MASS. CITIZENS FOR LIFE has sent me the following email announcing the desire of several doctors wanting to bring physician assisted suicide to the Bay State!
Massachusetts has been targeted! We must prepare! This will be a huge job! We are working on setting up a committee to fight this horrendous petition.
Each of us individually needs must talk to as many people as possible. When you do, you will find that people are not well-informed. They do not realize that doctors can control pain, that most people who consider suicide are depressed and need help for that, and they do not realize the extent of elder abuse. Please talk to people. That will help you become more persuasive. These web sites will help you to answer the questions you are hearing.:
1) http://www.capwiz.com/media-action/mail/compose/?type=ME&alertid=&mediaid=2866&mediaid=2860
2) http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagoterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=Initiatives+%26+Other+Ballot+Questions&sid=Cago&b=terminalcontent&f=government_memopetitions&csid=Cago
We were checking MCFL News archives and found this article by Dr. Stanton who was among the first to recognize the dangers in euthanasia and assisted suicide. http://massprolife.com/euthanasia/43-reflective-articles/193-dr-joseph-stanton-against-doctor-prescribed-death.html
Please bookmark these websites and consult them regularly. We can do this! Anne
Massachusetts
Background
In Massachusetts, more people die annually from suicide than from motor vehicle accidents. [CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Apr. 24, 2008] In 2007, the state's suicide rate (8.0 per 100,000 people) was almost three times higher than the homicide rate (2.9 per 100,000 people).
According to Elder Abuse Daily, more than 1 in 10 Massachusetts elders are victims of abuse.
Current law regarding assisted suicide
Assisted suicide, including doctor-prescribed suicide, is a common law crime in Massachusetts.
Attempts to permit doctor-prescribed suicide
Bills were proposed in:
1995 (H 3173)
1997 (H 1543)
2009 (H 1468)
2011 (H 2233)
On August 2, 2011, supporters of doctor-prescribed suicide filed a petition seeking to put a measure called the Massachusetts "Death With Dignity Act" on the 2012 ballot. The proposal is virtually identical to their previous legislative attempts and mirrors the Oregon and Washington laws by the same name. The process for the measure actually reaching the voters requires several steps:
• The legal language on the petition must be approved by Attorney General Martha Coakley.
• The signatures of at least 68,911 registered voters must be obtained by mid-November.
• If the signature drive is successful, lawmakers have until May 2012 to either back the proposal, offer an alternative proposal, or permit the measure to go onto the November 2012 ballot.
• If the measure gets the go ahead to be placed on the November 2012 ballot, an addition 11,485 signatures must be collected.
Articles
"Drive begins to put assisted suicide law on the ballot next year"
(Boston Globe - August 4, 2011)
Backer of assisted suicide for certain terminally ill patients filed paperwork yesterday with Attorney General Martha Coakley to begin the process of bringing their plan, dubbed the Death with Dignity Act to the 2012 ballot.
"Backers of assisted suicide want 2012 ballot question in Mass."
(Milford Daily News - August 4, 2011)
A ballot question that would pave the way for assisted suicide for some terminally ill patients in Massachusetts could land in front of voters next year. Rep. Louis Kafka, D-Stoughton, who filed a bill earlier this year that resembles the assisted suicide ballot proposal, said the ballot initiative could draw more attention to the issue.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life
The Schrafft Center, 529 Main Street
Boston Massachusetts 02129
United States
We must stand up to this outrageous legislation! This must not even get onto the ballet in 2012, because if it does, we'll be legalizing euthanasia in this State! Let's say no to this issue, people, because if we don't say no, it will be as good as saying yes.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
REPEALING ROMNEYCARE!
Did you know that the Obama health plan is based on the plan passed by Governor Romney a few years back? Here's the second Mass. Citizens for Life letter, this one dealing with repealing it.
I want to share with you the reasons MCFL decided to initiate efforts to repeal Romneycare the answers to questions that have come up. The actual wording of the petition is at the end. I hope you are interested and will be able to take the time to read through it. -Anne
WHY HAS MCFL DECIDED TO LAUNCH THIS INITIATIVE PETITION DRIVE?
Our biggest budget item in 2009 and 2010 was fighting O-care before and after passage.
