Angie Albonico, the person behind the petitioning effort to legalize assisting suicide in South Dakota, who is partnered with people behind the petitions to legalize recreational and medical pot, recorded a live public Facebook message yesterday afternoon that was very eye opening.
Albanico disclosed in response to whether they had sufficient numbers of signatures that it was “a hard question,” as they were still gathering signatures and were “super close,” which seems to give the indication that the promoters of this triumvirate of ballot measures to legalize drugs and suicide might find that they are not able to turn in sufficient signatures to make the 2018 ballot.
The assisted suicide measure, casually derided among some as “kill grandma” because of the wide-ranging definitions of who can request suicide assistance in the measure has already drawn an active opposition group, while the opponents of the measures that are attempting to legalize pot in the state are taking a wait and see position.
With petition measures being due to be turned in this week, it will likely be sometime next year before the Secretary of State’s office has petitions fully reviewed and it is determined which measures will be on the November 2018 ballot.
Maybe the people are getting smarter!
We’ve also heard from former workers and others knowledgeable with the campaign to “kill grandma” that they don’t have enough signatures. I have no additional information on the marijuana measures. The SOS will tweet the petitions tomorrow in the order they are received. We continue to work hard to defeat the killing grandma initiative.
Quack!
Yeah: stop this measure because self-inflicted gunshot wounds and suicide by cop are so much better.
Instead of killing one’s self with a firearm or having an officer be forced to do it, you’d prefer a pill. I see that life is not very important to you:(
How about this: Encourage someone to seek a counselor, medication prescribed by a doctor or just be a friend to someone who’s having thoughts of suicide. Life is worth living, things can always get better.
You and I live in the greatest country on Earth, if we were being raped daily by an ISIS member, living with the threat of being thrown from rooftops for being gay or being stoned to death for dressing too modestly, then we could possibly see eye-to-eye on taking our own life.
If Angie isn’t successful in gathering enough signatures by tomorrow, it won’t be for lack of trying. I frankly give her lots of credit for busting her butt. By all accounts, she is working really hard. However, what she doesn’t have is a sellable product that enough South Dakotans want to buy.
Despite her best efforts to convince South Dakotans that “Medical Aid in Dying” isn’t suicide, the majority of South Dakotans understand that the issue is suicide. When a person takes one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally . . . it’s SUICIDE. That’s the issue. Suicide.
What it comes down to is the question if South Dakotans want to legalize suicide. We’ll see what happens tomorrow. Either the fight ends for this election year, or it begins in earnest.
Because death with dignity is a poor substitute for a self-inflicted gunshot wound and suicide by cop.
Are all the chiropractors in South Dakota nuts or just the Republican ones?
Lar we all know it is you. You might as well put your name to the comments instead of posting anonymously before they are once again removed.
Just a reminder, posting via proxy server not allowed.
Ad hominem attacks are meaningless and irrelevant.
What’s important is Ms. Albanico and her supporters have worked hard to gather signatures for many months, but don’t appear to have sufficient support from South Dakotans to put her over the top.
Of course the numbers may change in the last day, so we’ll wait and see.
I’ve said all along this isn’t a typical Republican versus Democrat issue. Last session’s Concurrent Resolution that “strongly opposes and condemns physician-assisted suicide” passed by a margin of 99-4 and was supported by 75% of Democrats and 100% of Republicans; our nine member board overseeing Citizens Against Assisted Suicide consists of both Democrats and Republicans; and of the 23 states that introduced assisted-suicide in 2017, not a single state passed it, including blue states. Clearly, it’s an unpopular idea among both Democrats and Republicans.
For those that support it, the key to the politics of assisted-suicide lies in their belief that individuals should have the right to kill themselves, AND the belief that the state should permit physicians to intentionally assist patients to kill themselves. The justifications offered by advocates that the measure contains safeguards to protect society is blatantly false.
We’ll see what happens tomorrow. We’ll continue to fight it no matter how long it takes. It’s a terrible law.
Fred,
I’m glad you said this is non-partisan. Of all issues, this is the one in which my Democrat friends have most agreed. The two common rationales are:
1) Values with regard to the defenseless (yes, I take my shot on abortion).
2) Ease to pressure people to just give up, especially if they had “greedy heirs.”
Additionally, my position seems to surprise them as they think “my heartless fiscal conservatism” would cause me to be willing to just save the Medicaid and Medicare dollars “and get it over with.”
In one case, it led to a very enjoyable robust conversation about abortion, death penalty, assisted suicide and entitlement vs. equality of opportunity (and what that meant). This person (who I’ve known well for decades) remarked I must be in a minority of Republicans (which is crazy as this person knows many of the same Republicans I do and we all share these issues almost universally). I said actually if it weren’t for the death penalty (which I said most of you just need to think more deeper about!!!!), my views on these correspond with most Republicans I know and might be 80% or more. Yes, we sometimes disagree on detail or strategy but generally embrace the principles pretty broadly.
