The Most Important Vote You Will Cast in November

Leaning toward Yes. (0.00 / 0)

Are you saying that it is not possible that a person feels they are a burden but that they are also in fact a burden?  Or that life is always worth living?  I can certainly imagine medical scenarios where I would be glad to have the option of ending things sooner rather than having to linger around.  Why should family or caretakers have any say in that?

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 20:55:54 PM UTC

Death With Dignity (5.00 / 1)

   Who has the right to tell another competnt person that they must "live" with insufferable agony?
  Being considered a "disabled" person, I consider myself as knowledgeable on the issue.
  THE SO-CALLED AUTHOR OF THIS THREAD IS NOT AN ADVOCATE FOR THE DISABLED! At least never my advocate!

---

by: billxi @ Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:10:53 AM UTC

Voting No on Question 2 (0.00 / 0)

I am voting no on Question 2.  

To that end, I have penned an opinion piece on behalf of my Knights of Columbus Council here in Dartmouth (#1432, Fr. John F. Hogan Council) that will likely be submitted to our area papers after a vote to formally adopt the piece on Thursday night.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:12:47 AM UTC

Statement by the Knights of Columbus of the Fr. John F. Hogan Council #14236 of Dartmouth, MA (0.00 / 0)

As a Catholic man, I have been a very proud member of the Knights of Columbus for several years.  I'm a Knight  in the Fourth Degree and for those who are unfamiliar with our order, our principles are Charity, Unity, Fraternity & Patriotism.  Furthermore, the Knights have always been strong proponents of a Culture of Life.  As I mentioned in the previous post, I helped to draft a statement in opposition to Question 2.  Earlier this evening our Council voted unanimously to approve the following which will be sent to our local media by our Council's Grand Knight.

Sincerely,

Sir Knight Brock N. Cordeiro
Fr. John F. Hogan Council #14236
Bishop James E. Cassidy Assembly #405
www.kofc.org
www.massachusettsstatekofc.org

There is no dignity when the government permits suicide.  Ballot Question 2 to be voted upon on Election Day, November 6, is a prescription for death and disaster.  We must embrace a culture of life and not devalue our family and friends out of a false sense of compassion and dignity.  We, the Knights of Columbus of the Fr. John F. Hogan Council #14236 of Dartmouth, urge our fraternal brothers, fellow Catholics, persons of all faiths, and our fellow citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to vote NO on Question 2.

Question 2 is tragically titled the "Death with Dignity Act" but it is more accurate and honest to call the ballot proposal what it really is, physician assisted suicide.  The proposed law would permit doctors upon request to prescribe a lethal dose of a drug that would cause death to any patient who has been told by two doctors they have less than six months to live.

The proposal is poorly written, confusing, and severely flawed ballot question which can have grave unintended consequences to terminally ill patients and their families.  The six-month standard is arbitrary and the fact is that many doctors admit that life-expectancy estimates are often wrong, no matter their length.  Question 2 may lead to premature deaths of those in the most tender stages of life.

Furthermore, the ballot question lacks the safeguards needed to make sure patients learn about other approaches to their difficult diagnoses, thus avoiding preventable suicides.  Those patients subject to physician-assisted suicide are not required to see either a psychologist or psychiatrist.  Physicians prescribing lethal drug doses are not required to refer a patient for mental health evaluation.  Under Question 2, the attending or consulting physician would be the sole authority to judge the need for counseling.  People who are ill but also suffer from treatable depression may have their lives ended prematurely rather than receiving effective psychological care.

Question 2 is a recipe for abuse, especially for our elderly.  Important provisions of the act would allow an heir, including a potentially abusive caregiver, to serve as a witness to help sign the patient up for the lethal drugs.  No witnesses are required.

Joining our coalition of diverse organizations in opposition to physician-assisted suicide are disability rights and hospice care groups that include, but are not limited to, the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Massachusetts Hospice and Palliative Care Federation, and the American Medical Directors Association.  The ballot question provides no resources or even the authority to investigate violations or provide oversight.