We still want to fight it. At first glance, it seems re-electing Sen. Brown is the only thing we can do. With the same philosophy of keeping the pot boiling that caused us to run so many ads, we realized there is something else we can do to keep the pot boiling - something that will also benefit us once O-care is repealed.
The purpose of the petition is to:
1) draw attention to the fact that MA, the prototype for O-care, is not happy with R-care.
2) make health care an issue in both state and federal 2012 elections, when the petition will be on the ballot.
3) get the repeal R-care process started. Once O-care is repealed, Massachusetts will still have our current care.
PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THE WHOLE LAW REPEALED. WHY HAVE YOU GONE WITH REPEALING JUST THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE?
Currently health care is much more imbedded in state law than federal. We can not just repeal the whole law the way the US House did, so we are repealing the individual mandate, which we feel will be the start of bringing down the whole law.
WHAT IS THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE?
Right now everyone in the state is required to buy health insurance or to pay a penalty.
WHAT IS THE REPEAL PROCESS?
The Attorney General has until the middle of September to approve the language of the Petition. We have until the middle of November to gather 68,000 signatures. In the spring of 2012, the legislature could pass it. If not, we gather 11,000 more signatures to put it on the ballot in November. If it wins, it automatically becomes law on Jan. 1, 2013. The legislature can not hinder with that because no appropriations are involved.
THIS PROCESS SOUNDS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE DID IN 1986
Yes, when MCFL put the abortion funding question on the ballot in 1986, it was a Constitutional Amendment. That meant the legislature had to approve it in two different sessions, which it did.
TO WHAT DO WE OBJECT?
The New York Times started reporting in 2009 that Massachusetts would have to ration health care. Almost everyone has had a problem because of this. A friend who is unemployed was forced by the state to buy expensive insurance instead of the more affordable one she wanted, young people are being offered part-time work instead of full-time because employers cannot afford their health insurance, 22,000 seniors lost their coverage, we have the highest premiums in the country, the longest waits for doctors, etc. This all leads to rationing and denial of care.
WE ARE A PRO-LIFE GROUP, WHY ARE WE TALKING ALL THIS FINANCIAL STUFF?
Prior to 2009, when the problems with these universal government health plans became obvious, our only financial interest had been abortion funding. When a program runs out of money, or imposes price controls, as Gov Patrick did, rationing occurs. O-care is intentionally designed to cut funding and impose rationing. In Massachusetts rationing is the unintended consequence of funding with general revenue. Burke Balch explained this when he spoke at the MCFL Convention in 2009 - "Why Americans Can Afford Unrationed Health Care". Finances, or the lack thereof, have become a pro-life concern.
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY SAYING THAT MASSACHUSETTS' PROBLEMS ARE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES?
When this legislation was proposed and passed in 2005-2006, people thought they would pay a little more in taxes and that would be used to buy insurance for people who couldn't afford to buy their own. Governor Romney, who proposed the plan designed by the Heritage Foundation, and the legislature all had the best of intentions. It has not worked out as planned. We still want quality health care for all so it is time to learn from our mistakes and move on.
THE PRESS WANTS TO KNOW WHY MCFL IS CONCERNED ABOUT RATIONING.
The press would like to pigeon-hole us solely as "anti-abortion". In fact, our Mission Statement charges us with defending life at all stages of development "through comprehensive educational, legislative, political, and charitable activities". This includes, as well as unborn babies, people with disabilities, people who are terminally ill, people who are elderly - all those on the fringes of life. They are the victims of rationing and denial of care.
WHY ARE YOU NOT STRESSING ABORTION FUNDING?
Prior to O-care, the federal government was pretty much out of the abortion funding business. No so in Massachusetts.
Congressman Henry Hyde announced in the summer of 1976, in Faneuil Hall that he was going to file his bill. Shortly, State Reps Charlie Doyle and Ray Flynn filed their bill in Massachusetts to prohibit state funds for abortion. Hearings were held in the summer of 1977, and Gov. Ed King signed the bill into law in June of 1979.
It was immediately challenged and, in 1981, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned it with a most peculiar ruling. The ruling completely ignored the arguments, which had been presented to the Court, in finding a constitutional right to have one's abortion paid for with state money. They used the term "medically necessary". Post Roe v Wade, that, of course, means "all".
