Knowledge Base Wiki

Question 2

Massachusetts "Death with Dignity" Initiative
Results
Choice Votes % Yes 1,466,866 48.87% No 1,534,757 51.13% Valid votes 3,001,623 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 3,001,623 100.00%
County results Municipality results Precinct results No   80–90%   70–80%   60–70%   50–60% Yes   80–90%   70–80%   60–70%   50–60% Other   Tie

Elections in Massachusetts
General 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Federal government U.S. President 1788–89 1792 1796 1800 1804 1808 1812 1816 1820 1824 1828 1832 1836 1840 1844 1848 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 Dem 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 Dem 2004 Dem GOP 2008 Dem GOP 2012 2016 Dem GOP 2020 Dem GOP 2024 Dem GOP U.S. Senate Class 1: 1788 1790 1796 (S) 1796 1798 1800 (S) 1803 1808 (S) 1810 (S) 1811 1813 (S) 1815 1815 (S) 1816 (S) 1818 (S) 1820 1820 (S) 1822 1826 1827 1829 (S) 1833 1839 February 1841 (S) 1845 1851 1851 (S) 1857 1863 1869 1874 (S) 1875 1881 1887 1893 1899 1905 1911 1916 1922 1928 1934 1940 1946 1952 1958 1962 (S) 1964 1970 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006 2010 (S) 2012 2018 2024 Class 2: 1788 1793 1796 1800 (S) 1803 (S) 1805 1810 1811 (S) 1816 1822 (S) 1826 (S) 1828 1835 January 1841 (S) 1841 1845 (S) 1847 1853 1855 (S) 1859 1865 1871 1873 (S) 1877 1883 1889 1895 1901 1905 (S) 1907 1913 1918 1924 1930 1936 1942 1944 (S) 1948 1954 1960 1966 1972 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002 2008 2013 (S) 2014 2020 U.S. House 1788/1789 1790/1792 1792/1793 1794/1795 1796/1797 1798/1799 1800/1801 1802/1803 1804 1806 1808 1810/1811 1812/1813 1814/1815 3rd 1816/1817 1818/1819 1820/1821 1822/1823 1824/1825 1826/1827 1828 1830/1832 1833/1834 1834/1835 1836 1838/1839 1840/1841 1842/1844 1844/1846 1846 1848/1850 1850/1851 1852 1854 1856 1858 1860 1862 1864 1866 1868 1870 1872 1874 1876 1878 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1991 (1st) 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 (9th) 2002 2004 2006 2007 (5th) 2008 2010 2012 2013 (5th) 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
State government Governor 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 Apr. 1831 Nov. 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 State Senate 1787 1824 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 State House 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2020 2022 2024 Governor's Council 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2024 Ballot measures 1980: Proposition 2½ 2002: English Language Education in Public Schools 2006: 2008 Greyhound Protection Sensible Marijuana Policy State Income Tax Repeal 2010: No Sales Tax for Alcohol Sales Tax Relief Comprehensive Permits and Regional Planning 2012: Right to Repair Death with Dignity Medical Marijuana 2014: Automatic Gas Tax Increase Repeal Expansion of Bottle Deposits Casino Repeal Paid Sick Days 2016: Expand Slot Machine Gaming Charter School Expansion Farm Animal Confinement Legalization, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana 2018: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination 2020: pending
Boston Mayor 1822 1823 1824 Apr 1825 Dec 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844–45 Dec 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853–54 Dec 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1910 1914 1917 1921 1925 1929 1933 1937 1941 1945 1949 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2021 2025 City council 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023
Springfield Mayor 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 (S) 1973 1975 1977 1979 1983 1981 1985 1987 1989 (S) 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2015 2019 2023
Worcester Mayor 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023
Massachusetts portal

The Massachusetts "Death with Dignity" Initiative, also known as Question 2, appeared on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot in the state of Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute to allow physician-assisted suicide. The measure was filed with the Massachusetts Attorney General and would establish, according to those who filed the measure, an "Act Relative to Death with Dignity". The petition number for the initiative was 11-12, and was filed by Michael Clarke as "An Initiative Petition for an Act Relative to Death with Dignity".^[1]

