As someone who lives in the 4th Congressional District and also has been working hard with
the campaign to defeat Question 2, I’ve been watching the Kennedy/Bielat
race closely. I haven’t been able to watch all of their debates, but I
am extremely encouraged to hear that Joe Kennedy III is opposed to
physician assisted suicide, and that both he and Sean Bielat plan to vote against Question 2.
From my experience talking to people across the state about this very
personal issue, there isn’t a clear divide between how the different
parties view this issue. The more people learn about Question 2, the
more they begin to oppose the ballot question. This ballot is critically
flawed and no matter your political persuasion or your initial reaction
to the idea of physician assisted suicide, you should learn the details
of Question 2 before you make up your mind.
I believe once you find out what’s not in the ballot language, you will
join me, Joe Kennedy III and Sean Bielat in voting no on Question 2.
Here are some of the critical flaws in the ballot language.
* Question 2 applies to patients who have received a terminal
diagnosis and a prognosis of six months or less to live. Doctors agree
that a six-month prognosis for a terminal illness can be wildly
inaccurate.
* Question 2 does not require a patient to consult with a
psychiatrist before receiving a prescription to commit suicide and many
terminally ill patients have depression.
* Question 2 does not require a consultation with a palliative
care or hospice expert.
* No physician is present when the patient takes the lethal
prescription.
* There is no requirement to notify family members.
I will be voting Yes on Question 2. While it may not require a consultation with a palliative care or hospice expert, it doesn’t prevent it either.
I object to the government getting into the business of “Trans-Vaginal probes”, so why should I think that the government knows better than the individual in this case.
I further object to a requirement to notify family members. In fact, the three bullet points at the end appear to me as nothing more than making the government impose itself into every single case and flumix the individual.
This is a legal area that always makes me queasy. Lots of people live in fairly dysfunctional families. I just don’t know the extent of this or how it can be prevented but one can be sure that some people are under pressure to “die already”.
And yes, I want to spare people pain and undignified deaths.
I haven’t decided on it yet. I see both sides of this one.
My respect continues to increase for Joe Kennedy III, the polls seem to indicate that Question 2 is a winner and a lot of social liberals feel as Mike Cote does that this question should be allowed so that individuals and their families can decide. I also respect, but disagree with that view. True social liberalism means caring, as Humphrey said, for those at the dawn of life, in their middle years, and at the Twilight. I think we can help people with hospice and pallative care and we can make sure medicine remains preventative and focused on doing no harm. Glad to see both Kennedy and Bielat on board with that, glad to see other progressives standing up against it too.
Sorry. 🙁
Im a serial accidental down rates thanks to the iPhone, fitting I fall victim to
it now and then
Your first bullet point is true, but misleading. The terminal diagnosis is always correct. The timing is sometimes inaccurate. It could be 2 months it could be six, but a patient with a terminal diagnosis of 6 months or less is going to die soon. That is a certainty.
I understand how you and Joe Kennedy have your own personal beliefs about life. But don’t legislate your religious beliefs on me. I am healthy right now but I live with a cancer diagnosis that is incurable. I know what the end of my life is likely to look like and I want no part of it. How dare you presume to limit the choices I make at the end of my life. Neither you, nor the government, have any business in limiting my choices.
Googling ‘terminal diagnosis incorrect’ would suggest a distinct lack of certainty. Lance Armstrong would likely disagree also. He was given a terminal diagnosis in 1996.
Magic Johnson was diagnosed with AIDS in 1991 when such a diagnosis was, effectively, terminal.
Doctors make mistakes as do Legislatures and, indeed, citizenry in general. Mistakes are made and can be recovered from…. there is even dignity in that.
“likely” is not “certain” and wanting no part of it might just as easily be cowardice, or even simple vanity, and cannot provide any rational or legal basis for this law. I do not assert cowardice or vanity upon your part, make no mistake, but I do assert that the cowardly or the vain can be led down this path quite easily and not always with their best interests at heart.
I don’t know the Magic Johnson story, but Lance was given a 30% chance of surviving after having surgery on tumors in his brain. These tumors were metastasized from his testicular cancer. When they opened him up they found these tumors consisted of necrotic tissue. Lucky for him.
My information on terminal diagnoses doesn’t come from Google. It comes from a physician who supports question 2. She was on Channel 5 last weekend and I paraphrased her answer.
Don’t judge me or my illness without walking in my shoes.
If Lance Armstrong wasn’t a 25 year old athlete who was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer do you think the doctor would have bothered to put a percentage upon his chances? Are those percentages even meaningful? What if it, instead of being non-terminal when he was given a diagnosis of ‘terminal’ he was, as you alledged, given a diagnosis of 30% when in fact his true chances were 70%??
That’s my point: Doctors, whether they say ‘terminal’ or put a number on their chances are, honestly and truly, just guessing.
But you come to this blog with a certainty that is belied by even the most cursory google search.
And she has every right to say what she said and to be perfectly, completely, comprehensively and totally wrong. I no longer think the Pope is infallible so I’m not about to vest that responsibility in another human.
Don’t go flinging your shoes around willy-nilly expecting the rest of us to genuflect reflexively. You made a bold claim of certainty and then used that certainty to justify physician assisted suicide. I refute your certainty and the conclusions you draw from it.
certainty with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. The Lance and Magic arguments don’t apply. I’m not claiming that doctors are infallible. I’m just paraphrasing a doctor who said that people who are given 6 months to live, do in fact die and very soon. That first statement is misleading.
After the Teri Schiavo debacle my patents made it clear they wanted DNRs and any plugs to be pulled, plans I support both because they want it and also since I would in a similar situation. These beliefs go against the Catholuc Church so I am not forcing my religious beliefs on anyone. My
parents are also NO on 2, my dad has a lot of experience in the mental health field and he knows how abused this bill will be by the depressed and by family members of the mentally ill who might nudge people over the edge and convince them to act against their interests. In his day he saw electroshock therapy, the institutionalization of homosexuals and families that viewed the mentally ill as burdens to be unloaded on the state. We have come along way and lets not retreat. While this law appears to be limited in scope but nake no mistake its supporters like Peter Singer, the Koch brothers and others backing this bill believe in a Randian vision where the weak are snuffed out so they do
not mooch from the rest of us. I endorse a communitarian and compassionate view of healthcare where all are gauranteed the best care under the law, this law goes against that philosophy.
requires two doctors to confirm the 6 month diagnosis and two more mental health doctors to confirm the competence of the patient. That Randian nonsense about killing off the mentally ill is just another false scenario. This is about choice. Not yours or mine, but that of a competent patient in order to relieve suffering at the end of their life. I haven ‘t heard a truthful rational argument against it.
This law has been modeled after the Oregon law which has been in place for 15 years and they have reported zero problems with these kind of made up scenarios that you pose.