Massachusetts has paid for Medicaid abortions since 1973 - covering 100% of the cost since passage of the Hyde Amendment.
For insured people, there were a very few private insurance programs which did not pay for abortion, but under O-care, those "designer" programs have been put out of business. That means the premiums you pay to your private insurer pay for abortions. Right now, the state of Massachusetts is, essentially, paying the premiums to insurance companies which pay for abortions - like the rest of us, unfortunately.
WHAT DOES THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE HAVE TO DO WITH RATIONING?
We are not saying the individual mandate, in and of itself, causes rationing. We are saying that the whole law causes rationing and repealing the individual mandate is the best way to start to repeal the whole law.
WHAT DOES THE PETITION ACTUALLY SAY?
An Initiative Petition to Repeal the Individual Mandate in the Act Providing Access To Affordable, Quality Health Care
Pursuant to the provisions of Article forty-eight of the Amendments of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the undersigned qualified voters of the Commonwealth, being ten in number at least, petition for an initiative law to repeal the individual mandate, which requires residents of Massachusetts to obtain health care coverage or be subjected to a penalty or sanction for failure to do so.
Section 1. Notwithstanding any provisions of any general or specific law to the contrary, M.G.L. 111M, "Individual Health Coverage," will be stricken in its entirety, so that no individual shall be required to purchase health insurance or be subjected to any penalty or sanction for declining to do so.
Section 2. Notwithstanding any general or specific law to the contrary, Chapter 58, 830 CRM 111M.2.1 will be stricken in its entirety.
Section 3. The effective date of this act is January 1, 2013.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life
The Schrafft Center, 529 Main Street
Boston Massachusetts 02129
United States
If you are interested in helping to repeal the RomneyCare nightmare, please visit http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/ today. And remember, defending life is a part of Catholic social justice. Without it, you and I won't be able to take care of the other issues. God bless and thank you.
I want to share with you the reasons MCFL decided to initiate efforts to repeal Romneycare the answers to questions that have come up. The actual wording of the petition is at the end. I hope you are interested and will be able to take the time to read through it. -Anne
WHY HAS MCFL DECIDED TO LAUNCH THIS INITIATIVE PETITION DRIVE?
Our biggest budget item in 2009 and 2010 was fighting O-care before and after passage.
We still want to fight it. At first glance, it seems re-electing Sen. Brown is the only thing we can do. With the same philosophy of keeping the pot boiling that caused us to run so many ads, we realized there is something else we can do to keep the pot boiling - something that will also benefit us once O-care is repealed.
The purpose of the petition is to:
1) draw attention to the fact that MA, the prototype for O-care, is not happy with R-care.
2) make health care an issue in both state and federal 2012 elections, when the petition will be on the ballot.
3) get the repeal R-care process started. Once O-care is repealed, Massachusetts will still have our current care.
PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THE WHOLE LAW REPEALED. WHY HAVE YOU GONE WITH REPEALING JUST THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE?
Currently health care is much more imbedded in state law than federal. We can not just repeal the whole law the way the US House did, so we are repealing the individual mandate, which we feel will be the start of bringing down the whole law.
WHAT IS THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE?
Right now everyone in the state is required to buy health insurance or to pay a penalty.
WHAT IS THE REPEAL PROCESS?
The Attorney General has until the middle of September to approve the language of the Petition. We have until the middle of November to gather 68,000 signatures. In the spring of 2012, the legislature could pass it. If not, we gather 11,000 more signatures to put it on the ballot in November. If it wins, it automatically becomes law on Jan. 1, 2013. The legislature can not hinder with that because no appropriations are involved.
THIS PROCESS SOUNDS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE DID IN 1986
Yes, when MCFL put the abortion funding question on the ballot in 1986, it was a Constitutional Amendment. That meant the legislature had to approve it in two different sessions, which it did.
TO WHAT DO WE OBJECT?
