American Atheist Magazine Online Forum

[an error occurred while processing this directive] Magazine Home

Print Edition

Events

Search

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Tell Us What You Think

name: Terrence L. Gabriel
email: tgabriel@sprintmail.com
Thursday, 23-Jul-1998 06:56 PST

The choice to end suffering is not the place for outside intervention. There should be support but as in all PERSONAL decisions, the individual should be allowed a choice. It seems that we are moving toward more state control, not less. The religionists have no place in this argument except to offer comfort to those who need it. Too many people are forced to die in agony because these wrong-headed folks think they know what some supernatural entity wants.
name: Margie Wait
email: mdwait@mindspring.com
Thursday, 23-Jul-1998 12:24 PST

I have always found it ironic that when it comes to serious, extremely painful and life-threatening illnesses, our treasured pets are treated with more dignity than our human relatives. The Catholic Church and other so-called pro-life groups have no compassion for real human life and living, they'd much rather see a grown man/woman die an agonizing, painful death and, when it's all over, preach at a barbaric funeral service about the "great" suffering he/she endured in the last days of his/her life.
name: MagyckMe
email: MagyckMe@aol.com
Thursday, 23-Jul-1998 14:55 PST

If there is no hope, if my life comes down to a few weeks or months in unutterable pain relieved only by death or such massive doses of painkillers as to seriously damage my quality of life, why can't I choose to end it all? The destination -- death -- is the same. Why should I suffer the loss of all hope and endure the torture of rapidly deteriorating health? Sure, I could blow my head off (provided I have a gun and am physically capable of wielding it). Or I could jump off a tall building (provided I'm still ambulatory). But it would be so much more certain, so much more peaceful, if a doctor would give me what I need to just...turn myself off.

Many of the religious seem to believe that suffering is good and holy, and is a noble sacrifice to their god. I wouldn't dream of depriving them of screaming in prayer. Conversely, how dare they torture me with an existence I consider unbearable? This is a religious issue, not a medical one. The AMA has already made its position clear. The rest of the choice should be a personal one.
name: Timur
email: Chalybis@hotmail.com
Thursday, 23-Jul-1998 17:00 PST

It must be understood that this is a very complex issue. Eventhough I am in favor of the concept and see it as a moraly acceptable act I cannot but think of how this will be abused if is carelessly passed into law. In other words, if this becomes legal I would prefer very strict regulation of this act and lay the burden of proof on the physician who performs the act.
name: Charles C. Terrano
email: terranoc@erols.com
Thursday, 23-Jul-1998 23:14 PST

In my opinion the quality of life is most important. Religion, in holding that ALL life is sacred and important, overlooks the quality of life in favor of the blanket statment: "All life should be preserved." All life should be preserved rregardless of the quality of that life, regardless of how much a person is suffering, regardless of the wishes of the indivudual person. I feel this stance is wrong. A person should have the right to judge for themselves weather their life is worth preserving. The individual should have final say in whether they live or die. What right does a religion have to take that decision away from an individual? If a person doesn't agree with assisted suicide then they simply should not undergo it. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. But don't tell a person who does believe in it that they can't do it. A person should have the right to decide for themselves when it is time to end their lives. It is their body, it is their life, it should be their decision. Not the governments, not the churches, but the indivudals and the individuals alone.
name: Robert G. Seitz
email: rseitz@ismi.net
Friday, 24-Jul-1998 06:02 PST

The decisions made by my physician and me are private and do not concern the government. If only they would spend as much time on making the food supply safer or getting safe drugs to market faster. I always thought Republicans stood for getting the government out of peoples' lives, not adding more unnessesary regulations. Just my 2 cents.
name: Gregory L. Ford
email: gford@mail.law.berkeley.edu
Friday, 24-Jul-1998 10:45 PST

Has it occured to you that your poll might be somewhat less than scientific? After all, who is likely to be visiting your site but people with views similar to those of your organization? I.e., atheists who, wittingly or unwittingly, subscribe to a nihilistic metaphysic.

