Mass. ballot initiatives this year - medical MJ and assisted suicide
#2
Posted 11 July 2012 - 05:02 PM
Even our Gov. Christie, so called big time conservative, publically acknowledged that the War On Drugs is a failure. He's was also for the recently passed law reducing the penalty for possession of small amounts of mj.
Liberal, Conservative, and all the shit in between. If everyone would just think of themselves as ONE country and worked towards common sense solutions, like this one that both sides acknowledge.
#5
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:17 AM
"Right to Repair" Auto manufactures have to make same
diagnostic & repair info available to consumers and private
repair shops as they do to authorized dealers.
Q2: YES
"Death with Dignity" / Assisted Suicide. In the abstract I agree
with Snap & Wheelz and have argued that point. Reading the
ballot question it seems to me there are enough safe-guards
in place, so I'm voting yes.
Q3: YES
Medical MJ. Certainly there are medical uses. Mostly I don't
think the governments should be regulating this at all.
#6
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:35 AM
You guys have this standard where you actually know what you are voting for!!!!! That is something you should be proud of because here, they write them in such a way as to fool you into voting for the opposite of what you really want.
#9
Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:34 PM
#10
Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:36 PM
Death penalty and assisted-suicide are similar...but different in an important way:
* With the death penalty -- any time or way that a mistake is made it is *always*
harming and removing the rights of a citizen and *never* is NOT doing it harming
the rights of anyone.
* With assisted-suicide -- when the government curtails the right of all people to decide
for themselves how to end their lives it is removing individual rights *every* time.
#12
Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:09 PM
I am pro-choice, whether it be for assisted suicide or terminating a pregnancy. The Gov't should not be involved in either of these personal family very hard decisions.
Perhaps I am not fully understanding the link/mentions with the death penalty, but in one scenario a terminally ill patient can make a choice to slowly die from the disease or to take matters into their own hands. There is no chance of an innocent person being put to death by their peers.
#13
Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:20 PM
The same could be said of Assisted-Suicide. Even if you believe that people should be allowed to end their own lives and that government has no place in stopping you...many (including me) are concerned that it could be misused. That relatives or doctors could end a life for their own reasons, whether is be convenience, monetary gain, wanting the person's organs, or just a mistake.
That is a real concern for me...but again:
* This bill offers many protections against that.
* Voting against this WILL without a doubt deprive many people of a right they should have.
#15
Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:27 PM
All I know is I really hope assisted suicide is legal should I ever need it. I can't imagine being forced into a painful, slow, awful decline with no way out.
Even if it's not legal, I 'spect...ok don't 'spect...know...that you're loved enough that you'd find the help you needed.
I'm uncomfortable with institutionalizing the loss of life. Whether or not to continue should be a personal decision, and the more hands that are involved with personal decisions, the more they're open to abuse, coercion, etc. In my book. Yer book may read different.
#24
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:39 PM
We're asserting quality of life supersedes its sanctity. Very slippery slope that troubles me.
if it was me, I would want the option. Especially when it gets to the point that you are unable to throw yourself off of a cliff or other methods to end your unrelenting pain without other's assistance.
#25
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:56 PM
Unlike the other three ballot questions, which will become law if they secure a majority of the votes, Question 4 is a non-binding referendum aimed at demonstrating popular support for the progressive budget priorities
http://www.baystateb...al12-2012-11-01
#26
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:57 PM
I'm not sure this is as much about taking away the right to commit suicide as it is about the state sanctioned ability of doctors (who took an oath to heal) to instead participate in the killing of a person.
Most focus on individual cases of suffering. Yes, many people have and many more will suffer, in many ways (child abuse, hunger, painful illness). I just don't see laws sanctioning death to avoid suffering as the answer.
It's a complicated issue and I certainly understand the perspective of others, just not sure I can get behind it.
#27
Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:59 PM
Tough questions, with no easy answers, but at least if the law passes, doctors who are morally opposed do not have to write prescriptions.
#29
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:23 PM
Hi M.,
I'm not sure this is as much about taking away the right to commit suicide as it is about the state sanctioned ability of doctors (who took an oath to heal) to instead participate in the killing of a person.
