Editorial

@Winona Moeller, regarding MAQ2, what are you reading?  The language of MAQ2 says nothing whatsoever that you are claiming.  Here:  read it again:http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/government/2011-petitions/11-12.pdf

you say:  "1. the required time period for the patient to decide whether he/she wants to implement the choice of Death with Dignity is weeks."

 Wherever did you get this misinformation?  although the patient can gain the lethal dose within 15 days of being told they are terminally ill (and use it, while impulsive, deeply distressed and not knowing where to turn- no different from completed suicide, btw); please note: they can also get it ANYTIME, with their certified terminal illness prognosis.   Nowhere in the language does it say when the patient is required to"implement" this "choice.."

you say:  "2. the determination as to whether a patient is intellectually capable to make the decision of legally choosing Death with Dignity for his/her course of treatment is legally accomplished by a licensed, certified medical psychiatric physician."  

Please read Section 4(1)(e) and Section 6 again.   The only time the patient will get a psychiatric consultation (third consultation) is if the attending or consulting physician says they believe that's "appropriate."  The first 2 physicians are not "certified medical psychiatric physicians."   In Oregon,patients receiving such a third consultation are less than 7% of the completed suicides.  Check the facts.

you say:  "3. the patient self-administers the dosing if he/she so chooses. For those States in which patients have the right to choose Death with Dignity, it has ultimately been validated that the right is not been abused."

Sorry, you are outrageously misinformed.  There has been absolutely no collection of data regarding whether the patient voluntarily took the lethal doses.  In fact, in OR and WA, the majority of patients don't have any physician present when the drugs are taken- nor even when they die from these drugs.  Check your facts- don't make them up.

MAQ2 leaves the door wide open for abuse of vulnerable patients, frail patients, patients who are already voiceless and choiceless in our "ethically administered" systems.  Let's get real and make sure MA isn't voting to allow "acceptable losses" rather than ensuring quality of care at end of life.

As a nurse clinician, masters prepared, with more than 20 years experience in home care, long term care, & hospice I am confident that the Ballot Question, Death with Dignity, is proper and necessary.  For any one who has discriminatingly and objectively read the entire proposed law, it is self evident that every safety measure to assure ethical self-administration has been met:

1. the required time period for the patient to decide whether he/she wants to implement the choice of Death with Dignity is weeks.

2. the determination as to whether a patient is intellectually capable to make the decision of legally choosing Death with Dignity for his/her course of treatment is legally accomplished by a licensed, certified medical psychiatric physician.

3. the patient self-administers the dosing if he/she so chooses. For those States in which patients have the right to choose Death with Dignity, it has ultimately been validated that the right is not been abused.

If there is any professional care giver present at the time of death and dying, the vast majority of professionally licensed caregivers are nurses. And, as a registered masters prepared nurse clinician for almost 50 years, I can assure you that the majority of patients experiencing uncontrollable and/or intolerable pain have not had continual bedside care by a medical practitioner who can objectively and knowledgeably determine the need for those patients needing extraordinary pain relief measures to relieve pain that will not subside and is intolerable to the human being.  When the patient, his/her family, and professional caregivers are experiencing such an end of life, Death with Dignity must and should be an option for the patient. 

1) Exhaustive research by genealogist Twila Barnes has proven conclusively that Warren has zero Cherokee ancestry;

2) Ever were Warren's claims to 1/32 Cherokee (or 1/64 Cherokee & 1/64 Delaware) heritage true, that did not meet federal requirements for claiming minority status, something Warren did publicly for much of her adult life;

3) Warren insists she never benefited by her fraudulent claim to minority status, even though Harvard re-hired her with tenure after learning of the claim.  And, while Harvard greatly benefited by listing Warren as a POC, something she belatedly admitted she was aware of, Warren never informed Harvard that she did not meet the federal definition of a POC;

4) Scott Brown is not questioning Warren's "heritage" -- he is rightly questioning her motives for persisting in a claim that was fraudulent at the time, and has since been proven utterly without basis;

5) All of us, including this liberal, ought to scrutinize Warren's pattern of mendacity, hypocrisy, and unethical conduct, which include an extensive client list of large corporations she represented in their attempts to evade payment of pensions, asbestos poisoning and other work-related disabilities. It's also been revealed that Warren, represented Dow-Corning when it sought to evade liabilities for deaths and medical ailments caused by its leaky breast implants.  Not once has Warren represented the victims, only ever the big corporations;

6) Warren's extensive consulting and litigation work has been conducted without a license to practice law in MA, a clear violation of state law, and a felony.

The ignorance of the editor on these indisputable facts about Warren is overshadowed only by their audacity in lecturing Cherokees on their own history and tribal citizenship laws.

It's great to see a progressive voice against Question 2! "It is customary for citizens of the Bay State to want more freedoms rather than greater restrictions, but Question 2 is potentially harmful for several reasons." The Banner lists some, here are some more:

MONEY -- for $100, assisted suicide will be the cheapest treatment. Cost cutting already affects medical treatment decisions. Assisted suicide saves insurance companies money.

ABUSE -- the law doesn't care what happens to the lethal drugs. No witness is required when the overdose is taken. An heir can be a witness when you sign your request.

UNCARING -- no psychological evaluation is required or recommended. People with a history of depression and suicide attempts can easily get the drugs.

BURDEN --people who need care will feel they should die to not be a burden to their family.  Some family members will consider the person a burden and want them to die.

UNNECESSARY -- each person already has the right to refuse treatment, food and water, and to get comfort care, including pain-relieving sedation.

DISCRIMINATION -- everyone with a terminal diagnosis has a disability. Disabled people deserve suicide prevention not suicide encouragement. People should be supported to live in their communities.

The more people learn about Question 2, the more they have SECOND THOUGHTS. Please join us at www.second-thoughts.org