Retired attorney and part time theater critic. See my reviews at theatercolorado.blogspot.com
It is a delicious irony that you cite a Kennedy as having "the strongest arguments" against physician assisted suicide. I suspect the Kennedy family is a full spectrum away from your personal political positions. Politics aside, though, her husband never really answered to the family of Mary Jo Kopechne about the circumstances of her demise. That would make it awkward in my view for the senator's widow to advise anyone on the matter at hand.
Notwithstanding Kennedy politics and a mysterious fatal accident, the Kennedys, including, presumably the late senator's widow, are Roman Catholics. For them, suicide in any context is a mortal sin for which one will burn in hell for eternity. Mrs. Kennedy can hardly be considered a neutral or unbiased source.
I read the article. Mrs. Kennedy says:
"Kennedy argues that everyone wishes for a “good and happy death.” But passage of Question 2, she said, would not grant death with dignity, but would rob people of precious time with friends and family."
I can't help but wonder how Ms. Koepechne's family feels about that statement. They were robbed of "precious time" with their loved one. They never got the truth from Senator Kennedy. That the widow of the driver of the vehicle in the fatal crash is now preaching about how we should die is both hypocritical and insensitive..
None of the flaws pointed out (by yourself or Mr. Williams) is fatal to Proposition 106. Could it be better? Possibly. Is it better than nothing? ABSOLUTELY.
You don't like Prop 106. Understood. However, you have shown no flaw serious enough to vote against it. You've had a chance to convince me that it's not worth considering. You have only convinced me that you won't vote for it.
You are right. It is literally a matter of life and death. That's why I will vote for it.
And please accept my sincere sympathy and condolences for your loss as well. My wife had 18 months as well after her recurrence. They told her when the cancer came back that, statistically, she had 12-18 months. They were right...unfortunately. But she hung on as long as she could.
"The source of this article is coendoflifeoptions."
That would make it the source of this discussion, as reprinted in a weekly newspaper. It's still not a source I have personally sought out or endorsed.
Thanks for your expression of sympathy regarding my source. Very gracious.
"Your source has done you a disservice. The promoters of assisted suicide have worn out their thesaurus attempting to imply that it is legal in Montana."
I think you have assumed facts not in evidence. My source is not "promoters of assisted suicide." I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never researched the subject nor contacted a "promoter of assisted suicide" by phone, in person, by email, on the internet or in any other manner. Never. None. Nada.
My "source" is my late wife who died a freaking awful death of metastatic breast cancer. It came back to her five years after she finished treatment. It attacked her brain and spinal cord. I won't bore you with the gory details, but I will say this: I speak for myself, and I speak from the heart.
Perhaps you've also had a loved one die in your arms after extended agony. Perhaps not. But it is an unforgettable life experience to me.
There were no options at the time in Colorado for assisted suicide. I don't know if she would have used them if there were options. But the degree of suffering she endured at the end of her life was unspeakable.
I have no idea what the law is in Montana. Nor do I much care. I live in Colorado. It's on our ballot in November. And while I'm not an activist and won't lobby or work for passage of Proposition 106, I will probably vote for it.
I have seen unimaginable end of life suffering wreak havoc on someone I loved dearly. She told me that she didn't want to suffer any more, but there was nothing we could do about it.
I get your point. Life is precious. I agree. But we all die, and, in my view, we should all have choices that respect our beliefs at the end.
You stated that "we can all agree that Proposition 106 does not deliver." Please do not assume that your view is universal. I still don't agree with your statement.
If Mr. Williams expects to post his position and not be criticized for it, he is naive. The same goes for you. He put his thoughts out there. I responded. Politely. No name calling. No insults. No implication that he should not express his beliefs.
You, on the other hand, would have no one, myself included, criticize his position. This is not a forum for just one side of the issue. Mr. Williams stated his beliefs. I stated mine.
Prop 106 may be flawed. It is, after all, a "Proposition," most of which are flawed in some form. However, Mr. Williams arguments are also flawed. I'd appreciate it if you'd be as generous with my right to speak my mind as you are with Mr. Williams' right to do the same.
As a reminder, I advised all who haven't already done so to consider completing a medical directive. If one so desires, that medical directive can EXCLUDE any physician assisted suicide, no matter what the law says. There's room enough in this discussion for both sides, and I respectfully addressed the side supporting Proposition 106.
I'm sorry you're offended by my support for it, but you can't deny me the right to express it.
A brief review of your organization's website, www.mtaas.org, begs the question whether there is any (and I highly doubt there is) death with dignity legislation that would be acceptable to you. That greatly diminishes the nits you pick about the Colorado legislation.
You would have the death certificate list the cause of death as "poison." Your word. Presumably, you would require that description so as to punish he or she who "poisoned" the patient. That's absurd; the patient administers it, and the patient is gone. There is no one to prosecute even if your term "poison" is used.
You would require a "witness" to the delivery of the drug(s). Why? Not only is that macabre, but there seems to be no legitimate purpose for the requirement, unless traumatizing the surviving family and friends is legitimate in your view.
"I encourage people to read the Oregon model bill before taking a, or expounding on their position. We will agree no matter our starting position that this Prop 106 does not deliver.
This bill is not the one."
It appears that you are endorsing the Oregon model rather than Proposition 106. In fact, you find neither acceptable. You should just say so instead of sending your readers on a wild goose chase to find a law for which you failed to provide a link and do not support.
Finally, "we will agree no matter our starting position that this Prop 106 does not deliver."
Wrong. It does deliver. We have no such agreement.
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation