28 votes

On the ballot in MA: The Right to Die. How would you vote?

Do you have the right to take your own life? If you believe in the "self ownership" theory, this should be a no brainer. Of course you have the right to die - you own yourself.

But most religions discourage taking one's own life, and it is against the law in 34 states. Why?

At any rate, this is on the ballot in my state, Massachusetts.

Voters will weigh in Nov. 6 on a ballot question to make Massachusetts the third state, after Oregon and Washington, to legalize physician-assisted suicide for people with terminal illnesses. Money has poured in from both supporters and opponents, many with personal stories like Angell’s and Meade's.

What do you guys think about this? If you had the opportunity to vote on this question, how would you vote?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful responses.

Michael

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is not about liberty, it is about harvesting organs.

People who want to die do not need the government to give them that right, or even codify it. If you are ready to go, GO. Why worry that it is not legal? Or that others may believe it is immoral? This is RIDICULOUS. I would refuse to vote on such a ridiculous thing. I have my "right to die" and you have yours. What is this nonsense about "ballots" to decide what already is?
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/06/14/euthanasia-study-ra...

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Suicide is not a criminal act...

...assisting someone in performing a non-criminal act is not a criminal act.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

State interference is intolerable

Sure, we hope this doesn't lead to doctors pressuring patients to off themselves to save insurance companies money. But that's a separate issue from the state interfering with patient privacy and doctor-patient relationship.

And religious arguments are irrelevant--it is not the role of the state to make immoral behavior illegal. Unless your government is the Taliban.

As a Mass. resident this is a no-brainer and I'm voting yes on this, and yes on medical marijuana. I've read the exact text of the ballot question, there's no way it can be twisted into sinister state-controlled involuntary euthanasia.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

if they really engaged in population control techniques...

suicide would be encouraged. Like in Futurama, there would be suicide booths everywhere.

I started to doubt population control conspiracies when they enticed millions of Mexicans to come over here.

I do indeed believe in self

I do indeed believe in self ownership. I think people should be able to commit suicide, or to be assisted. The only thing that troubles me is the suspicion that many of the advocates for this kind of legislation are not doing it out of a respect for liberty. I think it could be the step onto a slippery slope of euthanasia when patients don't want to die, in the future.

It's possible the US may see

It's possible the US may see demand for "suicide clinics" (as in Zurich, Switzerland) over the next twenty years as Boomers reach the end of their lives and face costly terminal and debilitating illnesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Booth

yea...

I would vote for the choice to kill myself if that is what I wanted. If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it anyway. What are you gong to someone who kills themself? Charge them with a crime?

As far as assisting someone in a suicide...that is okay too if that is the way they want to do it.

I would also like to volunteer to assist any Zionist that want to check out early....to show compassion for the innocent people that they murder daily!

some of them are named Dick.

In a free society...

all voluntary actions taken by willful individuals should be protected. You cannot coerce another individual to take part in an activity or use violence against them. In an assisted suicide the physician is not coercing anyone and the physician is not using violence. If assisted suicide is considered violence then so should be every medical procedure that involves cutting someone open. The patient is willfully giving his life in exchange for a service as part of a mutually agreed to contract. In a free society this would be permitted.

Pandora's box . Don't open it.

As a medical person I can tell you that assistance in dieing at the end goes on all the time, and has been since the 1900s. It is an agreement between the doctor and the patient, and it is nothing new. Morphine into the vein as a pain med rapidly leads to respiratory failure. You go to sleep and life is over.

However, legislated in the hands of the state it can become what Hitler implemented; a panel of doctors deciding who has the right to live. This can lead to execution of infants, the disabled, the elderly, anyone who is different from what the government says is the established norm. In Germany you had to be Aryan, in perfect health, mentally sound. Thousands of German people were executed, then Jews and others.

Talk to your doctor about what you want in the end. AVOID legislating this. It is part of Obamacare already. A committee, death panel, will decide WHO gets treatment, in order to save money. This is playing into the eugenics euthanasia murder game. Please watch the videos.

Obama Kill The Elderly Policy Exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb368Ek_4vw
Obama's Health Care Policy: Hitler's T-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0NicBfs5Ok&feature=related

I see this law as more a way

I see this law as more a way to absolve the physician rather than "legalize" someone's personal choice. Bottom line, anyone can kill themselves as they own their own body.

The decision to make this an absolution on the physician is the troubling portion of all of this. Will it eventually morph into the physician euthanizing people because in their professional opinion the quality of life of the patient would have not been worth saving them? Will it absolve the Dr. if he decides that euthanasia is the best treatment? What if the Dr. euthanizes their patient and then claims the patient asked for an assisted suicide? Will a Dr. assisted suicide change the way a life insurance policy pays off?

