Short name: oppose legalized euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide

Sponsor: David Rolde,

seeking co-sponsors

Seeking review and feedback from Plaftorm Committee (if it is reconvened), Legislative Committee, Membership Committee (because this relates to issues of disabled people and other diverse populations), GRP local chapters, Adcom, Statecom members

Summary:

This proposal is for the GRP to oppose the legalization of euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide. Medical professionals should not be killing people or prescribing death.

Background:

Euthanasia and/or doctor-assisted suicide has been legalized in several countries in Europe (e.g. The Netherlands and Belgium), in several U.S. states (e.g., Oregon, Washington and California) and in Canada. This has resulted in patients being encouraged to kill themselves or be euthanized by healthcare workers and insurance companies.

In Oregon and California, cancer patients have received letters from their insurance companies not only denying coverage for treatments prescribed by their doctors, but also specifically informing them that assisted death would be covered. Even without legalized assisted suicide, disabled people seeking healthcare often have to deal with healthcare workers who say that they would’t want to live with that disability (e.g., quadriplegia). With legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide, healthcare professionals sometimes actually recommend and offer assisted death to disabled and elderly people who present with even minor and treatable health conditions, and in some cases people have been euthanized against their will. In the Netherlands and Belgium the situation has progressed to the point that euthanasia is sometimes being prescribed for young people for post-traumatic stress and depression.

In the U.S. we do not have good health care available to everyone. We need to provide universal free good healthcare, not provide assisted suicide and euthanasia. I n 2012 Massachusetts voters defeated a statewide ballot question that would have legalized doctor-assisted suicide. The ballot question was defeated by voters in municipalities with a high proportion of low-income and non-white people. National disability rights groups such as ADAPT and The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund oppose legalizing assisted suicide. Single-issue orgs in opposition to assisted suicide include the national group Not Dead Yet and the Massachusetts-based group Second Thoughts which are both led by disability rights activists. Despite the defeat of the ballot question in Massachusetts in 2012, there is a new bill before the Massachusetts state legislature every year to try to legalize assisted suicide. Disability rights activists and other progressive activists have to testify against the bill every year. This year assisted suicide was legalized in New Jersey and in Maine last week.

This year for the first time the majority of legislators on the statehouse committee vetting the assisted suicide bill are proponents of the bill. We really need the Green-Rainbow Party to be active in the opposition in order to defeat the bill this year. The American Medical Association is still opposed to assisted suicide. Doctors and other healthcare workers are supposed to help people live not kill people. Euthanasia and assisted suicide violate the hippocratic oath.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia are a murderous policy against disabled people, elderly people (There is a high rate of elder abuse in Massachusetts), poor people and people of colonized and oppressed nationalities (non-white people). Their lives are not valued. We must value their lives and provide them with good health care, housing, help to take care of themselves and everything they need to live comfortably and happily.

Proposal text:

1.The Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts will take a position in opposition to legalized doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia. 2. GRP will add this position to our Party Agenda and/or to future platform documents

2. GRP will oppose bills at the Massachusetts statehouse that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia this year (2019) and in future years.

3. GRP will submit a proposal this year (2019) to amend the GPUS Platform to oppose doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Implementation: reconvened Platform Committee, Legislative Committee, GRP rep(s) to GPUS Platform Committee, Adcom

Financial Impact:

possibility of contributing up to a few hundred dollars towards written material and forums in opposition to assisted suicide to be co-sponsored by GRP and other orgs working to oppose legalization of assisted suicide in Massachusetts. But we could implement the proposal without this spending.

Sponsor: Charlene DiCalogero

Co-sponsor: Roni Beal

Shepherd: Charlene DiCalogero

Committees Requested to Review:

All Working Committees: CDLC, Communication, Convention Planning, Finance and Fundraising, Legislative, Membership and Diversity, Tech

Text of Proposal

Procedures for a New Member to Join a Working Committee

1. A member wishing to join a Working Committee, Task Group, AdHoc or other working team (referred to as “the Working Committee” below) shall make their request in writing to the Committee co-chairs, who will bring the request to the next Committee meeting.

2. The Working Committee will respond in a timely manner to the member’s request and let them know the date and time of the upcoming Committee meeting at which the request will be considered.

3. The Working Committee will use the consensus process to decide whether the member shall be accepted. If those with concerns will not stand aside, the decision to decline acceptance of a new committee member shall be put to a vote by the current committee members, and decided by a simple majority vote.

