With the exciting announcement that Death with Dignity is now officially certified for the November Massachusetts ballot, there's been a flurry of excitement about the measure in the news. Something refreshing I've noticed in these reports is the reliance on facts about these important laws which have been in effect in Oregon and Washington for years. All too often, people get distracted by misinformation and scare tactics put forward by opponents of additional end-of-life options.

A consistent theme throughout these articles about the proposed law is to outline what would and would not be allowed under the Massachusetts Death with Dignity Act. An example from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine Bioethics Blog:

"The initiative petition will be printed on the November 6, 2012, state election ballot."

-from the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth to Dignity 2012

After a long, winding road, the Massachusetts Death with Dignity initiative completed the final step of the process to appear on the November ballot! After collecting nearly double the number of signatures necessary for the second and final signature-gathering phase, the Secretary of the Commonwealth certified that the citizen petition will be put before voters this fall during the presidential election.

This final round of signature gathering proved to be another demonstration of strong support for the measure from all over Massachusetts; signatures were certified from all 14 counties in order to qualify the Death with Dignity initiative for the November ballot. Michael from Dignity 2012 shared the great news with supporters in an email earlier today. He summarized the path to the ballot in his message:

Our long journey to the ballot started nearly one year ago.

With the help of some friends on Twitter, every Thursday we host a lively TweetChat about the latest news in end-of-life care including Death with Dignity laws! (Not sure what a TweetChat is? Learn more about them below.)

This Thursday, we'll be joined by a special guest, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (@BCCLA on Twitter) to get an in-depth perspective about the recent ruling by the BC Supreme Court which struck Canada's ban on assisted death.

New to Twitter and TweetChats? Here are some easy steps to join in the fun:

Last week, Dignity 2012 turned in nearly double the number of signatures they needed to place Death with Dignity on the November ballot.

The work of hundreds of volunteers made it possible to get to this point. Presenting issues to the voters through the ballot in Massachusetts is a long and arduous path. Last fall, Dignity 2012 gathered nearly 85,000 signatures to move to the next major step, which was to have the initiative considered by the State Legislature. Lawmakers had until the beginning of May to act on the measure. They didn't and, the initiative moved to the second signature-gathering phase.

This second round of signature gathering involves a whirlwind of activity. Dignity 2012 had 39 days to mail out thousands of petition sheets with return postage, get the petitions to the 351 Town Clerks, pick up the certified petitions, and file them with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Volunteers braved all types of weather to gather signatures from people throughout Massachusetts. No one who signed it in the first round could sign during this stage. The petitions then had to be hand sorted and mailed to individual Town Clerks' offices. (The photo above, courtesy of Dignity 2012, is a volunteer working on this monumental process.) Once certified by the Town Clerks, the petitions were filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

In a reasoned move, the British Medical Journal today called for all professional medical bodies in the UK to take a neutral stance on Death with Dignity laws. This viewpoint, put forth in an editorial by Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, urged the British Medical Association (BMA) and the various royal colleges to move their official position on Death with Dignity from opposition to neutrality.

The editorial followed a recent poll of physicians in England asking if they favor or disfavor a move to neutrality. Of 1,000 physician respondents, 62% agreed that the BMA and royal colleges should move to a position of studied neutrality.

Godlee drew parallels to the position of professional medical bodies on the issue of abortion, noting these same organizations were opposed to abortion until a change in the law was imminent. She said, "A change in the law, with all the necessary safeguards, is an almost inevitable consequence of the societal move towards greater individual autonomy and patient choice…and it may not happen until we value death as one of life's central events and learn to see bad deaths in the same damning light as botched abortions."

Death with Dignity has been the topic of debate in England for many years. It's played out in Parliament, in the courts, and in the media.