2012 Massachusetts Ballot Question Physician-Prescribed Suicide

Res Publica
2012 Massachusetts Ballot Question Physician-Prescribed Suicide
by David Trumbull -- November 30, 2012

One of the most liberal States in the Union, in an election in which the Democrats at the top of the ticket won by comfortable margins, narrowly defeated physician-prescribed suicide. Let's examine the data from the election and see what they may tell us about the voters.

1. Working class Democratic cities opposed Question 2.

The top 15 (by population) communities account for 30% of the total population of the Commonwealth. Question 2 was defeated in 10 of these communities: Brockton (63.8% opposed), Fall River (63.1%), Haverhill (53.8%), Lawrence (69.4%), Lowell (57.6%), Lynn (59.2%), New Bedford (62.5%), Quincy (54.1%), Springfield (65.5%). and Worcester (58.7%), by large margins. In Boston it barely (51%) passed. 26 municipalities account for 40% of the population of the Commonwealth; Question 2 was defeated in 20 of them.

The cities where Question 2 was defeated are, generally speaking, those that, historically, had large Catholic immigrant populations (French Canadians, Italians, Poles, and Portuguese) or substantial recent immigration of Catholics and conservative Evangelicals (Brazilians, Cape Verdeans, and Hispanics). They are also among the poorer communities in Massachusetts. Some of the cities most opposed to Question 2 also had sizeable African-American populations.

In the United States Senate election these communities most opposed to Question 2 went heavily for liberal Democrat Elizabeth Warren. Moderate Republican Scott Brown carried one of the top 15, and 5 out of the top 26. He was not even competitive in most of the rest of them. The cities populated by more affluent professionals, Brookline, Cambridge, and, Newton, also went heavily for the Democratic candidate, however they went equally heavily in favor of Question 2.

2. Many, but not all, Republican-leaning towns and small cities opposed Question 2.

Of 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth 166 had vote totals on Question 2 that were majority opposed. Once we look past the largest communities, find 156 small to medium sized communities where Question 2 was defeated. Scott Brown won 133 of them. These communities are among those that traditionally have supported Republicans and are among the more conservative in an otherwise liberal State.

My hypothesis is that Question 2 was defeated in part due to a competent organized opposition and the nature of turnout on Election Day, as driven by the candidates for the two major parties. Strong candidates from both parties and a hotly contested race brought high turnout. The large Democratic turnout for Ms. Warren in the cities may have brought to the polls a large number of economic liberal/social conservative voters in blue-color immigrant cities. While that also brought large numbers of social liberals to the polls in affluent cities and suburbs, the strong Republican support for Mr. Brown in the smaller more conservative communities may have brought out offsetting economic and social conservatives in those municipalities.

First, Do No Harm

POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
First, Do No Harm
by David Trumbull -- July 13, 2012

According to its promoters, the proposal to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Massachusetts has been certified to appear on our November ballots. The Archdiocese of Boston has launched a website, http://suicideisalwaysatragedy.org/ to educate voters about this ill-considered proposal, warning of doctor-prescribed death:

• It facilitates the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.
• It promotes a most insidious form of discrimination, especially against the disabled.
• Certain people claim for themselves the power to decide who ought to live and who ought to die.
• It harms the integrity of the physician/patient relationship.

I applaud Cardinal O'Malley for directing resources of the Archdiocese against this dangerous initiative. One hopes that in Massachusetts, one of the most Catholic States in the Union, voters will reject this assault on the dignity of all human life. Equally, I hope that opposition to physician-assisted suicide not become narrowly religious. Reason, unaided by Scripture, but guided by Nature, ought to lead one to reject doctor-prescribed death. Some ancient, pre-Christian scientists and philosophers did exactly that.

Ancient Roman statesman Cicero, writing in the first century before Christ, disparaged self-murder, likening the suicide to a soldier who deserts his post. In the Sixth Book of his De Re Publica, Cicero has us imagine the hero Publius Scipio Africanus the Younger (185–129 B.C.) visited, in a dream, by his dead father and grandfather. In the dream the elder Scipio (236-183 B.C.) tells his grandson that the dead are, in truth, more alive than the living, for they "have soared away from the bonds of the body, as from a prison-house; but your life, as it is called, is really death."

The younger Scipio responds to the ghost, "Why do I linger on earth? Why don't I hurry up and come to you there?" The answer is given: "Unless that God, to whom all this region that you can see belongs, has released you from the keeping of your body, the entrance to this place cannot be open to you... So, my Publius, you and all good men must allow the soul to remain in the keeping of the body, nor without His command, by whom it was given to you."

Even earlier, around the 5th century before Christ, physician-assisted suicide was rejected as incompatible with the healing profession. "First, do no harm," is a commonly voiced summary of the eponymous oath crafted by the ancient Greek physician, Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.). For centuries, physicians of all, and no, religious belief have recited:

"I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that...I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."

A Letter from Cardinal Sean Regarding Obama Administration Ruling

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Allow me this opportunity to share with you important information concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies. The Church has had to struggle against regulations like those now proposed by HHS in several states. This HHS ruling would expand and intensify a situation which is already very harmful.

In its ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled and must be prepared either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot simply accept this unjust law now proposed at the federal level. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

In order that we make every effort to respond to this proposed restriction on religious liberty I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I recommend that you visit the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website, www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration’s decision.

With the assurance of my prayers for you and all your loved ones, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Cardinal Seán O’Malley , OFM Cap.
Archbishop of Boston