Voters in the Tuesday, Nov. 6 election have some heavy decisions to make in two ballot questions: Question 2, prescribing medication to end life, and Question 3, the medical use of marijuana.
Question 2, the Death with Dignity Act, would allow a terminally ill person to request life-ending medication and has seen spirited arguments on both sides.
The most compelling argument we’ve heard against this question is that there is the potential for abuse through coercing a patient into the decision to end life. However, the proposed law details a slew of safeguards, including ones against coercion. The law takes into consideration a multitude of variables, both medical and personal, to ensure that this must be a sound decision and one belonging only to the patient.
For people who don’t believe it is morally wrong to make this decision, why shouldn’t they have this option in the face of severe pain that will only end with the announced arrival of death? We don’t believe people’s religious leanings should be permitted to keep choices away from others who don’t share the same ideals.
We see this as a matter of making options available to those who seek them, to no detriment of those who do not. We endorse voting yes on Question 2.
Question 3 is another instance of adding a tool for dealing with certain medical conditions. For those with some debilitating ailments, marijuana has shown potential
With the unsettling rise in criminal use of prescription narcotics, we think the use of medical treatment methods less nefarious should be embraced. We endorse voting yes on Question 3.
Question 1, known as the Right to Repair referendum, has become a dead issue. Both sides of this question reached a compromise and both suggest voters say no in order to avoid confusion should the measure be passed.
Font Resize
