Besides all the elective offices, there are three ballot questions that will be decided in Massachusetts tomorrow. I’ve made up my mind about two but am still struggling with the third.

Question One -“Availability of Motor Vehicle Repair Information” – Full info on this question from the Secretary of State’s website is here. Here’s what that site says in brief about the question:

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to allow vehicle owners and independent repair facilities in Massachusetts to have access to the same vehicle diagnostic and repair information made available to the manufacturers’ Massachusetts dealers and authorized repair facilities.

A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws.

I plan to vote YES. The anti argument that this will increase the cost of new cars and will make existing cars more vulnerable to theft gave me pause, but I think giving all repair facilities access to information needed to repair vehicles increases consumer choice.

Question Three – “Medical Use of Marijuana”

Full info on this question from the Secretary of State’s website is here. Here’s what that site says in brief about the question:

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law eliminating state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.

A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws.

I plan to vote NO on this. As much as I’d like to ease the pain and discomfort of those suffering from disease, I have come to believe that marijuana is a gateway drug to abuse of more potent drugs, especially prescription pain medication. Because I believe abuse of prescription meds has reached epidemic levels in our city, making it more difficult, not easier, to obtain entry-level drugs is an important step.

Question Two – “Prescribing Medication to End Life” is the one I’m still struggling with. Full info on this question from the Secretary of State’s website is here. Here’s what that site says in about the consequences of this question along with the arguments presented for and against:

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

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.

ARGUMENTS

As provided by law, the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

IN FAVOR: When my father was diagnosed with brain cancer, he had little time left. As his final days neared, he chose to use the Death with Dignity law in his home state of Oregon. The Massachusetts version, like those in other states, will allow mentally competent adults with no chance to survive their illness to take life-ending medication prescribed by a physician.

My dad knew he wanted to die in the comfort of his own home; competent and aware instead of detached and sedated; on his own terms instead of those of a fatal disease that had already taken too much.

My dad was already dying, but because of this law, he could say goodbye to those he loved, with dignity and grace in my mother’s arms.

I urge you to vote “Yes” because, while this choice isn’t for everyone, everyone has the right to this choice.

Authored by:
Heather Clish, Reading, MA
Dignity 2012
14 Mica Lane, Suite 210
Wellesley, MA 02481
781-237-5800
www.YesOnDignity.com

AGAINST: Question 2 restricts patients’ choices and control by enabling suicide as a substitute for quality health care. Question 2 is poorly written, confusing and lacks even the most basic safeguards. Patients would not be required to see a psychiatrist before obtaining the lethal drug. Many patients with a treatable form of depression could get a life-ending prescription, rather than effective psychological care. Also, the proposal lacks any public safety oversight after the fatal drug is obtained.

Question 2 does not require a consultation for palliative care, a compassionate form of care that eliminates pain and maximizes quality of life for the terminally ill. And, eligibility is based on a six-month life expectancy. Doctors agree these estimates are often wrong. Individuals can outlive their prognosis by months or even years. Massachusetts should improve access to quality health care for terminally ill patients, not access to suicide. Vote no on Question 2.

Authored by:
The Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide
One Beacon Street, Suite 1320
Boston, MA 02108
617-391-9663
www.StopAssistedSuicide.org

How life ends is a vitally important topic but I think we as a society have avoided a rational conversation on that topic. Any venture into that area in public discourse gets hijacked with politically motivated chants of “death panels” and “rationing.” Without having such a public discussion, I don’t think it’s appropriate to change the existing law yet so I’m leaning towards voting NO on this one. But I do sympathize with the arguments in favor which is why I have not yet finalized my opinion on this one.