a horrible death, but it is not the fault of the state for not putting the pills on his bedside table.
Good points. It does seem that this is an extra "dose" of state intervention between patient and doctor. I think the medical profession is getting better in working with folks regarding end-of-life decisions and process. Instead of dispensing pills, a greater emphasis in medical school on how to deal with terminal cases (including pain management) could have a greater far reaching positive impact for those (patient, friends, and family) who may find themselves in such a situation.
This comment has been removed.
All the arguments in favor of this arguments in favor of this argument aren't really arguments in favor of Question 2. For instance, most of the personal and certainly heart-wrenching stories that have been shared, regard family members (e.g., with ALS, or Alzheimers) who would NOT have even been eligibile under this measure. They arguments put forth are, rather arguments in favor of unrestricted access to suicide for everyone. What is so special about the relatively brief psychological suffering that may happens at the end of life? Take an individual who looks ahead to the next 5, 10, 40, or 60 years of his or her life, and forsees only the prospect of difficulty, ending badly. Why shouldn't physicians be offering them death pills at their routine health check-ups as well? Or shouldn't widows and widowers and others recently berieved, unable to bear the thought of living the rest of their lives without their loved one, be given this option as a clean, simple, dignified way out of their pain? If choice is always better, then the answer is clearly yes. Is this what Massachusetts voters think? I, for one, will be voting NO on Question 2.
Bravo Yvonne. The wife who saw her terminally ill husband live far longer obviously didn't see him gravely suffering to stay alive. If he was, he wouldn't be worried about "fulfillment".