When West Virginia voters go to the polls for the General Election, they will be asked to think about life and death.
The ballot will have at the bottom Constitutional Amendment No.1: The title is “Protection of Persons Against Medically Assisted Suicide.” The summary of purpose reads as follows: “The purpose of this amendment is to protect West Virginians against medically assisted suicide.”
This will be a curveball for West Virginians who always vote, but who are not rigorous consumers of news. The measure was placed on the West Virginia ballots because members of the state Legislature passed a resolution during the most recent regular session.
Delegate Pat McGeehan (R, Hancock) was one of the major backers of the resolution. “We should vote For Amendment One and enshrine in our state constitution that medically assisted suicide will not be tolerated in our beautiful Mountain State,” he wrote in an op-ed supporting the measure.
It will be up to the voters to decide where they stand on this, but here are a couple of points worth noting:
First, West Virginia does not currently allow medically assisted suicide, but nine states do—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, plus the District of Columbia. Under current state law, if a doctor gave an individual a fatal cocktail to cause their death, that doctor could be charged with murder.
Second, the Amendment has subjective wording that may influence the vote. The language suggests West Virginians need to be “protected” from physician-assisted suicide, even though it is not legal here and there is no movement to legalize it, especially with a Republican-dominated legislature.
Third, amending the state constitution should not be taken lightly. Enshrining the language in the document restricts any change on the controversial issue if future legislators would want to seriously consider legalizing voluntary euthanasia.
Fourth, the full language of the amendment is not included on the ballot. I have included it below and you can read it in full. The complete amendment includes provisions allowing for hospice care, but the voter would not know that unless they did some research.
Fifth, the amendment’s last line is curious. It states, “Further, nothing in this section prevents the State from providing capital punishment.” West Virginia outlawed executions in 1965. Apparently, the language was added so that if a future legislature reinstates capital punishment, opponents could not use the amendment to block the practice.
Still, it is an odd juxtaposition. Supporters of the amendment want to protect life by preventing individuals from making end-of-life decisions with their doctor, but they want to ensure that the state still has the option of taking a life by execution.
A last point that is worth restating: This amendment does not give voters the option of allowing physician-assisted suicide. Instead, the question is whether you want to change the constitution to prevent physician-assisted suicide.
A “for” vote means you do. An “against” vote means you do not.
(Full amendment language: 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. 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.)