If they want to legalize suicide the best way to do it is to simply remove the law against attempted suicide from the books. Easy. Now its no longer a crime.

Blessings )o(

Denise B's picture

I agree with you Maeve

and I think the whole point of this legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to "institutionalize" assisted suicide. That is why I live in MA and will be voting no on this question. I think that this is where Obamacare is ultimately headed and this is a necessary step along the way. I believe that ultimately you will have insurance companies/government panels doing cost assessments on whether or not a patient "deserves" to receive an expensive treatment, based on age and financial status, and if they decide not, then assisted suicide will be recommended. It is necessary; however, to first make this form of "treatment" legal before this can come to fruition.

There are many ways a person who is intent on committing suicide can do so without "institutionalizing" it, and the dangers of doing something like that are very real in my mind. And that doesn't even deal with the moral aspects of it, which as a CHristian I am also against.

I supported this in WA state-it's called death with dignity

If any of you are still imagining the evil government coming in to kill people, here is an update on what is really happening in WA state where assisted suicide is legal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/health/policy/in-ill-docto...

It sounds lovely

but he didn't need permission from the state, just do it. I think they want to take the guilt off them by saying here you do it, the nanny state full circle. IMO

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Terminal illness is lovely?

I don't think so.

What I'm saying is there have been very few problems. How many times have you heard of a husband or even sometimes a wife shooting their dying spouse because their spouse begged them to get them out of the unending pain?

I was working in a law office when this law was passed in WA, and many people came in to get the paperwork so just in case they were in a terminal coma, their wishes would be known, and they would not be forced to be kept alive on machines.

It's not fun to think about, but it's part of life. Advances in medicine has made it too easy to keep the dying alive longer. Sometimes people want more time, sometimes they do not. It's only a decision that can be made by the person at that time. I don't think anyone should have a say in this except that person. This law makes that choice available to them.

Edit: Even though my husband and I have expressed to each other we do not want to be kept alive should that happen to us, we have not yet filled out the paperwork that would be required in a coma. It's not easy to think about.

You know damn well

that I was not referring to terminal illness as being lovely, that is a cheap shot.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

I know - I twisted your comment

But you twisted mine. Most of the time this is used, it is death with dignity.

I see you are passionate about this issue, but you do not show how you have any actual experience dealing with this issue. I live in a state where this is legal and my closest friend’s mother, who I also knew very well, had to use this for her death. It was very hard. We are all Catholic, and do not endorse suicide at all. In a previous comment, I detailed what we went through.

If I was in her condition, and had to make her choice, I would not like being forced by the state to be kept alive like what she was facing. All she did was have them take off the machine that was breathing for her, and if she could not breathe on her own, then she would die. That is what happened.

I would NEVER, even if terminally ill, choose actual suicide, but if the pain medication they gave me would cause me to die earlier than I would die, then let that happen. I do not want the government dictating my medical care. And I do not want to be kept alive in a terminal coma.

Take a look at what is actually happening in Washington and Oregon before you jump to judgment. I actually feel better knowing that I will not be forced to be kept alive on machines or denied pain relief if it ever comes to me needing that.

I thought Libertarians

were all about keeping Government out of their lives. Why do people need government approval to commit suicide?

The Medical Industry was started by Rockefeller starting with taking over the AMA, now we want to give these clowns control over our life.

http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/flexner-report-r...

I smell big money, and the new business model in the coming years will be a new breed of doctor who will need to be trained and licensed and eventually have quotas to fill to receive his insurance money.

It seems to me if you want government out of our lives we need to RESCIND the laws not make more of them.

The terminally ill have access to the web and can find a thousand ways to do themselves in, they don't need a law. What these laws do is open the door for government control over your decision.

When my mom was ill she saw the Doctor for two minutes and had a huge bill for that visit, also every damn Dr. around showed up so they could collect also.

We complain about taxes, well someone is going to have to pay for these specialized doctors who decide, if we live or die. Don't tell me that it will be your decision, when does anything we do get to be our decision, like voluntary Income Tax?

I know I am not the smartest kid on the block but this really concerns me. Please read this bill very carefully and read the small print, give this a second consideration before voting for it.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

This is about keeping the government out

Keeping the government out of the doctor-patient relationship.

Ballot questions are the last hope for liberty. When was the last time a legislature anywhere passed a pro-liberty law? It just doesn't happen any more.