Even those who might otherwise favor permitting the ending life for the terminally ill prior to their natural death recognize that the incredibly flawed, poorly worded language of Question 2 should not pass given its lack of safeguards and checks against abuse.  The Commonwealth's priority should be on expanding access to palliative and hospice end-of-life care that will relieve and prevent suffering.  Together, let us all support truly compassionate care for our brothers and sisters through their natural, and not untimely, deaths.  We must not approve legal suicide.  On Election Day, November 6, please vote NO on Question 2 and defeat physician-assisted suicide

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 02:03:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No on 2 - (5.00 / 3)

Life is too precious to waste.  The good times and the bad times are both important and every minute counts.  I say no to question 2.

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 15:02:30 PM UTC

Well said RRRR (0.00 / 0)

Glad you see it that way, too.

---

by: South Shore Republican @ Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 13:26:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

just let it win and then have the leg repeal it (0.00 / 0)

The people always vote for their own freedom. If someone got a "free lunch" ballot question, it'd pass. Anything that purports to legalize something will pass. We're idiots.

So just let it pass and then let the more thoughtful and mature legislators repeal it immediately, so that it never takes effect.  

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:11:29 AM UTC

Thoughtful And Mature Legislators? (0.00 / 0)

What state do you live in?

---

by: billxi @ Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 13:16:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They've let this die in committee twice now (0.00 / 0)

There are still some left, they just keep their heads low, so the Globe can't push them around.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 16:22:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm .... (0.00 / 0)

Live free or ... but ... not die? Maybe it's just me but I would like to think that I will at least have the potential to someday have an input into what will be the most important decisions of my life.
Actually I would hope that I am one of the lucky ones who die peacefully in their sleep but many people just aren't that lucky. The older you get, the more unfortunate stories you get to bear witness to and all you can do is speculate why it had to be.
To me the concept of euthanasia is long past due in some form but I wonder if they have arrived at a palatable form with this question.
I also am leaning yes but may just as well abstain.

---

by: nomad943 @ Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 17:33:53 PM UTC

Its a freedom question (0.00 / 0)

Do you have the freedom to decide?

"We put down our animals" when they are in pain why wouldn't we do the same for our family members.

Yes I agree there could be issues with the implementation of this law but I don't understand how I have the right to tell you, that you need to continue to suffer in pain.

Death is a part of life, we need to accept that.  

---

by: HalifaxRepublican @ Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 18:29:24 PM UTC

Looks pretty even to me ... some for it, some against it ... (5.00 / 1)

What's awesome about this community is we can all disagree without calling each other names.  That's why you guys rock!    

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 19:16:28 PM UTC

Hmmm...why don't we think about this... (5.00 / 1)

Human life has value FAR greater than animal life.  Comparing euthanasia of a pet to euthanasia of a person is an absurdity.

There are a great many problems with allowing "assisted suicide".  Definitions aside, when person's subjective determination that choosing death is given ultimate validity, there is no way to stop it.

If medical "mercy killing" (and that's what it is) becomes acceptable, pressure WILL mount for an ill person to ask for death to relieve a burden on the family.

Maintaining prohibitions against taking a human life; your own or another's; with or without consent; whether you or they are dying or not; is necessary to protect us all.

The elderly are regularly bilked out of their money by people close to them who put pressure on them.  Once you open the "mercy killing" gate, pressure will be put on the elderly, the ill, the disabled, etc to die "for the good" of the family (society, etc...)

Obamacare will already ration care....death panels are a certainty.

On a related note...since we are talking about the dignity of human life and all...did you people see this?

The EPA is being sued for conducting "gas chamber like" experiments on the elderly....if you want "assisted suicide"...this is where you are heading.

http://joemiller.us/2012/10/la...

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 12:15:08 PM UTC

My point was (0.00 / 0)

Death is part of life, and if someone is has an incurable disease and is suffering then allowing that person to take their own life shouldn't be against the law.

If it is their decision why should you be able to stop them?

I look at it as a freedom question and as an individual right.  

But, hey we live in Massachusetts where everyone should be able to limit personal freedoms for everyone else.

We have the right to kill unborn babies but not to take our own life; we trust doctors to do complete that procedure but don't trust them to actually be involved with a decision that solely effects that specific individual.

My point on pets was that people love them as part of their families and will due anything for them.  They don't decided to be put down, we do it because to be humane by ending the pain and suffering.
I don't think ending pain and suffering is an absurdity whether the life is human or not.

We are all going to die, being capable of have a choice in the matter of when and how shouldn't be against the law.