Thanks for the comments, Troy.
The big lie is that Assisted Suicide isn’t Suicide at all, it’s murder, perpetrated by whoever has power of attorney. We are all free to kill ourselves whenever we choose. The proposed measure makes it legal for somebody else to make the decision and carry out the act.
So how do medical directives, which are currently legal, fit into this debate? Especially, in reference to the comment, “The proposed measure makes its legal for somebody else to make the decision and carry out the act”…..?
EC, see Sections 16 and 17 for effects upon contracts:
Section 16
No provision in any contract, will, or other agreement, whether written or oral, to the extent the provision would affect whether a person may make or rescind a request for medication to end the person’s life in a humane and dignified manner, is valid.
No obligation under any currently existing contact may be conditioned or affected by the making or rescinding of a request, by a person, for medication to end the person’s life in a humane and dignified manner.
Section 17.
No sale, procurement, or issuance of any life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy or the rate charged for any policy may be conditioned upon or affected by the making or rescinding of a request, by a patient, for medication that the patient may self-administer to end the person’s in a humane and dignified manner. A qualified patients act of ingesting medication to end the patient’s life in a humane and dignified manner does not have an
effect upon any life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy.
But doesn’t Section 16 refer to a a third party, who under current law, has legitimate powers defined in a medical directive? So how from a ethical or moral position can this initiative be any different from a current medical directive to the degree that we are discussing the moral and ethical implications of ending ones life by an empowered third party?
And as far as Section 17 is concerned, wouldn’t this also be true under current law relative to a medical directive?
My overall point is this, doctors and family members play God every day in this state and country in dealing with end of life or quality of life decisions for other love ones. So if you oppose this initiative, then how can you still be in support of the legal concept of medical directives, which are currently legal and have been for years?
It appears to me that the major difference between this initiative and current laws and/or practices is that this initiative merely empowers the conscious patient; and that any concerns you may have with this initiative could also be used to argue against medical directives too, but I don’t hear anybody suggesting that idea who are opposed to this initiative, however.
EC,
A medical directive or living will is to provide instruction (either directly or by proxy) on what if any life SUSTAINING treatments are to be used.
Assisted suicide (or murder as Anne says) is instruction (directly or by proxy) on what if any life ENDING treatments are to be used.
Said another way, not resuscitating is not the same as putting a pillow over someone’s face.
Troy,
Thanks for the graphic. You are so giving. But doesn’t a MD and ASI begin with the approval of the patient in either case? And isn’t the absence of a “SUSTAINING” treatment a form of “ENDING?”
Oh, and if you cannot breathe, my guess is that the same panic comes into play whether it be a lack of resuscitation or too much pillow….
EC,
Yes. I could use another graphic since it seems it causes you some discomfort. I understand as this is a difficult and serious matter. So, I will avoid the graphic and just say common start doesn’t mean both ends are licit.
No. What is natural in the imminent process of occurring is what it is and trying to change that process is another matter.
Regarding your last comment, do you know what resuscitation means? It means the person has naturally ceased breathing (which means the person is unconscious) and an attempt is made to restart breathing or breath for them. I think it also includes heart has stopped as well but I’m not sure.
As far as your last comment, regardless, the panic is still there. If there is panic. And the “lack of resuscitation” or the allowing of the patient to get to that state, through the lack of aggressive life sustaining medical procedures, is analogous to the pillow concern, with the former being a by-product of a MD with or without ASI on the books.
And “What is natural” is still the reality dictated often by modern medicine by the presence or the absence of medicine, which a MD affords a third party to decide on.
EC,
I see a distinction in allowing nature to take its course without intervention and putting a pillow over their head. I am hopeful you do too and are just exploring various scenarios as you search for your position on the matter.
Assuming you do see the distinction, your comments infer there are some gray areas with regard to medical directives. I agree. But the reality there are gray areas on one end of the continuum is not a justification for moving the gray areas farther down the continuum.
I hear you Troy, but where I think you and I defer is to how far “down the continuum” we are really going from MD to ASI.
The great irony of this debate, however, is how ASI affords a conscious patient the ability to help make a decision concerning their known medical dilemma. Yet, somehow, that is more controversial then allowing a third party through a MD to make medical decisions for you. I mean, can you really be a member of your own “death panel?” And I could see where it would be much easier for a third party to be a part of, or implicit to, such a panel than a patient; which is a reality that only a MD can afford and MDs are currently legal without the controversy that ASIs have….
EC,
I must be dense because everything you just said is incomprehensible to me. I can’t even grasp a potential point. Sorry. Could be my limitations.