Most focus on individual cases of suffering. Yes, many people have and many more will suffer, in many ways (child abuse, hunger, painful illness). I just don't see laws sanctioning death to avoid suffering as the answer.
It's a complicated issue and I certainly understand the perspective of others, just not sure I can get behind it.
Doctors pledge to do no harm. But if someone is in constant, unrelenting pain, and at the end of their life, is it doing no harm to not give them the means to end thier pain? Is it doing harm to give them those means?
Tough questions, with no easy answers, but at least if the law passes, doctors who are morally opposed do not have to write prescriptions.
I agree with Melissa.
I assume that folks who vote no also are pro-life and not pro-choice when it comes to abortion, if not, isn't that flawed logic when it comes to sanctity of life thing. In my eyes, these two topics go hand in hand in the pro-choice vs pro-life arguments.
#30
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:46 PM
Even if it's not legal, I 'spect...ok don't 'spect...know...that you're loved enough that you'd find the help you needed.
I'm uncomfortable with institutionalizing the loss of life. Whether or not to continue should be a personal decision, and the more hands that are involved with personal decisions, the more they're open to abuse, coercion, etc. In my book. Yer book may read different.
very well put
#31
Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:53 PM
Also a little skeeved by the notion of them that's taken the Hippocratic Oath helping people to die...
Doctors already help people die (do not resuscitate order by the patient or give the option to family; life support or no life support).
IMO that's too much power given to them already...Sorry folks saw the movie COMA as a child...can't have Doctor's given that power
#33
Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:02 PM
I agree with Melissa.
I assume that folks who vote no also are pro-life and not pro-choice when it comes to abortion, if not, isn't that flawed logic when it comes to sanctity of life thing. In my eyes, these two topics go hand in hand in the pro-choice vs pro-life arguments.
Hi W
I am consistent in my thinking. Opposed to abortion. Opposed to death penalty, Opposed to the wars. Also vegetarian. Try to, compassionately and thoughtfully, adhere to sanctity of life ethic. Complicated issues, I question my stances and understand there are exceptions and cases worth reconsidering. Always growing...
#34
Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:27 PM
Point being, that things can change in the final days...
I spoke with him a couple of times about dosing him. Earlier on, he said he would want me to OD him with morphine, if I could. As he got worse, he started to change his view, even though he was in more pain. LUCKILY for me, I did not have to make that decision, nor did I participate. He died a " natural" death, complete with pain.
Even though he had asked me, and even though it was his wish, I don't think I would have been able to dose him...
#35
Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:32 PM
We're asserting quality of life supersedes its sanctity. Very slippery slope that troubles me.
I don't see the issue in those terms. I think we're asserting that the individual
has the right to decide if quality supersedes sanctity for themselves rather than
the government deciding for them.
...can't have Doctor's given that power
This law does not give the power to doctors. It gives it to the patient to decide
and adds safeguards (multiple requests separated in time, independent witness
that is not a relative or affiliated with the hospital, etc.) to insure that it is the
patient's decision.
#37
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:28 PM
Something I learned during my brother's ordeal. He had a signed DNR, with my sister as proxy. He had gone through an instance where they did not do anything, he had slipped into a coma... Well he came out of it, then several days later, my sister walks in, and they were working on him. She said that he had a DNR. They said that becomes invalid after the first time, and that my brother had changed his mind, and signed a different order (I forget what it is called, but basically says use all efforts to revive...)
Point being, that things can change in the final days...
I spoke with him a couple of times about dosing him. Earlier on, he said he would want me to OD him with morphine, if I could. As he got worse, he started to change his view, even though he was in more pain. LUCKILY for me, I did not have to make that decision, nor did I participate. He died a " natural" death, complete with pain.
Even though he had asked me, and even though it was his wish, I don't think I would have been able to dose him...
I am still not at peace with not assisting my best friend in this manner when she begged and pleaded with me to help her die.
#41
Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:57 PM
I don't see the issue in those terms. I think we're asserting that the individual
has the right to decide if quality supersedes sanctity for themselves rather than
the government deciding for them.