Moderator: The poll represents the views of the people who participated.
name: Tracy Timosko
email: tstcaveman@hotmail.com
Friday, 24-Jul-1998 13:37 PST

I think that there are too many people on earth anyway. I think that any politician who pushes for any kind of religious propaganda should go F*** him/herself.
name: esme cowles
email: escowles@gort.ucsd.edu
Friday, 24-Jul-1998 15:03 PST

I hope that one of these days the xtians, particularly the Catholic Church, will realize that freedom of religion is a two-way street.

Freedom of religion also means that they can't impose their religious dogma on the rest of us (i.e. establish a theocracy). This is just one instance in a long line of acts of intolerance for the Catholic Church, though somewhat more subversive, given the behind-the-scenes influence technique they're using.
name: James L. Barbee
email: jaime@winfinity.com
Friday, 24-Jul-1998 16:14 PST

It is obvious that the opposition to assisted suicide is due to religious objections. Theists believe they are owned by a god and may therefore not act on their own. In effect, theists are slaves. A slave can never initiate action on his own; he must always have permission from his master.
name: Kevin Grishkot
email: kjgrish@us.net
Friday, 24-Jul-1998 16:34 PST

Once again we have religion doing anything it can to gain control over every aspect of peoples lives. This is for belivers as well as non belivers. These are also the same people who whine incessantly about intrusions by the federal gov't (gobbament). They really ought to be careful what they wish for, they might just get it.
name: Michelle Malkin
email: malkinb7@mindspring.com
Friday, 24-Jul-1998 17:43 PST

After watching both of my parents die from horribly painful cancers, I would hope that no one else should have to go throught the pain, suffering and general humiliation they both went through whatever the cause. What they went through wasn't life; it was living hell. I would kill myself before going through what they did. And, I would certainly defend the right of anyone else to do the same.

What I would like to see is something like the euthanasia chambers used in the movie "Soylent Green". At least, in this way a person could have a peaceful and relatively happy ending.
name: Terry Tremaine
email: trem@cableregina.com
Friday, 24-Jul-1998 20:46 PST

My mother had Alzheimer's for close to nine years and died in August of last year. Though she was well cared for in the nursing home where she resided, the daily indignities were very hard for the family to endure. When she first started experiencing symptoms in the early 90s it caused her a lot of anxiety and grief. As her situation deteriorated she lost that anxiety as she slipped in to a 'mindless' state.

When I write my will I intend it to contain instructions that if I am ever in the same condition I want my existence to be terminated. I consider it to be an abuse of state power to declare such intentions illegal.
name: Robert Glover
email: robglover@yahoo.com
Saturday, 25-Jul-1998 00:45 PST

I am a very open minded person, and believe everyone can make their own choices. If someone wants to die, go ahead. If I were terminally ill, and had the option of either dying or "living" (note the quotes) in total pain for the rest of my life, i'd rather die. That's what I think.
name: Tom Filley
email: tfilley@msn.com
Sunday, 26-Jul-1998 00:32 PST

Some people may be into suffering unnecessarily, not me!! I have nothing to prove to any god. I don't care his only son suffered, I will do my best not to follow those footsteps. It seems to me that it is a personal issue and should not be made criminal. If I die a month earlier by assisted suicide rather than suffering with expensive medical assistance, maybe your insurance premiums will go down. We all benefit!!
name: Alexander R McNaught
email: AMCNAUG@banet.net
Sunday, 26-Jul-1998 07:42 PST

Pull the plug when a patient is brain dead.
name: Bradley Dawson
email: bradley_dawson@email.msn.com
Sunday, 26-Jul-1998 08:38 PST

One of the most barbaric tools of conversion is that of the deathbed. If the God-nazis can force people to die an extended, excruciating death, perhaps those victims will pray out of desperation. The idea of a dignified, painless, godless death is indeed abhorent to them.
name: Jeff Melton
email: jmelton@indiana.edu
Sunday, 26-Jul-1998 09:54 PST

As a socialist, I seldom find myself in the middle on political issues; usually, my views are well to the left of what passes for conventional wisdom. On the issue of assisted suicide, however, I find myself squarely in the middle. On one hand, being an atheist, I of course reject outright the belief of many religious people that committing suicide is a sin. But on the other hand, although I support the right of individuals determined to be of sound mind (i.e., not mentally ill, in a highly distraught state of mind, or otherwise incapable of rationally evaluating their options and possibilities) to commit suicide, I find unqualified support for assisted suicide equally problematic.