---

by: HalifaxRepublican @ Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 04:20:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Death is a part of life... (0.00 / 0)

Killing should not be.

Death is NOT a freedom issue.  You have no more claim to ending your life that you did in starting it.  You have the right to life...once you are alive...you do not have a claim on death.

That we have the "right" to kill the unborn does not justify this.  One moral wrong does not make the other right.

As I stated, comparing the pet to the human is absurd.  The love I have for my dog...and I dearly love the little beastie...is NOT even in the same ballpark as the love I had for my Grandfather.  It's almost as if we should have another word for it.  That you (and a great many others) can't see the difference is EXACTLY why we shouldn't allow this.

You said "If it is their decision why should you be able to stop them?"

This is also an absurdity....just as absurd as the "my body, my choice" argument...

If I went to the doctor and asked him to lop off my right arm because "it's my body, my choice" or " it's my choice, why should you be able to stop me"...I'd be rightly placed in the rubber room.  This isn't a tattoo we are talking about.

You ignore ALL of the reasons...completely valid by the way...against your arguments.

Where does it all end?  You want people who are suffering incurable diseases to be able to decide when to end their lives.....why then do we try so damned hard to cure these diseases?

How old do you have to be to make the "choice"?  What do you define as an incurable disease?  Upon what prognosis do we allow this?  3 months?  6 months? A year?

What happens if you are incapacitated?  Do you transfer decision making to someone else on your behalf?  If I'm in a coma because of an accident, does my wife, who is my medical proxy, get to off me?  You see no moral slippery slope there?

You complete your "argument" this way:

"We are all going to die, being capable of have a choice in the matter of when and how shouldn't be against the law."

So...we ARE all going to die.  So what is the point of even living?  Why can't I choose to die when my hair turns grey, or falls out?  Why can't I set the age of my life at 65?  Or 55?  After all, it's my "decision" right?  Why stop at "incurable diseases"?  Why not...if I lose my washboard stomach?

I guess you never read "Odes 1.11" by Horace...

Don't ask (it's forbidden to know) what end the gods have granted to me or you, Leuconoe. Don't play with Babylonian fortune-telling either. How much better it is to endure whatever will be! Whether Jupiter has allotted to sink you many more winters or this final one which even now wears out the Tyrrhenian sea on the rocks placed opposite - be wise, strain the wine, and scale back your long hopes to a short period. While we speak, envious time will have {already} fled Seize the day, trusting as little as possible in the future.

See...once you allow "assisted suicide" or "mercy killing", there will be no end.  We'll see the "Logan's Run" scenario quickly played out.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 12:12:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

quality of life (0.00 / 0)

If your arm was mangled I'm sure if you and the doctor thought you would be better off because of pain and suffering he would remove the arm.  So that argument is out the window.

Like i said in the first post the implementation of this law is a crap shoot.  Could it have been written better?  Yes, but I agree with concept.

I understand how hard it is to make the decision to pull someone off of life support.  I've been through that process it sucks.  I know what it is like to be in that room when all you hear is silence because the monitors are shut off and my family member was no longer there.  

Yes if you have assigned your medical proxy to your wife then she would get to decide (maybe you ought to have a talk with her about quality of life).

A cancer patient who has gone through years of treatments, and it comes back.  They decide they just can't go though the treatments and can't deal with the pain any more.  Why shouldn't they have a choice?

Like I said I see this as an individual freedom, I have the freedom to take my life or anyone else every day, I choose not to.

This law says you need to have two doctors that say you have less than 6 months to live, so I don't think that getting gray hair, or losing your washboard stomach would qualify.

I was being a dick about the killing of unborn babies but if we can make that decision and its not against the law why shouldn't we allow the people to make this decision.  

You are talking about your morals, I'm talking about the law.

---

by: HalifaxRepublican @ Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 14:04:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are missing the point... (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that getting gray hair, or losing your washboard stomach would qualify.

Once you open the door, using your own arguments, how can you stop what will absolutely come next?

I was not talking about a mangled arm...I was talking about my arm...period.  If it is MY choice....MY decision....if I am the only arbiter of what decisions I am to make, how can you justify stopping me...based upon your own arguments?

You said ..."it could have been written better".  It wasn't because it can't be.

I'm not arguing that end of life decisions are easy...they aren't.  And they shouldn't be.  It isn't how life works.  But Palliative Care is what is called for here, not killing someone (or yourself).