The New York Times started reporting in 2009 that Massachusetts would have to ration health care. Almost everyone has had a problem because of this. A friend who is unemployed was forced by the state to buy expensive insurance instead of the more affordable one she wanted, young people are being offered part-time work instead of full-time because employers cannot afford their health insurance, 22,000 seniors lost their coverage, we have the highest premiums in the country, the longest waits for doctors, etc. This all leads to rationing and denial of care.
WE ARE A PRO-LIFE GROUP, WHY ARE WE TALKING ALL THIS FINANCIAL STUFF?
Prior to 2009, when the problems with these universal government health plans became obvious, our only financial interest had been abortion funding. When a program runs out of money, or imposes price controls, as Gov Patrick did, rationing occurs. O-care is intentionally designed to cut funding and impose rationing. In Massachusetts rationing is the unintended consequence of funding with general revenue. Burke Balch explained this when he spoke at the MCFL Convention in 2009 - "Why Americans Can Afford Unrationed Health Care". Finances, or the lack thereof, have become a pro-life concern.
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY SAYING THAT MASSACHUSETTS' PROBLEMS ARE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES?
When this legislation was proposed and passed in 2005-2006, people thought they would pay a little more in taxes and that would be used to buy insurance for people who couldn't afford to buy their own. Governor Romney, who proposed the plan designed by the Heritage Foundation, and the legislature all had the best of intentions. It has not worked out as planned. We still want quality health care for all so it is time to learn from our mistakes and move on.
THE PRESS WANTS TO KNOW WHY MCFL IS CONCERNED ABOUT RATIONING.
The press would like to pigeon-hole us solely as "anti-abortion". In fact, our Mission Statement charges us with defending life at all stages of development "through comprehensive educational, legislative, political, and charitable activities". This includes, as well as unborn babies, people with disabilities, people who are terminally ill, people who are elderly - all those on the fringes of life. They are the victims of rationing and denial of care.
WHY ARE YOU NOT STRESSING ABORTION FUNDING?
Prior to O-care, the federal government was pretty much out of the abortion funding business. No so in Massachusetts.
Congressman Henry Hyde announced in the summer of 1976, in Faneuil Hall that he was going to file his bill. Shortly, State Reps Charlie Doyle and Ray Flynn filed their bill in Massachusetts to prohibit state funds for abortion. Hearings were held in the summer of 1977, and Gov. Ed King signed the bill into law in June of 1979.
It was immediately challenged and, in 1981, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned it with a most peculiar ruling. The ruling completely ignored the arguments, which had been presented to the Court, in finding a constitutional right to have one's abortion paid for with state money. They used the term "medically necessary". Post Roe v Wade, that, of course, means "all".
Massachusetts has paid for Medicaid abortions since 1973 - covering 100% of the cost since passage of the Hyde Amendment.
For insured people, there were a very few private insurance programs which did not pay for abortion, but under O-care, those "designer" programs have been put out of business. That means the premiums you pay to your private insurer pay for abortions. Right now, the state of Massachusetts is, essentially, paying the premiums to insurance companies which pay for abortions - like the rest of us, unfortunately.
WHAT DOES THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE HAVE TO DO WITH RATIONING?
We are not saying the individual mandate, in and of itself, causes rationing. We are saying that the whole law causes rationing and repealing the individual mandate is the best way to start to repeal the whole law.
WHAT DOES THE PETITION ACTUALLY SAY?
An Initiative Petition to Repeal the Individual Mandate in the Act Providing Access To Affordable, Quality Health Care
Pursuant to the provisions of Article forty-eight of the Amendments of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the undersigned qualified voters of the Commonwealth, being ten in number at least, petition for an initiative law to repeal the individual mandate, which requires residents of Massachusetts to obtain health care coverage or be subjected to a penalty or sanction for failure to do so.
Section 1. Notwithstanding any provisions of any general or specific law to the contrary, M.G.L. 111M, "Individual Health Coverage," will be stricken in its entirety, so that no individual shall be required to purchase health insurance or be subjected to any penalty or sanction for declining to do so.
Section 2. Notwithstanding any general or specific law to the contrary, Chapter 58, 830 CRM 111M.2.1 will be stricken in its entirety.
