by eila in Accessibility, Announcements, Civil and Human Rights, Press Release, Public Health & Safety, Seniors
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Last Modified on October 25, 2012 at 5:25 pm
loading…
Members of the Cambridge Commission for Persons with Disabilities have participated in the Somerville online transportation surveys and frequently collaborate with members of Community Access Project, Somerville to help raise awareness and lower barriers to disAbility rights and inclusion in MA. Here is their statement, published in the Access Letter, October 2012, regarding their recent resolution to oppose statewide Ballot Question 2, “Prescribing Medicine to End Life”:
CCPD Board Votes to Oppose Assisted Suicide Ballot Question
At its monthly Commission meeting on September 13, the Cambridge Commission for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) Board voted to oppose the ballot initiative Question 2, “Prescribing Medication to End Life”, that will appear on the ballot November 6th.
If passed by the voters, Question 2 would allow a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe lethal medication, at the request of a person diagnosed with a terminal illness, to allow that person to commit suicide. For more information, including the text of this question, visit: <www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele12/ballot_questions_12/quest_2.htm>.
At first glance, Question 2 might sound like it gives individuals choice and autonomy, but the experience in the two states that have passed such laws leads CCPD to be very concerned. Modeled after Oregon and Washington’s assisted suicide laws, Question 2 fails to correct problems that have led to documented cases of abuse, discrimination, and pressures to choose suicide over medical treatment based on cost considerations.
The National Council on Disability (NCD) Position Paper on Assisted Suicide states that: “The dangers of permitting physician-assisted suicide are immense. The pressures upon people with disabilities to choose to end their lives, and the insidious appropriation by others of the right to make that choice for them are already prevalent and will continue to increase as managed health care and limitations upon health care resources precipitate increased ‘rationing’ of health care services and health care financing.”
NCD continues: “The so-called ‘slippery slope’ already operates in regard to individuals with disabilities…If assisted suicide were to be legalized, the most dire ramifications for people with disabilities would ensue unless stringent procedural prerequisites were established to prevent its misuse, abuse, improper application, and creeping expansion.”
Members of the CCPD discussed a variety of concerns raised by Question 2. The following is only a partial list of issues relating to the proposed assisted suicide ballot initiative:
• Lack of safeguards: The current language shows a striking lack of oversight and safeguards, putting people at risk of being misdiagnosed and receiving inadequate treatment (including mental health treatment). This is a recipe for elder abuse — according to the Patients’ Rights Council, already 1 in 10 Massachusetts elders are abused, an increase of 31% in the last three years.
• Delegated Decision-making: The proposed law has a marked lack of clarity as to the impact of existing state laws regarding Health Care Proxy and Durable Power of Attorney in implementing assisted suicide. Under this initiative, an heir could be a witness and help someone sign up for assisted suicide despite a potential conflict of interest. Once a lethal drug is in the home, there is no requirement for professional oversight to monitor how that drug is administered.
• Expected Survival less than 6 months: A physician must diagnose a person as having a terminal condition with 6 months or less to live, opening the dangers of assisted suicide to many who are not terminally ill. Experience in Oregon and Washington shows that many people who appeared qualified within the defined time span, but declined assisted suicide, lived months or years beyond the doctor’s estimate, or even survived to recover from their disease.
• Lack of Mental Health Screening: The proposed law does not require an independent mental health evaluation of persons requesting lethal prescription medication (two physicians must agree that a patient qualifies for assisted suicide, but there is no requirement for either of them to be psychologists or psychiatrists). This reflects a widespread cultural and scientific bias that people with terminal diagnoses who ask for help to commit suicide are not in need of a screening for depression or an evaluation for any other mental health diagnosis.
• Continuity of Care: The proposed law does not include any requirement to investigate cases where physicians who have known a patient over time have found the patient ineligible for the criteria for assisted suicide. Physicians new to such cases who agree to assist in suicide are protected under the proposed law if they simply claim they acted in “good faith” — a standard so low as to make any purported safeguards unenforceable.
Many people in favor of assisted suicide are concerned about reducing unnecessary suffering in dying people; and many favor the idea of patients’ “right to self-determination.” Advances in palliative care and hospice medicine have made great strides in the last two decades. Yet the proposed law offers suicide as a resolution to suffering without any requirement that all avenues of palliative treatment be exhausted to alleviate a patient’s suffering before suicide intervention.
The CCPD Board strongly encourages readers in every Massachusetts city and town to seek out education and information on the complexities of Question 2, in order to cast an informed vote in November. For more information on assisted suicide, including those that particularly impact the human rights of individuals with disabilities, visit <www.second-thoughts.org> or <www.dredf.org>.
loading…
i got romnesia,so remind me never cavort with this group. it’s my life,get it?
loading...
got it. but remember: even if you’re suffering from megalomanic delusions like the rom, you might, one day, see a third side to this issue- one that has nothing to do with neocon idiocy; but rather, the realities of how cost-efficiencies are already spliced into end of life care decisions for vulnerable people.
be well, KC
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/10/physician-assisted-suicide-is-not-progressive/264091/
loading...
forgive me for my poor attempt at humor.
you are asolutely correct that there are many sides to this issue.before i vote, i will consider all sides with more respect.
i appreciate all your efforts on behalf of people with disabilities.
loading...
thank you!
loading...
My understanding is that a terminally ill person would have to make a request of a doctor twice, 15 days apart, to be prescribed the stuff that would allow them to choose the time when the inevitable will be hastened according to their own free will. I strongly believe that we should encourage each other to eek out all the life we can while we can. When we cannot encourage more and the individual is determined, we should respect that. I respectfully disagree with the Board’s opposition to question 2.
loading...
thanks Linda, but the reasons that progressive disAbility rights activists strongly oppose this bill is that there are no safeguards to prevent vulnerable patients from being coerced to make this choice by others who do not have their best interests at heart.
Please take the time to learn more before you vote. I really encourage you to check out what the Oregon physicians say regarding how this has worked in Oregon since assisted suicide was legalized there in late 1997: http://www.pccef.org/pressreleases/index.htm
We’re being sold a feel-good heart-tugging “if only” promise of “dignity,” “compassion” and “autonomy.” Those words lose their meaning when you peek beneath the hood. Especially for people vulnerable with end-stage disease, people living with conditions of frailty, and people already voiceless and choiceless.
thanks.
loading...
I’ve been a fan of http://www.compassionandchoices.org/ for a long time. I would rather wait for more reassurance that this law would never be abused by unscrupulous people, but I’d also not want to put off what I see as the relief of suffering for end stage terminally ill patients. My great respect for you and your thoughtful arguments will give me pause.
loading...
that respect is a two-way street. Back atcha and thanks Linda!
loading...
I’m voting No on 2 because, although I support physician assisted suicide in principle like my friends Kevin and Linda, I share the concerns of my friend eila and the CCPD about the ballot question.
loading...