As an atheist, I believe that we have only one life, so I am wary of any policy that indiscriminately allows individuals to terminate the only life they will ever have as far as we know. We have an obligation as a society to determine to the best of our ability that any individual who is considering suicide is of sound mind and is capable of rationally determining that there is little or no possibility that whatever life is ahead of them will not be worth living. We owe it to that individual to ensure that they are not needlessly depriving themselves of opportunities for future happiness. And the individual's family and friends, too, have a right to expect that he or she will not rashly and impulsively deprive them of his/her company and support. For these reasons, I believe that any law allowing assisted suicide should require that the individual undergo a professional psychological evaluation (with financial assistance provided if they have difficulty affording it) to ensure that they are not considering suicide merely because they are clinically depressed or have some other psychological disorder.

Of course, if an individual's death is imminent anyway, the concern that they are depriving themselves and their loved ones of a significant amount of potential happiness is considerably mitigated. However, research suggests that the majority of individuals who have terminal illnesses, even those in considerable physical pain, prefer not to commit suicide; conversely, even among terminally ill patients, suicide is relatively rare in the absence of significant depression. And history is replete with examples of terminally ill individuals who have tolerated considerable pain because there was some significant project or other aspect of their life that made it meaningful and important to them to continue living as long as possible.

One could reasonably object that all this is easy for someone who's not in considerable pain to say. In response, I would say that I believe that people should have the right to receive any medically available treatment to reduce their pain, including narcotics. (Pain patients with no history of substance abuse very seldom get addicted to narcotics, and the possibility of addiction is a minor concern anyway compared to unbearable chronic pain, especially if the individual is terminally ill anyway.) Pain treatment is getting better all the time, although unfortunately many individuals in serious pain do not receive adequate treatment for it.

If an individual is not clinically depressed (as opposed to merely unhappy about being terminally ill and/or in pain, as anyone would be) or suffering from some other mental illness that predisposes them to suicidal thoughts, and if they seem genuinely capable of rationally deciding that continuing their life is not worthwhile, then they should have the legal option of suicide, assisted or otherwise. However, because decisions to commit suicide (even when made by people who have plenty to be unhappy about) are often made impulsively or without carefully evaluating the possibility that whatever life the individual has left could turn out to be worth living, I think we have to be wary about bending the stick too far in the other direction from our society's current blanket prohibition of suicide.
Jeff Melton
name: Harold Butterworth
email: Halsbooks@aol.com
Sunday, 26-Jul-1998 15:54 PST

I do not want to have the Catholic Church or any other religious group having any influence over our law-makers. If someone is very sick and is ready to die and would like medical assistance to end their life then it is only the business of that individual, his/her doctor and other family members so long as they have the best interests of the individual at heart. I certainly do not want the Catholic Church to be involved.
name: Eric Busch
email: E-Busch@juno.com
Sunday, 26-Jul-1998 16:18 PST

It's ironic that most of this type of legislation is being pushed by republicans, the very party that says it is for less government and fewer laws and taxes invading into private lives.
name: Linda Roberts
email: roberts@iu.net
Sunday, 26-Jul-1998 17:22 PST

Why is it we cannot seem to accept that the basic freedoms we hold so dear should have an equally dear counterpart: the freedom to choose NOT to have life, liberty, or to pursue happiness?
name: Sara
email: zanaa@aol.com
Sunday, 26-Jul-1998 17:57 PST

Why is this ethical issue among doctors considered a concern of the government, and not simply the American Medical Association and other such organizations designed to deal with such issues?
name: Bruce
email: brucreid@interlog.com
Monday, 27-Jul-1998 07:42 PST

I find it unsettling that most of the comments here suggest that the only reason one would be against assisted suicide is religious. I've been an atheist for as long as I remember, and my most strong moral basis is that we only have one life, and nothing else; that this life should be enjoyed, protected, and cherished. I understand that there are many people in tremendous pain who would gladly end it all, given the choice. But I also know that there is a fine line between socially-sanctioned suicide and common, everyday suicide. A great number of adolescents go through a difficult mental development, with many of them attempting or thinking about suicide. How many more will go through with it if they see other people in pain (as they believe themselves to be) be given a drug that 'puts them to sleep'?