Section 3. The effective date of this act is January 1, 2013.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life
The Schrafft Center, 529 Main Street
Boston Massachusetts 02129
United States
If you are interested in helping to repeal the RomneyCare nightmare, please visit http://www.masscitizensforlife.org/ today. And remember, defending life is a part of Catholic social justice. Without it, you and I won't be able to take care of the other issues. God bless and thank you.
OUR WORST NIGHTMARE!
In this post, I share with you the first of 2 emails I got from Mass. Citizens for Life. The first one deals with physician assisted suicide in Massachusetts, which may or may not go on the ballot during election 2012.
For the past couple of years, "Death With Dignity", "Compassion in Dying" and the rest of the DEATH LOBBY have been announcing that they would sponsor an Initiative Petition in New England. Massachusetts and Vermont are the only states where that can be done. The people in Vermont held them off this winter, with a little help from us.
Well, the sword of Damocles has fallen! Last week they filed the petition below.
Polls show that, until they are educated, people fall hook line and sinker for the death rhetoric. When you read their petition you will see it is like a siren song.
There will be so much for us to do to protect vulnerable people.
The first need: if you are a nurse or if you have survived a fatal diagnosis, please contact me right away by pressing "reply". Bless you! Anne
BACKERS OF ASSISTED SUICIDE FOR TERMINALLY ILL LOOK TO BALLOT
By Kyle Cheney
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, AUG. 3, 2011&..Voters may be asked to determine the fate of a proposal permitting dying patients to take life-ending drugs, a wrenching issue that backers say is a matter of dignity for the terminally ill but opponents have warned is fraught with the potential for error.
Backers of assisted suicide for certain terminally ill patients filed paperwork with Attorney General Martha Coakley on Wednesday to begin the process of bringing their plan, dubbed the Death With Dignity Act,to the 2012 ballot.
The proposed law asks voters to recognize that it is in the public interest to permit patients with a terminal disease that will cause death within six monthsto obtain drugs to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.The plan also requires the patient to be capable of making medical decisions and to consult with physicians.
It is further declared that the public welfare requires that such a process be entirely voluntary on the part of all participants, including the patient, his or her physicians, and any other health care provider or facility providing services or care to the patient,according to the text of the proposal.
Only two states, Washington and Oregon, have legalized assisted suicide.
To reach the ballot, backers must have the language of their plan certified by Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has until early September to make a determination. Then, proponents must gather 68,911 signatures by mid-November. If the signature drive succeeds, lawmakers have until May 2012 to back the proposal, offer an alternative or permit the plan to go to the ballot undeterred. Barring legislative intervention, backers would need to collect an additional 11,485 signatures before sending the plan to voters in November 2012.
The proposal adds another divisive issue to a growing list of potential 2012 ballot questions that already includes the legalization and regulation of medical marijuana, the repeal of Massachusettss individual mandate to obtain health insurance, a requirement that school personnel decisions prioritize teacher evaluation results and a bill requiring auto manufacturers to sell repair information to independent mechanics.
Rep. Louis Kafka (D-Stoughton) filed a bill earlier this year that resembles the assisted suicide ballot proposal, and he told the News Service that a ballot push could draw attention to the issue.
As Im finding out, more people in the general public are interested in the issue because of personal either having family members that have gone through serious and painful deaths, illnesses and then death, and would have, in their opinion, benefited from such a law,Kafka said in a phone interview, adding the he learned of the proposal Wednesday and is not one of the ballot drive organizers. Perhaps educating the public and then pursuing a law from the standpoint of a ballot question may be a better vehicle than legislation.
Usually an issue like this could take two or three or four sessions before, as I like to put it, the time has come for passage,Kafka continued. I think we could work together to the issues advantage, giving people the ability to die with dignity.
Kafkas bill (H 2233) has been cosponsored by six colleagues and is scheduled for a hearing in the fall.
An iteration of the proposal that Kafka offered last session drew concern from critics who said it could result in unintended consequences, such as accidentally leaving lethal prescriptions accessible to children or unauthorized users. In addition, during a hearing on the proposal last year, one supporter of the bill said it failed to account for patients who are mentally capable of making health care decisions but unable to speak.
The proposed ballot question requires patients to make an oral and a written requestfor life-ending drugs and then reiterate that request 15 days later in the presence of an attending physician.
