West Virginians who vote in the coming general election will have a question posed about whether the state constitution should be amended to explicitly prohibit physician-assisted deaths.
Amendment One, which presents a heavy question about life and death, will typically be on the back of ballots — beneath national, state and local political races.
The explanation provided on ballots is that “The purpose of this amendment is to protect West Virginians against medically-assisted suicide.”
To vote in favor of the amendment, voters are instructed to darken the oval next to “FOR.” To vote against the amendment, voters are instructed to darken the oval next to “AGAINST.”
The amendment would add a section to the state Constitution to say, “No person, physician, or health care provider in the State of West Virginia shall participate in the practice of medically assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of a person.”
Furthermore, “Nothing in this section prohibits the administration or prescription of medication for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort while the patient’s condition follows its natural course; nor does anything in this section prohibit the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment, as requested by the patient or the patient’s decision-maker, in accordance with State law. Further, nothing in this section prevents the State from providing capital punishment.”
Physician-assisted death is legal in nine states — California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. It is an option given to individuals in Montana via court decision. Oregon became the first state to legalize physician-assisted death in 1997.
If the ballot measure passes, West Virginia policy would be diametrically opposed to those states.
The measure was placed on West Virginia ballots because members of the state Legislature passed a resolution during the most recent regular session. One of the most outspoken legislators has been Delegate Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock.
McGeehan has since distributed several written op-ed pieces to local newspapers and appeared in broadcast interviews with national platforms like Washington Watch, which is on streaming channels and Christian TV stations, and EWTN Pro Life Weekly, which stands for Eternal Word Television Network, a cable channel with Catholic-themed programming.
“Most people don’t even know that it’s illegal or legal. If you want to firmly prohibit it, put it in the state Constitution – because you never know who’s going to be in office next. It might not be guys like me. It might not be guys that are pro life on the Republican side. You do not want arbitrary judgments on good vs bad suicide being decided by government officials,” McGeehan said on Washington Watch earlier this year.
In a written opinion article distributed on his behalf by the state Legislature, McGeehan urged state residents to vote in favor of the amendment. He made reference to a study showing that in Canada the fifth most common cause of death is assisted suicide.
“That’s why it is vital to vote for Amendment One this November. It secures our state from medically-assisted suicide and the culture of indifference and carelessness it promotes. It affirms the goodness of suicide prevention. And it sends a clear and confident message that West Virginia is not a place of fear and despair, but a state of courage and hope,” McGeehan wrote.
West Virginians for Life, the state affiliate for the National Right to Life Committee, released a statement this week urging West Virginians to vote in favor of Amendment One.
“If there is a fear of pain at the end of life, good palliative care and hospice care are ways to provide comfort and care until a person’s life ends naturally,” said Mary Tillman, legislative coordinator for the West Virginia alliance for Ethical Health Care, a subcommittee of West Virginians for Life.
“A vote FOR Amendment One will protect all West Virginians from physician-assisted suicide. This November, please vote to keep West Virginia a state where all lives are valued and protected.”
The national organization Death with Dignity describes West Virginia as “under threat.” That organization characterizes West Virginia’s ballot measure as eliminating a potential option for terminally ill people.
“While Death with Dignity is already illegal under current West Virginia law, this constitutional amendment would mark the first time any state amended its constitution to explicitly prohibit aid in dying,” the organization wrote on its website.
“Never before has a legislature in this country mobilized an attack like this on terminally ill patients. And to make matters worse, proponents of the ban are on a press tour spreading malicious lies about how Death with Dignity works in states where it’s legal.”
ACLU West Virginia is also urging a no vote. The organization says medically assisted suicide is not legal in West Virginia. And the organization says constitutions exist to safeguard individual freedoms from government overreach — but this amendment does the exact opposite.
Eli Baumwell, interim executive director for ACLU West Virginia, said the amendment is an example of government overreach.
“‘Mountaineers are always free’ is a promise that the ACLU of West Virginia works every day to ensure is kept. Amendment One runs counter to that promise by enshrining a prohibition into the state constitution designed to take away the last free choice Mountaineers can make,” Baumwell said.
“West Virginians, like most Americans, do not believe that the government should interfere in personal medical decisions. As shown by the Legislature going zero for four last year in seeking permission from the people to modify our Constitution, they do not represent the will of the people. Instead, they represent a dangerous and out of touch minority: lawmakers who want to take the last medical decision you can ever make about yourself.”
Gov. Jim Justice, a Republican, seemed to be considering the matter when asked about his position on the constitutional amendment during a recent administration briefing. Generally, Justice described himself as pro-life and suggested it’s good for citizens to have a direct voting opportunity on the issue.
“I’m as pro-life as I can possibly get,” Justice said in response to a MetroNews question. “These issues, I guess, would have to go to a vote, is that correct? And so with all that being said, I think listening to the great people of West Virginia, letting them make the decision and everything is always the smart money to us.”
He continued, “I think to resolve an issue like this we go to the people. The people tell us what to do.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.