Massachusetts, like most of the United States, has been in a woeful state of denial about the way its medical system handles the end of life. Too often, doctors shy away from frank discussions with terminally ill patients about their options — from continuing treatment, to palliative care, to some combination of both. Worse, society is so scared of such conversations — so conflicted about how far doctors should go in declaring a patient’s condition to be terminal, so reluctant to ever give up hope — that many insurers, including Medicare, don’t even cover the cost of an end-of-life conversation. Instead, they keep plowing money into treatments, while too many lives end in hospital beds, after unnecessarily painful side effects from unsuccessful drugs and devices.
Now, like a clanging wake-up call, comes the Question 2 “death with dignity” ballot initiative, which would establish procedures under which doctors could prescribe life-ending drugs to terminally ill patients. It draws heavily on the experiences of the two states that allow so-called physician-assisted suicide, Oregon and Washington. But it’s not, in itself, an answer to the far deeper question of how to help patients make end-of-life decisions.
Comments
I agree with the premise however if we let state policies makers decide on this, it will be 50 years before anything is done in this state!
There are many reasons why someone with a chronic disease may wish to die and pain is not always a criteria. My father suffered a series of strokes that left him bed ridden, no short term memory, unable to feed himself. All the things that gave life meaning and pleasure to him were taken away. He decided to stop eating, the family supported that decision as did the nursing home. Starvation is not a great way to die, but it was the only option and even if this bill passes it would have remained the only way. There are many conditions where one is not in pain, not in danger of death within 6 months but one has no life other than the automatic beat of the heart and intake of breath.
We say it is inhumane to let a pet suffer, yet we allow ourselves to suffer. Pets are treated better and more humanely than humans.
I am so sorry for the loss of your father and the suffering he endured. May his memory be eternal and may his soul be in a place of refreshment. This law would not have applied to him. I used to work in a nursing home and saw the kind of suffering that you describe. It's tough to witness when it's not your parent. My heart goes out to you and your family.
Suzanne Gonsalves - Taunton
This comment has been removed.
This past year there was a letter in the town paper written by the wife of a many who had suffered a stroke that nearly killed him but after 12 hours of surgery he survived. He was left essentially a quadraplegic placed in a rehab center. He was rescutitated several times against his wishes as written in an advance directive! How cruel a society we have become that we humanely put our pets out of their misery and even put murderers to death humanely but treat our best citizens with such disregard. Shameful!
Globe editorials often do this with ballot questions: something needs to be done but not this. Well, this is what is on the ballot. If one supports "death with dignity", a Yes vote on Question 2 keeps the issue alive until society starts acting responsibly. And, there is no response to the point made by other posters: why on earth do we treat our pets more humanely than we treat our dying humans? And finally, the really big question: whose life is it, anyhow? followed by, who's all of a sudden opposed to "choice"?
My experiance has been doctors and family usually have "the discussion", which may be termed a death panel by nitwits from Alaska. Pain meds are increased to the point where doctors know respiration and heart will most likely be stopped. So its not a total emergency where something has to be done immediately before a discussion takes place.
No matter how many "discussions" or advancements, doctors and medicine will never find a cure for death. There's too much focus on extending life, even when life for many has already ended. Sometimes pain can be managed but there will never come a day when everyone can die pain free. I'd expect this editorial from a 22 year old that has never seen death, not the Boston Globe.
I agree that this issue needs to be discussed a LOT more in this Country (and State)- but without this question on the ballot it would never be talked about at all. Let's get this passed so that those discussions will start and we can make this law even better.
Speaking from within the medical community, and as one closely involved in end of life care, I can promise you that those discussions are under way - there have been dramatic changes over the past 10-15 years in the way the medical community in the U.S. approaches end of life care, and continue to be. It seems that one of the concerns expressed by the editorial, with which I strongly agree, is that Question 2 if passed will most likely detract from and hinder those discussions. There is also a significant concern among disability rights activists that Question 2 would lead, as an unintended consequence, to the further marginilization and stigmatization of those with disability. In other words, on both counts (and others, too numerous to detail here), Question 2 has the potential to INCREASE, rather than decrease, suffering. "Let's pass it and see what happens" is never a good way to proceed with any new legislation, especially on an issue as volatile as this.
I agree -- let's pass the law and let's have a full discussion among the people actually involved in this issue. In response to N.J. Robison, this question is on the ballot because it should be out in the open and dealt with by citizens -- and not in some clandestine, back-room discussion amongst folks in the health-care industry who, by what I see in N.J. Robison's comment, seem to think that they are better suited to figure this issue out for the rest of us without our input.
This is a very cogent argument and I applaud it. We are probably not on the same side of many medical issues, but you are right, the left and right do agree on this question. The fact is, everyone is going to die. People can spend a lifetime in fear of that and some do. We can't let those fears cloud reality. Hospice, palliative care, and great doctors are out there. We need this subject to be discussed and legislated with more care. I agree with you and will VOTE NO on this question.
Suzanne Gonsalves, Taunton
rfink, I am so sorry to hear of the loss of your father. May his memory be eternal and his soul be in a place of refreshment.
Suzanne Gonsalves, Taunton