The system keeps people suffering until the insurance runs out, only then it wants to pull the plug, after the money is gone and the suffering has gone on and on. This law puts control in the hands of the PATIENT instead of in the hands of the system.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

Of course you have that

Of course you have that right. You own your own property, your self, and therefore you have the right to destroy your property, or yourself.

Whether it is an MORAL action or not is the real debate. Really, it's the only thing you CAN debate about on this subject.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

like you said, Michael, a no brainer

I am surprised how many of the comments are opposed to this. One could argue that this is the most basic right, the right over your own life. No one else should have a legal say. Some may have a moral say, like family members, but that is a different issue. No self-respecting libertarian should be opposed to physician-assisted suicide. As for the morality of it, unless you have a terminal disease that keeps you in constant pain, you have no moral right to criticize someone in that situation, who wants to end his or her life.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

A no-brainer indeed, in an ideal de-politicized world..

Hi Michael -

Richard here, from Dutchland where we have / some experience / regarding this issue ;-)

I'd agree with you, save for the total politicization (is that even correct English?) of the issue. From the natural right of self-ownership follows that no other has a right to your life (or death).. but yourself.

On the other hand, I'm always more than a tad bit concerned if the "right to die" takes on political gravitas, providing the state with a window of opportunity to really get involved in the "allowing to die" business.
In general with moral issues, I don't think the state should be involved one way or the other, like it's not our political overlords' prerogative to legalize/criminalize anything beyond protecting our natural rights, if one wishes to advocate a minimal state.

Comparing this to abortion - as some commenters do - is a fallacy for the obvious reason that taking one's own life is consistent with the philosophy of self-ownership. Taking the life of another human being isn't.

Kind regs from / Amsterdam (clip) /, Holland,
Richard

R3V ON!

We voted for it here in Oregon

We voted for it here in Oregon a number of years ago, it's also passed in Washington State and Montana and survived a supreme court challenge by the Bush Administration.

See Oregon's "Death with Dignity Act"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Death_with_Dignity_Act

See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide

I'm personally ok with people checking out early, it's their choice, their body and their life. As I see it the law just protects physicians and family from criminal liability and the tyranny of prosecutors and the State for having assisted the person in a painless suicide (which sure beats some of the do it yourself options like eating a bullet or jumping off something tall, or drinking something under the sink, etc.).

“Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.” ― Mark Twain

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world."

Whose Right Is It?

I have started to comment on this post for the 3rd time now, and perhaps I will hit the save button this time.
-----
Ron Paul says "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...
-----
That being said, today we, doctors, patients, family, government, etc., prolong life with medicines, procedures, and surgeries far past what would have been natural death decades ago. So now, we are in a catch 22. Life is mercifully prolonged and then at some point it seems to become unmerciful to continue living.

We are now at a day and age where medical authorities and governments are vying for the right to determine human viability...whether it be abortion, post-birth abortion, or who is truly human based upon quantity and quality of life.

Should we now ask for more medical procedures and for the government to fix the situation? Or should we each individually rethink the medical care to which we subject ourselves? Maybe we should follow the money and the power and then think for ourselves?
***************
I would vote no. Not because I do not think that people have a right to die, but because I do not believe the government has the right to give the right to live or die.
***************

A very large number of

A very large number of members here, including the OP, shared in the passing of my father. For all thier support during that time, I thank you.

Dad wanted to die at home and he did just that. He was in such a shape the last couple of days that he wanted to die and was frustrated that he couldn't...or was that just the morphine?

I believe I speak for my whole family when I say, to each their own and to hell deepest pit with ANY form of 'government' mandate. But then, I am still on my first cup of coffee. Good morning everyone.

I believe suicide - and

I believe suicide - and assisted suicide - are clearly wrong. But that doesn't mean it should be outlawed. I'm torn on this one for now.

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."
(1 Peter 2:15-16)

I don't see why this post was

I don't see why this post was downvoted, so I upvoted it. He's saying he doesn't agree with it, but it shouldn't be outlawed. What's wrong with that?

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Is it a good/bad idea

or is it a right?

That's the only question that should be under debate here.

Urgent ! Check your e-mail

Urgent ! Check your e-mail ASAP !

Ron Paul differs

from many Libertarians when it comes to abortion stating this
“If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?”

I believe the same principle applies here. We do not want to be known as a society that believes life only has value up to a certain point.

Life is precious and valuable. We should instead work to build a society that upholds the contribution of life at all stages and works to care for each other.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

How is this the same principle?

Abortion is about someone else's life - the life of the child.

If I want to put a gun to my head what right do you have to stop me from doing so? If you want to claim such right then you can also claim to be able to stop me from smoking a joint, put too much salt on my food... etc.