In Massachusetts Question 2 was defeated. Question 2 was a death with dignity initiative modeled after the laws in Washington and Oregon. As little as a month ago it looked like the legislation would be passed into law. One poll maintained 68% of people were in favor and only 19% opposed. Compassion and Choices, formerly the Hemlock Society, put their full weight and power in advocating for �death with dignity� in Massachusetts. The defeat of Question 2 was a great victory for two disability rights groups; Not Dead Yet and Second Thoughts. I tip my hate to Steve Drake and Diane Coleman of Not Dead Yet and John Kelly of Second Thoughts. Lest I mislead readers, a diverse coalition of groups led to the defeat of Question 2. High praise though goes to one man�John Kelly�who I have not met. He worked tirelessly in the months leading up to the election. He came across as reasoned and articulate even when confronted with questionable views that had no basis in fact. I urge readers to listen to Kelly debate Marcia Angell on NPR All Things Considered. See link: http://radioboston.wbur.org/2012/09/18/question-two-death-dignity
http://www.necn.com/pages/video?PID=PPdLmLW_D_7kVBQhMh8nkZDs0ChuVVaj
Kelly was understandably thrilled with the election results. He stated:
http://www.necn.com/pages/video?PID=PPdLmLW_D_7kVBQhMh8nkZDs0ChuVVaj
Kelly was understandably thrilled with the election results. He stated:
This vote confirms that Massachusetts voters saw through the rhetoric and outright misinformation put out by those supporting assisted suicide. Opposition to assisted suicide cuts across all partisan and ideological groups because the more people learn about the issue, the more they have second thoughts. Assisted suicide doesn't expand choice, it limits choice � and that puts at risk anyone living with a disability, mental illness or serious illness.
It is my sincere hope that not only will President Obama seize upon the election results but disability rights groups will do so as well. The opportunity is laid before us to marginalize the conservative right wing and hopefully eliminate groups such as the Tea Party. This is an opportunity Obama must seize. We in disability rights must do our part as well. In Massachusetts for one of the first times in recent memory, if ever, the general public was exposed to a disability rights perspective. In part, this was because we were galvanized in our opposition to Question 2 and other death with dignity laws. The facts are on our side�scratch the surface, do some reading and it becomes clear�assisted suicide legislation is inherently dangerous and more to the point not necessary. Do not be swayed by sob stories the mainstream media hypes about people dying in agony. People die poorly because we do not discuss end of life issues. If it were up to me Ira Byock�s The Best Care Possible: A Physician�s Quest to Transform Care Through the End of Life would be required reading for all Americans.
I do not dispute the fact many people die badly. However, Compassion and Choices sales pitch�we have the right to die is nothing more than a meaningless slogan. Proponents of assisted suicide want to control not death but its methodology. They state repeatedly that we should control how and when we die. This is deceptively simple. Of course we should have such control! Not so fast. Why do people want to die? People die because they do not want to lose their dignity. People want to remain independent. People fear losing control of bodily functions. People fear medical bankruptcy. All these fears have solutions and in most cases the problem is less physiological and more social. With proper social supports people can retain their autonomy and dignity. With proper medication, people need not suffer from pain.
I do not dispute the fact many people die badly. However, Compassion and Choices sales pitch�we have the right to die is nothing more than a meaningless slogan. Proponents of assisted suicide want to control not death but its methodology. They state repeatedly that we should control how and when we die. This is deceptively simple. Of course we should have such control! Not so fast. Why do people want to die? People die because they do not want to lose their dignity. People want to remain independent. People fear losing control of bodily functions. People fear medical bankruptcy. All these fears have solutions and in most cases the problem is less physiological and more social. With proper social supports people can retain their autonomy and dignity. With proper medication, people need not suffer from pain.
Do we really want to enter a world in which people such as Barbara Wagner are denied chemotherapy for late stage lung cancer in Oregon (it would have cost $4,000 a month and was not approved for her condition)? In its place the Oregon Health Care Plan office was willing to cover a lethal prescription. When it comes to the intersection of medical costs, personal experience, and concerns about vulnerability, it behooves us to listen to people with a disability. Proponents of assisted suicide dismiss our concerns and quickly point out there is no record of abuse in Oregon and Washington. Worse yet they think disability rights groups are pawns of the Catholic Church. Abuse is not reported because ending the life of an elderly, terminally ill or disabled person can and often is perceived as an act of compassion. It is rarely if ever considered a crime. This is a significant problem as the line between life and death is razor thin and easily manipulated. Social factors figure in prominently. I urge people to read a story recently published in Health Affairs by David Muller, �Physician-Assisted Death is Illegal in Most States, So My Patient Made Another Choice�. See link: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/10/2343.full This article scared me and made me realize yet again how dangerous accessing health care can be for vulnerable populations. Muller�s article was deceptive and illustrated that the line between a �hastened death� and �assisted suicide� is subjective in the extreme. When I first read Muller�s article I was stunned. My first thought was the elderly man he cared for was murdered. Yes, I thought the article depicted a clear case of murder. Muller was directly responsible for a patient�s death. In another post I will deconstruct Muller�s article. There is only one point of agreement between myself and Muller. He wrote: an enormous gap exists between the thoughts many of us will have about aid in dying when we are hopelessly or terminally ill and our willingness to discuss those thoughts with a doctor. The reasons for that gap include the enormous social stigma surrounding death and dying, the fear of being labeled �suicidal� or �cowardly,� and the fear of alienating or disappointing one�s family members or physician. I do not question a gap exists between patients and physicians. I do not question the fact we fail to discuss end of life issues. I do however question why Muller chose not to mention fear. Vulnerable people rightly fear not only physicians but the health care system itself that is hostile to our existence. A hostility Muller is utterly unaware of I suspect. We people who are members of vulnerable populations are often an expensive drain on limited resources. We may have a limited life expectancy or our existence itself may be deemed �incompatible with life�. But we have rights, civil rights than cannot and should not be violated.