Voters in the state of Massachusetts will be given an opportunity to vote November 6 on whether or not to become the third U.S. state to legalize assisted suicide.

LifeSiteNews.com is reporting that voters will be able to weigh in on “Question 2: Prescribing Medication to End Life” at the polls next month. The measure would approve a law that is nearly identical to laws passed in Oregon in 1994 and Washington in 2008.

Even though recent polls show the public supports the law 58 to 24 with nearly one in five remaining undecided, this is a predominantly Catholic state with plenty of opponents in the Church who intend to speak out against the measure in coming weeks.

Opposition is also coming from doctors’ lobbies and disability groups. In fact, the Massachusetts Medical Society issued a strong statement opposing the measure for a variety of reasons:

* The proposed safeguards against abuse are insufficient. Enforcement provisions, investigation authority, oversight, or data verification are not included in the act. A witness to the patient’s signed request could also be an heir.

* Assisted suicide is not necessary to improve the quality of life at the end of life. Current law gives every patient the right to refuse lifesaving treatment, and to have adequate pain relief, including hospice and palliative sedation.

* Predicting the end of life within six months is difficult; sometimes the prediction is not accurate. From time to time, patients expected to be within months of their death have gone on to live many more months — or years. In one study, 17 percent of patients outlived their prognosis.

* Doctors should not participate in assisted suicide. The chief policy making body of the Massachusetts Medical Society has voted to oppose physician assisted suicide.

“Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good,” said Lynda M. Young, MD, past president of the MMS at a House Judiciary Committee hearing last spring.

“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. … Patients must continue to receive emotional support, comfort care, adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy, and good communication.”

John Kelly, Executive Director of Second Thoughts and former Chair of the Advisory Board to the Boston Disability Commission, said Question 2 contains a number of problems that are raising red flags among voters.

“We already have seen serious cost cutting pressures. We constantly hear about the costs of caring for people in the last year of their lives. We can point to examples in Oregon and Washington, where assisted suicide is legal of these implicit and explicit cost pressures. Ballot question 2 legalizes a $100 lethal prescription and that sends a terrible message to people living with serious illness or disability.”

These groups, along with faith-based organizations and disability rights groups have joined forces to combat the measure, calling themselves “No On Question 2”.

Dr. Peter Saunders, a physician and CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship of the UK, warned that both states where assisted  suicide is legal have experienced an increase in suicide since passing the measures.

He also dispels the rumor that opposition to assisted suicide is largely faith-based.

“In Massachusetts, as in the United Kingdom, the opposition of doctors and disabled people has been very significant indeed,” he writes.

“This is because one of the most powerful arguments against it is public safety – any change in the law will put pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives and no law can be adequately safeguarded against abuse.”

© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace®  http://www.womenofgrace.com