By Dave Andrusko
On a rough Tuesday night, there were various consolations. Pro-lifers did well in some state legislatures, for example (more about that later), and a hugely effective coalition defeated a physician-assisted suicide “Ballot Question 2” in Massachusetts. The later is important, indeed, very important so if I may I’d like to close the week with a few comments about this victory.
We won by a hair’s breadth—51% to 49%–so you know the assisted suicide crowd will be back with a vengeance. So be it; the coalition that defeated Question 2 will only grow stronger not only in Massachusetts but elsewhere.
What was usual, and unusual? As is virtually always the case, the initial public polling showed the advocates winning handily. In this case, less than two months ago, a poll sponsored by the Boston Globe and conducted by the University of New Hampshire showed 68% of Massachusetts voters in favor. Just 19% opposed. As recently as last week, polls were showing a five to ten point advantage.
And the basic thrust of the argument for was déjà vu all over again. The impact would supposedly be limited—in number–because doctors would only be allowed to prescribe a lethal overdose to patients who had six months or less to live. And theoretically there were safeguards galore. And besides, people have a “right” to end their own lives—and with assistance.
There were also similarities in the case made by opponents. It is not hard to offer one difficult case after another, to soften up resistance to what is, after all, an attempt to turn medicine’s mission on its head. What opponents did brilliantly was to show how slipshod Question 2’s language was and how if it passed, would open the door to elder abuse. Moreover, and this was also important, there was no requirement that a doctor or other witness be present at the time of death, and no psychological evaluation was required even though most people contemplating suicide are usually depressed.
Once the measure was approved for the ballot in the fall of 2011, a diverse coalition of disability rights organizations, medical associations, nurses’ groups, community leaders, right to life groups, hospice workers, and faith-based organizations came together. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to overstate the importance of the opposition of the state medical association and the disability rights community. The latter understood perfectly well that they would be in the cross-hairs, if Question 2 passed.
“We changed the nature of the campaign,” said John Kelly, director of Second Thoughts, a disability activist group. “This is the first assisted suicide campaign in which the disability rights perspective has reached so many people.”
Finally, while the impact of the opposition voiced by the widow of Senator Ted Kennedy can probably be overstated, it should by no means be minimized. Her message was unmistakable: assisted suicide is not a “progressive “ issue.In a state that would elect someone as far to the left as Elizabeth Warren the same day it voted on Question 2, that had to influence a bloc of voters.
Congratulations to all the groups that came together. The pro-euthanasia forces were convinced Massachusetts was the ideal target. Had it not been for the laborious, carefully constructed work of the opposition, they would have been proven right.
