“I always just felt it was a horrifying and difficult way to go, for me,” said Ellen, a 73-year-old from Boston.

When Ellen was diagnosed with breast cancer at 49, she fought the disease into remission, only to see it return. Two years ago, she developed a rare gastrointestinal cancer that spread.

Now receiving hospice care, she is putting her affairs in order, finishing up some genealogy work, and making plans to vote in November for a ballot initiative that would give a terminally ill patient the option to request a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug.

“What I like is the option to have some help. It makes it easier to deal with the fear of the difficult things I’ve seen,” said Ellen, who requested that her last name be withheld to protect her privacy.

Although the “Death with Dignity” ballot question has generated relatively little fanfare, the decision Massachusetts voters will confront in November has far-reaching ethical, medical, and personal repercussions.

Since 1997, the option — in which a patient may request a prescription and ingest medication to end his or her life — has been available in Oregon. Washington voters passed a similar initiative in 2008.

The initiative would allow terminally ill patients with six months or less to live to request from their doctor a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug. Doctors do not have to offer the option at all, and patients must make three requests, two verbal and one written. They must self-administer the drug, which would be ingested. The patients must be deemed capable of making an informed decision.

As Massachusetts voters prepare to decide whether to offer such an option, local and national organizations have taken sides, with groups such as the AIDS Action Committee, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts supporting the initiative. Meanwhile, the Catholic church, the Massachusetts Medical Society, many advocates for people with disabilities, and the Hospice & Palliative Care Federation of Massachusetts oppose it.

For some, the issue is intensely personal.

Deborah Anne McGill, 48, of Boxford, has come to terms with the idea that she will die young. She has battled ovarian cancer for almost five years, a span that physicians warned her early on was the average life expectancy for someone diagnosed with her type of cancer.

Her spirits are bright, but McGill tires easily and she no longer has the strength to work full time. Although she has recalibrated her expectations about the length of her life, she is also hopeful. She just completed a clinical trial and is looking for the next one.

She opposes the initiative that one day could help patients like her end their lives. Although a prescription would be only an option, McGill thinks it could easily be abused, and worries that the law would not afford sufficient protection to the vulnerable population that would be making the requests.

Critics have a variety of reasons for opposing the initiative. Many object to the way the proposed legislation is written. For example, a mental health evaluation by a specialist would not be required unless a physician determines one is necessary. Doctors’ predictions of how much time people have left are not always accurate; sometimes people can live for months or years longer. Some opponents reject the notion that a physician should be able to offer such an option at all.

“I’m really grateful my doctors do not talk about it,” said McGill, who teaches English as a second language part time but devotes much of her life to helping others, working as a hospice volunteer, providing literacy tutoring, and leading a cancer support group. She is especially worried that as currently written, the law doesn’t provide enough protections for patients or penalties for those who might take advantage of them.

Supporters, however, say that “Death with Dignity” is an option that may be appropriate for some people.