The argument you are making leads to suicide period.  If a disease makes someone's life extinguishable, why not severe mental distress?  Or any other thing a person decides is "right" for them?

My wife (thankfully) fully understands my position on "quality of life", but that's not the point.  Under this law, if she decided it's my time, I'm done for, regardless of my feelings on the subject (see Terry Schiavo).

You most certainly do NOT have the freedom to take someone's life...or your own.  You have the ability, certainly....but not the freedom.  Do not confuse the two.

I did not take your comment regarding killing babies to be dickish...but as I said, one wrong does not make the other ok.

From whence do we receive our "right to life"?  Hint:  It's NOT from man, nor is it from ourselves.  

It isn't a simply moral issue (even though I used the term "moral wrong").  It is the Natural Law.  It is one of our "unalienable rights".  They are a gift from the "creator" to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken.  This is also why abortion is wrong.

Once we start allowing man to legislate our unalienable rights, anything is possible (refer back to the link I posted above re: the EPA).

Abortion was just one of those times we slipped....we shouldn't make a habit of it.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 15:32:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i understand (0.00 / 0)

I understand your stance as a principled moral one but I don't believe that keeping someone in pain or suffering is  moral.  I completely understand your point about depression and mental illness and how it is a slippery slope.  

But having seen people suffer and deal with pain with no hope of recovery, I think that trying to force them to deal with more pain and suffering is morally wrong.

If we have a right to life from the creator, why wouldn't we have a right to death?  Death is just a part of the cycle of life.  

I don't think this would be a surrendering our rights I think its an exercise of them.

I think everyone should have a living will where they let their beliefs on the issue written down and to be executed to that document.

I think that would have cleared up the Terry Schiavo case.

Hopefully we all go peaceful in the night but unfortunately we know that is not true.

---

by: HalifaxRepublican @ Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 18:20:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am not advocating for keeping people in pain. (0.00 / 0)

It would be immoral to cause someone pain.  Or to leave them in pain if you have means to prevent it.

Just as it would be immoral to cause someone's death intentionally, regardless of your intentions.

Our right to life is given to us....death is inevitable...it is not a right, it is a byproduct of life.  You can not exercise a right you are not given.

People suffer years of pain with no hope of recovery.  In your line of thinking, pain that one person may choose to live with would cause another to choose death.  Each person has different tolerances.  Some days pain may cause them to ask for death, while the next day they may not feel the same way.

Every day is precious...every one.

But that isn't the only problem with this....and you simply can't address it...

At some point, people will be pressured to ask for their own death to relieve the burden OF SOMEONE ELSE.  It is the inevitable outcome of what you advocate.  Even if you think it isn't....it is.  When we devalue life in this way....it can't be stopped.

People should have a living will...I agree.  And in it, it is perfectly within the natural law and morality to ask that no "extraordinary" means be used to keep you alive.  However, Palliative Care is always appropriate.

While it would have cleared up the Terry Schiavo case, the case is still demonstrative of my point:  when someone else can make the decision for you, you see what can go wrong.

 

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 18:41:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

V has a point. (0.00 / 0)

The original point made about opening the door to people being pressured into "doing the right thing" is exactly my sticking point with this concept. You have to see where this could go once that door is opened.

---

by: nomad943 @ Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 17:00:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question 2 (5.00 / 2)

My mother had Alzheimer's disease and we are Catholic. I prayed to God to take her but I could not put an end to her life.  Before we had to put her in a nursing home, she sat down and asked me to put her to sleep if she ever got old and "elderly",  I told her that she could take some of the green pills I had.  She couldn't do it and I couldn't give them to her.  

I will vote no. If people want to end their life they will find a way.  

---

by: CarolT @ Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 16:02:57 PM UTC

Bill is bad by itself. (5.00 / 1)

Even a cursory look at this bill will reveal that it is simply an enabler of would-be Kevorkians, as Tom Keane pointed out in the Globe last August: http://articles.boston.com/201...

The doctor, for instance, who prescribes the suicide pill also gets to write the death certificate and he must put down as the "cause of death" not 60 pills of phenylbarbital but the supposed "terminal" illness even though medical predictions are notoriously unreliable.

---

by: Edward59 @ Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 19:49:44 PM UTC