While there is very little that I agree on with Rhetoric & Reason opinion writer John Donegan, I do wish to expand on his Feb. 16 column concerning assisted suicide (“Government intervention in end-of-life care is not a good thing“). I agree with him that religion and government should have no role on decisions of personal choice/end-of-life matters. But I will take this one step further.
I firmly believe that if one’s individually determined quality of life has deteriorated to the point that he/she no longer wishes to remain alive, he/she should have legal options at their disposal, and should not have to meet the threshold of needing to be diagnosed with six months or less to live as a deterrent. Not all persons feel the same about hanging onto one’s last breath at all costs. The pain, suffering, loss of dignity, strain on family and finances are all too common for those coming down the home stretch. Why should I not be able to decide “enough is enough” and go out on my terms?
There looms down the road a tsunami—that being a severe lack of resources and facilities to handle the aging/dying baby boomer generation. I have no reason to believe the government or church is prepared to deal what is coming. Let my people go!
Rick Cohen
Avila Beach
This article appears in Mar 9-19, 2023.
One does not have to be religious to see prossible problems with expanding access to assisted suicide. Would it be truly voluntary? Many elderly are compliant and might be subject to coercion by children or other heirs who were concerned that Mommy or Daddy were burining through their inheritance with all of those extravagant nursing home costs or medical expenses, or were just hanging around too long. And, of course, depression sometimes lifts, and suicide can sometimes be a permanent solution to a temporary problem. The current law, requiring a terminal condition, seems to strike the right balance.