4. The co-chairs or secretary shall notify the member of the committee’s decision in a timely manner.

5. If the Working Committee has declined the new member’s request, Committee co-chairs will give a written statement to the requesting member, as well as to the State Committee, giving the reason(s) for the Committee’s decline of their request to join the committee.

Principles

6. A state-level Working Committee (including AdHoc and Task Groups) shall have the right to accept or decline to accept a new member for the following reasons:

a. The Working Committee is fully staffed (in most cases 7 or more active Committee members);

b. The member requesting to join the Committee has been witnessed by party members at a meeting, online or elsewhere to have verbally or physically harassed, threatened or attacked party officers, candidates or other members in meetings, online or in public forums, or in other ways attempted to disrupt the business of the party.

Procedures for a Member to be Removed from a Working Committee

1. The Working Committee member shall be notified at a meeting, or by phone or email that they are likely to be removed for non-attendance at multiple meetings (3 in a row or half of all meetings in a 6 month period), non-completion of tasks, and/or disruptive behavior. If a member responds promptly and can provide acceptable reasons for past non-attendance and task non-completion, the co-chairs may decide at their discretion to hold off on removing the member.

2. If the member continues the problematic behavior, the co-chairs shall give written notification to the member that they are being removed from the Committee effective as of the date of the communication, giving the reason(s), and shall send a copy to State Committee and party officers.

3. The Working Committee shall document, as well as they can, dates, times, and places when disruptive behavior occurred, a brief description of the disruptive behavior, and those who claim to have witnessed the behavior.

4. The member can request to be reinstated if they can assure the co-chairs and the Working Committee members that their circumstances have changed such that they are now able to regularly attend and/or carry out tasks. The Co-chairs have discretion in deciding whether to reinstate a member.

5. If a reinstated member again fails in the basic obligations of attendance and task completion, the member can be removed and banned from that committee for an extended period.

Background

Working Committees, Task Groups and similar bodies are critical to the carrying out of duties and decisions of the State Committee and its designated officers and directors. This policy attempts to support the committees in accepting or declining new members, and removing non-contributing or disruptive members, in order to enhance the Green-Rainbow Party’s effectiveness in carrying out its political goals.

Party members and Working Committees need a clear process for making or responding to requests to join a committee, and if necessary, to decline to accept a new member to a committee; or if a Committee member is not fulfilling their responsibilities to attend and participate cooperatively in meetings and carry out tasks, the process for a Committee to remove non-contributing or disruptive members.

It sometimes happens that a Working Committee wishes to decline a member wishing to join its committee. Two main reasons are:

1) It already has sufficient members to do the work of the committee;

2) One or more members have previous experience with the person requesting to join the Committee that includes a history of being disruptive to the functioning of the party. Such a history may include, though is not necessarily limited to, the following behaviors:

a. bringing up personal grievances in party committee meetings

b. intentionally posting false information about a member, candidate, or committee, or party policy or position on a Green-Rainbow email list or social media

c. repeatedly shouting over other members who have the floor in a meeting

d. name calling

e. verbally attacking other members based on race, religion, age, gender, or other characteristics

f. sexual harassment or assault

g. physical intimidation or overt violence, or

h. otherwise making it extremely difficult for the rest of the members of the Committee to carry out their work, above and beyond principled disagreement.

As many people are aware, numerous progressive organizations in the U.S. have historically been targeted for disruption by governmental, corporate and other groups, as well as individuals. The likelihood is that this continues in the present. Another cause for disruptive behavior may individuals whose behavior is motivated by attempts to inappropriately meet personal needs for attention, power, or other goals.

We want to be as welcoming as possible to all party members wishing to be active on Working Committees. We understand there are times when people have principled and legitimate political disagreements and concerns. This policy is in no way intended to curtail a respectful discussion of legitimate concerns, whose ultimate goal is to make the party more responsive, democratic and just.

A number of party leaders and members have concluded through experience that this policy is necessary for us to be responsible to our membership as a whole by enabling committees to run so they can focus on the urgent political work at hand, and not be distracted by individuals who, intentionally or unintentionally, prevent critical work from being done in a timely way.

When possible, those individuals may be offered opportunities to contribute to the work of the party in ways that are acceptable to both the individual and the party.

Financial Implications: None

Implementation

The shepherd will send an email copy of the policy to the Secretary. The Secretary will forward the policy to 1) all Working Committees and Task Groups via email lists, and 2) all chapters. The Secretary will also file a copy of the policy with a packet of other key information that is provided to new Working Committees, Task Groups, and chapters.