Provide names of other journalists involved.
Scott Helman
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
29-Apr-12
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
The story captured the unprecedented, emotional debate in Massachusetts over whether to legalize physician-assisted suicide, a question activists had succeeded in putting on the Election Day ballot for 2012. The piece used personal stories — from a woman whose father died peacefully after taking a lethal prescription in Oregon, to a veteran end-of-life care nurse — to illuminate the potential costs and benefits of legalization.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
The story drew heavily from numerous documents and data sources, including statistics on the so-called Death with Dignity Act from Washington and Oregon, where assisted-suicide is legal; documents and testimony from medical societies, the Catholic Church, and proponents and opponents of the ballot measure; state campaign finance records; government reports on end-of-life care; and scores of past news stories from around the country. These sources were critical in providing a national context for the Massachusetts debate, and in showing to readers the full experience of states who had already been through this.
Explain types of human sources used.
More than two dozen people were interviewed for the piece, including doctors who believed in helping terminally ill patients end their suffering, and doctors who did not; nurses who worked with patients at the end of their lives; specialists in palliative care; and leading activists on both sides of the ballot measure. The most powerful voices were those who shared personal experiences, including Heather Clish, whose father chose to end his life after a brief and painful battle with brain cancer, and Deborah O’Hara-Rusckowski, a nurse who reflected on getting the gift of three years with her dying mother, well beyond what the prognosis had been.
Results:
The ballot question was narrowly defeated on Election Day, 51 percent to 49 percent.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
None. Sources on all sides were complimentary of the piece, saying it nicely captured the debate, the players, and the stakes.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
It’s the human narratives that make a story like this work. They are what bring to life such high-profile political and cultural debates. Find people with compelling personal stories, secure the access you need, and tell the larger narrative through their eyes. Back it all up with rigorous reporting and you will have the authority to tackle the thorniest subjects. Needless to say, on delicate topics such as this, journalists must also show sensitivity with sources.