The proposal was to allow terminally ill patients to be given lethal drugs. A terminally ill patient would be defined as a patient being given six months or fewer to live. The patient requesting the medication must be mentally capable to make medical decisions while consulting their respective doctors. Patients would be required to submit their request orally twice and witnessed in writing, and the initial verbal request must be fifteen days prior to the written request and second oral request. The patient's terminal diagnosis and capability to make health care decisions must be confirmed by a second doctor.^[2]

The proposed measure, according to the text, requires substantial compliance with these and other requirements. The text states: "A person who substantially complies in good faith with provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be in compliance with this chapter."^[2]

The proposed act also allows blood relatives to participate in assisting the patient to sign up for the lethal dose, providing that one of the required witnesses on the lethal dose request form not be a patient’s relative by blood, marriage or adoption.^[2] Supporters argue that the measure would give terminally ill patients dignity and control over their deaths, and would alleviate suffering. Opponents argue that the measure is morally wrong, and that beneficiaries of terminally ill patients could abuse the provisions presented by the proposal.

Voters blocked the measure by a thin margin in the November 6, 2012 general election, with 49% of voters for and 51% against.^[3]

The ballot language of the measure reads as follows:^[4]

A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at the request of a terminally-ill patient meeting certain conditions, to end that person’s life. A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws.

• The main supporters of the measure include The Massachusetts Death with Dignity Coalition.^[5]
• The Berkshire Eagle urges its voters to vote YES on question 2.^[6]

The following is information obtained from the supporting side of the initiative.

• According to Steve Crawford, spokesman for The Massachusetts Death with Dignity Coalition: "The act gives patients dignity, control, and peace of mind during their final days with their families and loved ones. These are very intimate personal choices that should remain in the hands of the individual not the government."^[7]
  • Crawford later stated in a newspaper interview: "This provides people with a choice to request, from their doctor, a medicine that would end their life, when other medical efforts to alleviate their pain and suffering are inadequate." Crawford also responded to Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley's comments against the initiative efforts by saying: "We certainly respect the cardinal's opinion and believe that the people of Massachusetts are ready for the discussion, about how best to provide peace, dignity, and control for terminally ill patients in their final days of life."^[8]
  • Crawford later stated about the measure, and the term "suicide" that some reports out of the state have termed it: "It's not suicide in the traditional sense of someone who suffers from depression or despair, and that's the distinction we hope to make in that language."^[9]
• Representative Louis Kafka is sponsoring a similar bill, but is not involved in the current initiative effort to place the ballot question on the ballot.^[7]
• Marcia Angell, MD, a Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, stated in an opinion piece, "I believe it is wrong to require dying patients, against their wishes, to continue on a downhill path of suffering."^[10]
• When circulating the petitions to place the measure on the 2012 ballot, or have it enacted by state legislature, signature gatherer Randee Laikind commented: "I try to be very polite. I say, 'Would you consider signing this petition to put the Death With Dignity Act on the ballot, so Massachusetts citizens can vote on it? I've never had anyone say no. They don't even ask me questions; they just say, 'Where do I sign?'"^[11]
• Kristen Bahler, columnist at The Next Great Generation, the measure deserves to be on the ballot, "[Physician-assisted death] certainly shouldn't be considered a crime. The idea that a dying patient—stripped of mobility, strength, and, as the proposal ascertains, dignity—can choose to end his or her suffering on terms undesignated by disease is, quite simply, beautiful. And even if you disagree...Voters should make that decision. Right now, the argument isn't whether physician-assisted suicide should be made legal; it's whether Massachusetts voters should get a say in the matter. Despite efforts to the contrary, we definitely, definitely should."^[12]
• According to Tim Kutzmark, a Unitarian-Universalist minister in Reading, "I've really changed...I believe that death is a highly personal experience, and it can be excruciating and drawn out for the individual who is ill and for their families. Sometimes what is best and right for the individual is to claim that moment of death for themselves, knowing they are freeing themselves from...needless pain and suffering."^[13]

• The main campaign against the measure is called Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide ^{[full citation needed]}
• Another opposition to the measure is the disability-rights group called Second Thoughts.^[14]
• Another opposition group is Mass Against Assisted Suicide.^[15]

The following is information obtained from the opposing side of the initiative:

