Massachusetts Disability Rights Activists Relieved That Voters Defeated Assisted Suicide Initiative
Massachusetts disability rights activists from the group Second Thoughts breathed a sigh of relief Tuesday night as voters appear to have closely defeated Question 2, which would have legalized assisted suicide in the state. National Not Dead Yet applauds Second Thoughts leadership in the Massachusetts efforts to clarify the dangers in the initiative.
- John Kelly
Second Thoughts
617-536-5140
Email
- Diane Coleman
Not Dead Yet
708-420-0539
Email
Boston, MA (PRWEB) November 07, 2012
Massachusetts disability rights activists from the group Second Thoughts breathed a sigh of relief Tuesday night as voters defeated Question 2, which would have legalized assisted suicide in the state. Members had gathered at Boston’s Littlest Bar to await the election results. According to the Boston Globe, with 51 percent opposing the initiative and 93 percent of the vote counted, proponents of the measure conceded defeat.
“We changed the nature of the campaign,” said John Kelly, Director of Second Thoughts. “This is the first assisted suicide campaign in which the disability rights perspective has reached so many people.” Kelly, a power wheelchair user since a spinal cord injury in 1984, became a leading spokesperson for the opposition. He debated half a dozen different proponents across the state, squaring off against lead advocate Dr. Marcia Angell three times. Two of those debates are archived on WBUR.
Over the last six weeks of the campaign, support for Question 2 plunged from a high of 68% to a steady 49% throughout last night. “Simply put, Massachusetts had second thoughts, ” Kelly said.
Second Thoughts was formed in December 2011 by Massachusetts disability rights activists, and brought a progressive perspective to a debate so often portrayed as part of the culture war between secular liberals and religious conservatives. The group burnished its progressive credentials, for example, by producing a bumper sticker calling for “Yes on 3/No on 2,” because medical marijuana is also a disability rights issue.
“Assisted suicide proponents tried to paint all opposition as religious and extreme,” said Denise Karuth, Second Thoughts spokesperson for Western Massachusetts. “But progressives changed their minds when they heard, for example that no independent witness was required when the drugs are taken. It’s a recipe for elder abuse.”
“We fight for social justice,” said Eileen Feldman of the Second Thoughts steering committee. “Besides unreliable safeguards, Question 2 stigmatizes conditions that are a normal part of living as disabled for many people. Physical incapacity or incontinence does not take away your dignity.”
The national disability group Not Dead Yet served on the Second Thoughts steering committee. “We applaud the articulate leadership that Second Thoughts provided in efforts to clarify the dangers in the initiative,” said Diane Coleman, Not Dead Yet’s President and CEO.
Second Thoughts now hopes to capitalize on its media exposure by continuing its advocacy on life-and-death healthcare issues, which impact people with disabilities across the age spectrum.
“Question 2 galvanized our community,” said Kelly. “We live on the front lines of our health care system, and our knowledge and experience can improve the system and make it more responsive to people faced with serious chronic and terminal illnesses.”
#
To access the fully formatted press release (pdf version available) please go to PRWeb.
To my “peeps”: Well done!
I live in Massachusetts and I care full time for a non-verbal son who has no movement, totally spastic. He is now 26 years old. I supported Questions 2 because it provides terminally ill people in their last days of intractable pain with a “good death” as opposed to a “bad death.”
As late as mid October, all polls revealed that 65% of voters supported the legislation. Then something happened which I characterized as reprehensible.
(1) Some groups extended the definition of terminally ill to severely disabled. “Question 2 stigmatizes conditions that are a normal part of living as disabled for many people. Physical incapacity or incontinence does not take away your dignity.” The quote comes from the above post. This is untrue: Question 2 only concerns terminally ill people and the vast, vast majority of disabled are NOT terminally ill. I find the co-mingling of these concepts as an insult to my son. Some disabled people can become terminally ill…opponents co-mingle the two populations. “Slippery slope”? By every definition, this is an epistemological fallacy. These arguments are fear-mongering, not unlike the WMD argument. Fear prevented continued support.
(2) In the week and a half before the election a plethora of opponents television ads appeared daily in Massachusetts. They presented false information, partial truth, and raised fears which were unjustified.
(3) The money trail. Although not readily admitted, the major funding for opponents came from the conservative Catholic Church, the American Principles Project, an anti-gay organization and the American Family Association , another anti-gay group (the latter had its money returned) and the Knights of Columbus. You get what is bought.
(4) So, a convinced public changed its mind to a 51-49% victory for the opponents because of misinformation, because of co-mingling of issues, because of a tainted money trail.
The actions of many opponents were not based upon facts, they fed the public fear…the heart of politics, not the integrity of examining both sides of the issue.
Phil,
I’ll answer this in excruciating detail some other time, but your comment is little more than a combination of talking points used by proponents decorated with a huge amount of ignorance.
1. Terminal vs. disabed, chronically ill, etc. – the so-called “right to die” people have been conflating “terminal” and “disabled” for decades. Two of the first endorsers of the Mass. petition were authors of the “Harvard Model Statute” which would have legalized assisted suicide for anyone terminally or “irreversibly ill.” You think they’ve changed their goals or just decided to go with the incrementalist strategy? In NH just a few years ago, they floated a bill that redefined “terminal” as irreversibly ill and would shorten your life. There’s more, and I’ll lay it out at a later time so I can drag it out for folks who buy RTD talking points without even a grain of salt.
2. What that means is that the campaign used its money wisely. Also during those final weeks you had editorials/declarations against legalization from Ira Byock, Boston Globe (most newspapers in the state), Vickie Kennedy, several Democratic legislators, and the medical organizations. That might have had an impact as well.
3. The Catholic Church is one interest group and it has money. NOt Dead Yet operates on a modest budget, doesn’t take money from prolife organizations, and neither did Second Thoughts. By your reckoning, should we all support the death penalty simply becauise the Catholic Church opposes it? I wouldn’t whine about money too much – in Washington State, the situation was reversed. Proponents had all the cash, most from out-of-state, including several multi-millionaires, one of whom lives in Europe.
4. Support for assisted suicide is *always* lower in an actual vote than what the polls originally indicate. In every state it’s been on the ballot. Sometime let’s talk about the fearmongering and misinformation from the proponennts shall we?