End-of-Life Choice, Palliative Care and Counseling

Posts TaggedMassachusetts

Massachusetts Votes ‘No’ on ‘Death With Dignity’ Act

by Steve Annear
BostInno
November 7, 2012

A measure to legalize physician-assisted suicide and allow sick patients to end their own lives didn’t garner the support of Bay State voters on Election Night. However, the votes were so close that proponents of the measure didn’t concede until the next morning.

In a statement Wednesday morning, supporters of ballot Question 2, known as the “Death With Dignity Act,” said regrettably, they “fell short.”

“For the past year, the people of Massachusetts participated in an open and honest conversation about allowing terminally-ill patients the choice to end their suffering,” the campaign said in a statement. “The Death with Dignity Act offered the terminally-ill the right to make that decision for themselves, but regrettably, we fell short. Our grassroots campaign was fueled by thousands of people from across this state, but outspent five to one by groups opposed to individual choice.”

The final results of the vote on Question 2 were announced Wednesday morning. The “Death With Dignity Act,” which aimed at allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication to a terminally ill patient to end their own life, lost 49% to 51%, according to election results.

In Massachusetts, 1,439,785 voters were against the proposal, while 1,382,651 supported the measure. In Boston, however, voters didn’t share the same sentiment as the rest of the Commonwealth. Hub voters favored the act, with 111,852 of those registered casting a “Yes” vote, compared to 107,377 who voted “No.” More

Patrick, Citing Personal Experience, Voted Yes on Death with Dignity

by Rachel Zimmerman
CommonHealth
November 8, 2012

For the record, Gov. Deval Patrick said his decision to vote in favor of physician assisted suicide was motivated largely by his experience with his mother near the end of her life, The Associated Press reports.

The measure was defeated by a narrow margin here in Massachusetts. But as Carey noted in a recent post, much of the passion in favor of the measure came from people who had actually witnessed a loved one die under painful conditions with much suffering; these survivors yearned for a more graceful and dignified path to death for the ones they loved.

And indeed, the AP writes:

Gov. Deval Patrick says his decision to vote for a ballot question that would have legalized physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill was motivated largely by personal considerations.

Patrick told reporters Wednesday that he supported the question after his experience with his mother at the end of her life.

Patrick also pointed to the death of his grandmother some years earlier.

Patrick said he knew how important it was for his mother and grandmother to have some measure of control at the end of their lives, although he’s not sure they would have used the medication the question would have legalized.

Massachusetts Vote May Change How the Nation Dies

by Lewis M. Cohen
Slate
October 29, 2012

This Election Day, Massachusetts is poised to approve the Death With Dignity Act. “Death with dignity” is a modernized, sanitized, politically palatable term that replaces the now-antiquated expression “physician-assisted suicide.” Four polls conducted in the past couple of months have shown strong support for the ballot question, although a well-funded media blitz by the opposition is kicking in during the final several weeks and may influence voter opinions.

Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act has been in effect for the past 14 years, and the state of Washington followed suit with a similar law in 2008. Despite concerns of skeptics, the sky has not fallen; civilization in the Northwest remains intact; the poor, disenfranchised, elderly, and vulnerable have not been victimized; and Oregon has become a leader in the provision of excellent palliative medicine services.

But the Massachusetts ballot question has the potential to turn death with dignity from a legislative experiment into the new national norm. The state is the home of America’s leading medical publication (the New England Journal of Medicine), hospital (Massachusetts General), and four medical schools (Harvard, Boston University, University of Massachusetts, and Tufts).  Passage of the law would represent a crucial milestone for the death with dignity movement, especially since 42 percent of the state is Catholic and the church hierarchy vehemently opposes assisted dying. Vermont and New Jersey are already entertaining similar legislature, and if the act passes in Massachusetts, other states that have previously had unsuccessful campaigns will certainly be emboldened to revisit this subject. More

Poll: Massachusetts Voters Support Medical Marijuana, Death With Dignity, Right to Repair Ballot Measures

By Robert Rizzuto
The Massachusetts Republican
September 18, 2012

 

If a new poll is any indication of what’s to come, the ballot initiatives in the hands of Massachusetts voters have a solid chance of passing on Nov. 6.

The latest Suffolk University/ WHDH News7 survey of 600 likely voters released late Monday night, shows overwhelming support for legalizing medical marijuana, allowing terminally ill patients to obtain drugs to end their life and a measure requiring auto manufacturers to provide local garages access to the same diagnostic and repair information as the dealerships.

The telephone poll, conducted between Sept. 13-16, revealed that 64 percent of those surveyed would vote to approve the “death with dignity” ballot initiative, allowing an ill patient to decide to die on their own terms rather than suffer through a terminal illness. More

Massachusetts Death With Dignity Act: A Crime That Anyone Would Oppose It

By William D. Kickham
Boston Criminal Attorney Blog
September 2, 2012

As my readers know, this blog is normally reserved for strictly legal issues of criminal law – case decisions, primers on certain areas of Massachusetts criminal law, and backgrounders on criminal trial procedure.

Today I want to talk about a different crime of crime -a crime that’s not on the books in this state, yet goes on every day across not only the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but indeed most of this nation. A crime that is both cruel and stunning, when one spends more than a minute thinking about it. That crime is the present legal inability of a terminally ill patient to choose a dignified and painless death, instead of a prolonged and dignity-robbing end to his or her life. Specifically, I’m talking about the ballot proposal that Massachusetts voters (that is, the voters who actually choose to spend fifteen minutes to go to their local polling place and actually vote,) will be offered this November. The ballot is Question Two, and is entitled “Massachusetts Death With Dignity Act.” This important ballot question, if passed by voters, would allow a physician who is licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at the request of a terminally ill patient who meets certain enumerated conditions, to end that person’s life.

As a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, who sees the most hardened of criminal convicts treated with more dignity than this, I simply cannot believe that any compassionate, rational person would oppose this measure. It does nothing more than allow a terminally ill patient – if he or she wishes – to hasten an already inevitable, unavoidable, probably painful and undignified death. This is not suicide nor is it euthanasia, where someone else makes the decision and takes the steps necessary to end the patient’s life. Under this ballot proposal, which is modeled after similar laws approved by voters in three other states including Washington state and Oregon, a terminally ill patient will have the option of choosing a painless and dignified death if the PATIENT HIMSELF decides that his or her quality of life has become too degraded and/or too painful to continue on, when death is inevitable. NO ONE ELSE OTHER THAN THE PATIENT IS PERMITTED TO MAKE THAT DECISION under this ballot initiative.

However, reason and rationale, never mind compassion, often don’t rule in such public policy debates. More