The proposal requires that a written request for the drugs be submitted and signed by a patient, as well as two individuals who attest that the patient has not been coerced. One of the witnesses must be someone other than a blood relative, a beneficiary of the patients estate or the patients attending physician.
Doctors who receive such requests must verify that their patientsillnesses are terminal, that they are Massachusetts residents, inform them of potential alternatives including hospice care, pain control and comfort care refer them to another doctor for a second medical opinion, and remind them that they may change course at any time.
A patient shall not receive a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner unless he or she has made an informed decision,according to the proposal. Immediately before writing a prescription for medication under this [law], the attending physician shall verify that the patient is making an informed decision.
The proposal also provides immunity from criminal, civil or professional penalties for health care providers who follow the law.
-END-
08/03/2011
Massachusetts Citizens for Life
The Schrafft Center, 529 Main Street
Boston Massachusetts 02129
United States
Let us do whatever it takes to stop physician assisted suicide from becoming a reality here in the Bay State! After all, euthanasia is a non-negotiable issue.
For the past couple of years, "Death With Dignity", "Compassion in Dying" and the rest of the DEATH LOBBY have been announcing that they would sponsor an Initiative Petition in New England. Massachusetts and Vermont are the only states where that can be done. The people in Vermont held them off this winter, with a little help from us.
Well, the sword of Damocles has fallen! Last week they filed the petition below.
Polls show that, until they are educated, people fall hook line and sinker for the death rhetoric. When you read their petition you will see it is like a siren song.
There will be so much for us to do to protect vulnerable people.
The first need: if you are a nurse or if you have survived a fatal diagnosis, please contact me right away by pressing "reply". Bless you! Anne
BACKERS OF ASSISTED SUICIDE FOR TERMINALLY ILL LOOK TO BALLOT
By Kyle Cheney
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, AUG. 3, 2011&..Voters may be asked to determine the fate of a proposal permitting dying patients to take life-ending drugs, a wrenching issue that backers say is a matter of dignity for the terminally ill but opponents have warned is fraught with the potential for error.
Backers of assisted suicide for certain terminally ill patients filed paperwork with Attorney General Martha Coakley on Wednesday to begin the process of bringing their plan, dubbed the Death With Dignity Act,to the 2012 ballot.
The proposed law asks voters to recognize that it is in the public interest to permit patients with a terminal disease that will cause death within six monthsto obtain drugs to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.The plan also requires the patient to be capable of making medical decisions and to consult with physicians.
It is further declared that the public welfare requires that such a process be entirely voluntary on the part of all participants, including the patient, his or her physicians, and any other health care provider or facility providing services or care to the patient,according to the text of the proposal.
Only two states, Washington and Oregon, have legalized assisted suicide.
To reach the ballot, backers must have the language of their plan certified by Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has until early September to make a determination. Then, proponents must gather 68,911 signatures by mid-November. If the signature drive succeeds, lawmakers have until May 2012 to back the proposal, offer an alternative or permit the plan to go to the ballot undeterred. Barring legislative intervention, backers would need to collect an additional 11,485 signatures before sending the plan to voters in November 2012.
The proposal adds another divisive issue to a growing list of potential 2012 ballot questions that already includes the legalization and regulation of medical marijuana, the repeal of Massachusettss individual mandate to obtain health insurance, a requirement that school personnel decisions prioritize teacher evaluation results and a bill requiring auto manufacturers to sell repair information to independent mechanics.
Rep. Louis Kafka (D-Stoughton) filed a bill earlier this year that resembles the assisted suicide ballot proposal, and he told the News Service that a ballot push could draw attention to the issue.
As Im finding out, more people in the general public are interested in the issue because of personal either having family members that have gone through serious and painful deaths, illnesses and then death, and would have, in their opinion, benefited from such a law,Kafka said in a phone interview, adding the he learned of the proposal Wednesday and is not one of the ballot drive organizers. Perhaps educating the public and then pursuing a law from the standpoint of a ballot question may be a better vehicle than legislation.
Usually an issue like this could take two or three or four sessions before, as I like to put it, the time has come for passage,Kafka continued. I think we could work together to the issues advantage, giving people the ability to die with dignity.