• A group of disability rights advocates called Second Thoughts came out in opposition to the measure. Disability activist John Kelly leads the group. According to Kelly, when commenting on the measure and Oregon, who administers "Death with Dignity": "Some people may ask why disabled people are speaking out about problems with a proposal that's supposed to be about terminal illness, but when you look at the reasons Oregon reports for giving lethal prescriptions, it's mainly about the social and emotional issues of becoming disabled, like depending on others and feeling like a burden."^{[citation needed]}
• Kristian Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, commented on potential initiative petition signers: "Literally, some people will be signing their own death warrants. It's a further erosion of the sanctity of life in our commonwealth. You talk about the slippery slope; this is going off the cliff – morally."^[7]
• According to James Driscoll, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, "We are in support of any type of palliative care that relieves a patient's pain, but that does not promote a quicker end to life."^[7]
• Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, leader of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, stated at a Mass for state lawyers and jurists, without specifically referring to the initiative by name: "We are called upon to defend the gospel of life with courage and resolve. Your very profession invests in all of you a great responsibility to ensure that all laws are just."^[8]
  • O'Malley also claimed during the mass: "We hope that the citizens of the commonwealth will not be seduced by the language, 'dignity, mercy, compassion,' which are used to disguise the sheer brutality of helping someone to kill themselves."^[9]
  • Reverend J. Bryan Hehir stated about the cardinal's arguments: "The cardinal's point is that the act of suicide is always regarded as tragic...It is tragic in the sense that the act of...intentionally taking innocent human life is something that is always seen as against the good of the human person."^[16]
• Jennifer Popik, JD, of the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics called the measure a "threat", pointing out five points that make the measure dangerous, according to Popik. Popik stated: "While this ballot initiative poses a real threat to the people of Massachusetts, the same pro-doctor prescribed death lobby has been promoting a nearly identical measure far and wide across the nation for nearly two decades with very limited success...Once several key points about the law are considered, most states have rejected the notion that doctors ought to be able to prescribe death to patients." Read about those five points that Popik writes here.^[17][18]
• According to Massachusetts Against Assisted Suicide,^[19] the term "terminal patients" has also been the subject of opponents' arguments. The term, opponents say, does not necessarily mean a patient is dying. Opponents have presented a story of Oregon resident Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer and given 6 months to a year to live. She wanted the act of assisted death to be performed, but was persuaded by her doctor to be treated instead. She is still alive 11 years later, according to opponents of the measure.^[20]
• Dr. Lynda Young, MD, stated her opposition when she said, "Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer. Instead of participating in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life ... in order that these patients continue to receive emotional support, comfort care, adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy and good communication."^[21]
• According to Rabbi Andrew Vogel of Temple Sinai in Brookline, "Ultimately, the moment of death is not for us to decide. That's the gift of the spiritual tradition to say it's ultimately God's choice."^[13]
• Needham Board of Health member Jane Fogg stated about the organizations opposition, "We looked really at the practical nature of the law, and came down firmly on the side that we don't see this is written in a way to prevent potential abuse."^[22]

The Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide returned a $250,000 donation from a conservative Mississippi-based organization with anti-gay views in order to "keep the focus on the ballot question". The American Family Association was the largest single donor to the Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide with the remainder coming mainly from religious organizations.^[23]

• A poll that was released in early April 2012 by Public Policy Polling showed that those surveyed favored the measure 43% to 37%, with one-fifth of those polled showing they were undecided on the issue.^[24]
• A late-May poll was taken by both Western New England University and MassLive.com showing support for the measure 60% to 29%. The survey had a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points and polled 504 likely voters in the state.^[25]
• On August 22, 2012, Public Policy Polling released a poll which showed support for the measure 58% to 24%. The survey had a margin of error of +/-2.9% and surveyed 1,115 likely Massachusetts voters.^[26]

On May 17, 2012, over 60 Massachusetts voters including members of the disability rights group Second Thoughts filed a challenge before the Supreme Judicial Court against the measure, challenging the wording to the measure. On June 4, 2012, the claim was denied by Justice Cordy.^[27]

According to John Kelly, director of the Second Thoughts group, and who is listed in the title of the lawsuit, "The ballot language is clearly misleading. We want the voters of Massachusetts to know exactly what they are voting on this November." The petition asks the Supreme Judicial Court to remand the language to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Secretary of State William Galvin with the requirement that they amend the language for clarity and accuracy.^[28]

The case docket can be read here.^[29]