This law does not give the power to doctors. It gives it to the patient to decide
and adds safeguards (multiple requests separated in time, independent witness
that is not a relative or affiliated with the hospital, etc.) to insure that it is the
patient's decision.
i didn't say laws give doctors the power to do anything...you are pulling parts of sentences out of context
but I will try and respond anyway...
hmmmmm yes....but if a patient is not conscious and that patient, as well as their family members aren't doctors, who's to say the Doctor isn't chomping at the bit for that's patient's liver cuz he's got a black market organ donor gig...and feeds the family a cock n bull story on how the patient is a gonner.
#43
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:07 PM
All I know is I really hope assisted suicide is legal should I ever need it. I can't imagine being forced into a painful, slow, awful decline with no way out.
Or worse, making family members witness it and have to potentially enforce a DNR. I guarantee my dad would have preferred this to knowing I would be the one to make the call when the time came, which I did with zero hesitation.
Even if it's not legal, I 'spect...ok don't 'spect...know...that you're loved enough that you'd find the help you needed.
I'm uncomfortable with institutionalizing the loss of life. Whether or not to continue should be a personal decision, and the more hands that are involved with personal decisions, the more they're open to abuse, coercion, etc. In my book. Yer book may read different.
Suicide = Kiss the life insurance for your family good bye, and add a potential murder charge. Yep, seems rational to me!
I agree with Melissa.
I assume that folks who vote no also are pro-life and not pro-choice when it comes to abortion, if not, isn't that flawed logic when it comes to sanctity of life thing. In my eyes, these two topics go hand in hand in the pro-choice vs pro-life arguments.
#44
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:16 PM
I don't see the issue in those terms. I think we're asserting that the individual
has the right to decide if quality supersedes sanctity for themselves rather than
the government deciding for them.
This law does not give the power to doctors. It gives it to the patient to decide
and adds safeguards (multiple requests separated in time, independent witness
that is not a relative or affiliated with the hospital, etc.) to insure that it is the
patient's decision.
It would be doctor prescribed suicide, so yes it may not be giving doctors "power" but it sure gives them responsibility. I've thought a lot about this question and I still haven't decided so i am abstaining.
#45
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:18 PM
i didn't say laws give doctors the power to do anything...you are pulling parts of sentences out of context
but I will try and respond anyway...
hmmmmm yes....but if a patient is not conscious and that patient, as well as their family members aren't doctors, who's to say the Doctor isn't chomping at the bit for that's patient's liver cuz he's got a black market organ donor gig...and feeds the family a cock n bull story on how the patient is a gonner.
Wouldn't the family of the recently lethally dosed patient question a rush to the OR?
And if the patient is an organ donor, I don't think organs are on a finders keepers method. I think that there is a donor/recipient registry with set processes and documentation etc... Plus, the type of doctor treating you for a coma/cancer/etc... isn't the same type of doctor who would be in the donor/transplant realm. Also, if you are going to take these steps for yourself or a loved one, wouldn't it be with a trusted family doctor who has been with you for the duration of the illness.
#46
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:18 PM
It would be doctor prescribed suicide, so yes it may not be giving doctors "power" but it sure gives them responsibility. I've thought a lot about this question and I still haven't decided so i am abstaining.
Very true. However doctors will not be forced to participate (as I understand it) if they personally disagree or do not want the responsibility of carrying out such an action.
#48
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:24 PM
I'm not having my life short changed for nothing....NOTHING!!!
#49
Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:27 PM
Wouldn't the family of the recently lethally dosed patient question a rush to the OR?
And if the patient is an organ donor, I don't think organs are on a finders keepers method. I think that there is a donor/recipient registry with set processes and documentation etc... Plus, the type of doctor treating you for a coma/cancer/etc... isn't the same type of doctor who would be in the donor/transplant realm. Also, if you are going to take these steps for yourself or a loved one, wouldn't it be with a trusted family doctor who has been with you for the duration of the illness.
to avoid anymore conflicts about what I'm saying I'll repeat my last post to answer regarding my stance on assisted suicide.
IMO...if I am dying and in a lot pain and will be suffering for weeks, months, what-have-you...if it means that my loved ones can still visit me, talk to me...just be there, then I will be there for them and will go through whatever pain I must endure for them and for me!!!
I'm not having my life short changed for nothing....NOTHING!!!