Kafkas bill (H 2233) has been cosponsored by six colleagues and is scheduled for a hearing in the fall.
An iteration of the proposal that Kafka offered last session drew concern from critics who said it could result in unintended consequences, such as accidentally leaving lethal prescriptions accessible to children or unauthorized users. In addition, during a hearing on the proposal last year, one supporter of the bill said it failed to account for patients who are mentally capable of making health care decisions but unable to speak.
The proposed ballot question requires patients to make an oral and a written requestfor life-ending drugs and then reiterate that request 15 days later in the presence of an attending physician.
The proposal requires that a written request for the drugs be submitted and signed by a patient, as well as two individuals who attest that the patient has not been coerced. One of the witnesses must be someone other than a blood relative, a beneficiary of the patients estate or the patients attending physician.
Doctors who receive such requests must verify that their patientsillnesses are terminal, that they are Massachusetts residents, inform them of potential alternatives including hospice care, pain control and comfort care refer them to another doctor for a second medical opinion, and remind them that they may change course at any time.
A patient shall not receive a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner unless he or she has made an informed decision,according to the proposal. Immediately before writing a prescription for medication under this [law], the attending physician shall verify that the patient is making an informed decision.
The proposal also provides immunity from criminal, civil or professional penalties for health care providers who follow the law.
-END-
08/03/2011
Massachusetts Citizens for Life
The Schrafft Center, 529 Main Street
Boston Massachusetts 02129
United States
Let us do whatever it takes to stop physician assisted suicide from becoming a reality here in the Bay State! After all, euthanasia is a non-negotiable issue.
Monday, March 28, 2011
JUST A FOLLOW UP...
Sure, this country was built on freedom of choice, but it was also founded on the most fundamental right of them all: The Right to Life. You can't compromise your personal beliefs for the sake of political or social gain. And of course, you can't make a moral wrong a civil right. I'm not pro-choice; I'm pro-life. And if I want to say something, I have a right to say it.
After all, there are five non-negotiable issues: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and same sex marriage. They are all moral wrongs, and you can't change them into civil rights.
And to those students at Brown University, we don't hate you at all. We just hate the things you stand for. Those people weren't spreading hate speech; they were standing up for what's good and noble in God's eyes. Sinners though we are, we are called to love the sinner and admonish the sin.
The students at Brown University ought to be ashamed of themselves and their college.
After all, there are five non-negotiable issues: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and same sex marriage. They are all moral wrongs, and you can't change them into civil rights.
And to those students at Brown University, we don't hate you at all. We just hate the things you stand for. Those people weren't spreading hate speech; they were standing up for what's good and noble in God's eyes. Sinners though we are, we are called to love the sinner and admonish the sin.
The students at Brown University ought to be ashamed of themselves and their college.
IT'S BEEN A WHILE, BUT...
It's been a while, but here I am! And here I am with a link to what happened when the America Needs Fatima group campaigned for traditional marriage at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island! You can visit this link to see what it was all about:
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/street-campaigns/video-pro-homosexuals-at-brown-university-respond-to-peaceful-tfp-rally-with-violence.html?utm_source=sm&utm_medium=email&utm_content=SAE0050&utm_campaign=MainNewsletter
Also, I have to complain about Mr. Scott Brown. I voted for him because I was hoping he'd stand up for the right to life. But the bastard is coming out for the Planned Parenthood group! He refuses to help defund Planned Parenthood and to stop the abortion mills. He's a jerk, if you ask me. NO! He's more than that; he's a traitor! We elected him because we believed that he would help Massacvhusetts, but no, he's selling us out!
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/street-campaigns/video-pro-homosexuals-at-brown-university-respond-to-peaceful-tfp-rally-with-violence.html?utm_source=sm&utm_medium=email&utm_content=SAE0050&utm_campaign=MainNewsletter
Also, I have to complain about Mr. Scott Brown. I voted for him because I was hoping he'd stand up for the right to life. But the bastard is coming out for the Planned Parenthood group! He refuses to help defund Planned Parenthood and to stop the abortion mills. He's a jerk, if you ask me. NO! He's more than that; he's a traitor! We elected him because we believed that he would help Massacvhusetts, but no, he's selling us out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)