NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Dionne/Boston Globe add their voices in opposition to Ballot Question 2

Nov 2, 2012

By Dave Andrusko
http://twitter.com/daveha

Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne

When the issue is of the magnitude of legalizing physician-assisted suicide, you take your allies where you can get them–even when they use their opposition as a way of carting in their position on other issues. To wit, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne and (in a roundabout way) the editorial board of the Boston Globe.

Dionne’s Thursday column opposing Massachusetts Ballot Question 2 is a decidedly mixed bag. It is unfortunately rife with shots at those who defended Terri Schiavo (Dionne never misses an opportunity) and a misunderstanding of how deeply rationing is embedded in one of his favorite hobbyhorses, ObamaCare.

But Dionne’s observations are helpful insofar as he calls his fellow “liberals and progressives” to move beyond worshiping at the throne of  autonomy/”compassion” arguments for assisted suicide to look at “(1) the dangers of muddling the role and the moral obligations of the doctor; (2) concern that pressure could be placed on terminally ill and disabled patients to kill themselves; and (3) a worry about how physician-assisted suicide would interact with the need to curb costs in our medical system.”

The Globe’s editorial that appeared in Friday’s newspaper is headlined “End-of-life discussions, care should come before Question 2.” Unlike the editorial product of seven or eight other newspapers in Massachusetts, this editorial is more of thumb-sucker but in the end it opposes Ballot Question 2.

The bottom line is somewhere in the middle of the editorial:

“And rather than bring society to a consensus on how to approach the end of life, Question 2 adds new and divisive questions to the mix: Should doctors actually help people die more quickly, rather than merely withhold treatment? Does such a regimen serve to weaken society’s belief that lives — even those of the seriously ill, or severely disabled — have value and are worth living?

“Such questions draw on individual beliefs and morals, and defy practical analysis. Reasonable people can disagree passionately about Question 2, but a yes vote would not serve the larger interests of the state. Rather than bring Massachusetts closer to an agreed-upon set of procedures for approaching the end of life, it would be a flashpoint and distraction — the maximum amount of moral conflict for a very modest gain.”

If you ponder the entire editorial, you may be less than confident the Globe’s opposition will last. And for that matter what are “the larger interests of the state”? And what exactly would be the components of an “agreed-upon set of procedures for approaching the end of life”?

The stakes are enormous. There are only two states that have explicitly legalized physician-assisted suicide.

But the impact of passing the ballot question goes far beyond merely adding a third state. Writing on Slate.com, Lewis M. Cohen said that if the Commonwealth joins Oregon and Washington, it will “change how the nation dies.”

He wrote

“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.”

The list of opponents is impressive. That opposition includes, the Massachusetts Medical Society, most of the organized religious community, state legislators, the widow of Sen. Ted Kennedy, the disability rights movement, and most of the state’s major newspapers —to name just some.

Supporters had a clear advantage for months and months, as measured by public opinion polls. That margin has been pared down considerably in recent weeks.

If you would like to know more about Ballot Question 2 to share with any friends or family you may have in Massachusetts, go to http://noonquestion2.org.

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha

Categories: Assisted Suicide