Life isn't always good. Sometimes it's terrible, tragic, horrific, etc. But . . . it's all we have. It's all we get. And we have to hold onto it, as hard as it is, for as long as we can. I don't care what governments and religious groups think, murder is murder. Let's not make death an acceptable choice for the living.
name: James R. Young
email: dick.young@gsa.gov
Monday, 27-Jul-1998 09:12 PST

There is no perfect solution to this issue. However, as with other complex and controversial issues confronting our society, I feel we best server the needs of our citizens by providing as many options as possible. A dictatorial posture on part of the government to coerce and legislate a single remedy will not work.

For those who consider euthanasia and doctor-assisted-suicide morally objectionable, then they should not be legally obligated to practice these life-ending methods. Likewise, for those who do wish to end their suffering, they should not be legally restrained from doing so.
name: J. C. Nix
email: jcnix@netdoor.com
Monday, 27-Jul-1998 10:58 PST

If someone wishes to die, they should do it by their own hand. If they are incapable, tough titty. Doctors should save lives, not take them.

You people should concetrate on banishing religion with the truth.

Get out there and show these bible thumpers what's real.

Know thine enemy. Read the bible and use it to break down their own weak beliefs. Set them free.

Who cares about A S? We're all gonna die and the real tragedy is people wasting their lives praying for eternity when this life is all we have.
name: Stephen Grill, M.D., Ph.D.
email: sgrill@pol.net
Monday, 27-Jul-1998 17:48 PST

Physicians are already called upon to assist in the dying process. It is already the case that physicians may err on the side of giving too much pain medication to terminally ill patients in severe pain. Unless legislation is passed, we run the risk of untrained people, such as the current physician who does not have experience treating sick patients or determining the terminal nature of the illness, running the show.
name: Leia1
email: rstephen@snet.net
Monday, 27-Jul-1998 20:19 PST

The basic rights of Americans cannot be taken away by the government, and the government cannot force us to make, or not to make, certain choices within these rights. Thus, all Americans have the right to die. We will always have the option of ending our lives, even if that choice is one that others do not condone or respect.
name: Andrew Furdell
email: Andrew.Furdell@gte.net
Monday, 27-Jul-1998 20:34 PST

Obviously it's no good to kill a patient when their pain can be alleviated; sometimes the situation only seems hopeless. But imagine the horror of having to live in indescribable, constant pain, wishing to die every second. Brrr. I don't want to be in that situation...
name: Linda Sharlow
email: Linda_5@yahoo.com
Monday, 27-Jul-1998 21:05 PST

If you want to die you should be allowed to do so with as much dignity and as little pain as possible. If there is a physician who is willing to help you they should be allowed to do so. The decision to die should be left up to the individual. The government, if it has to be involved, should be protecting our right to choose what we can do with our bodies from the religious nuts who would deny us this right.
name: willi g. massinger Sr.
email: Wmassinger@digitalexp.com
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 01:04 PST

Humans are not an endangered species. If the doctors are unable to provide the means and knowledge for the patient to heal themself, and a patient has made the rational decision to leave early because of it.

That wish and right should be granted.
name: Ray
email: raytemplin@juno.com
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 07:50 PST

Anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it does not intrude on other's rights or hurt or dammage other people or their property.
name: Kent Bancroft
email: kentb@curtco.com
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 08:55 PST

I beleive the previous comment (scroll down) about how we treat our pets sums it all up. If an animal is suffering, we want to do the right thing and end its pain. Why do we think humans are so different? I know if I were terminally ill, I would want the option. I don't need the government babysitting my thoughts and morals, making me live in pain. I'm entirely capable of doing that myself, thank you very much. I think our government assumes that everyone is afraid to die and wants to stay alive, no matter what the circumstances. Wrong.
name: Robert Phillipoff
email: Gladbob@aol.com
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 09:08 PST

Death with dignity should be a basic right. A doctor should be able to legally assist in the death of a patient if the patient is of sound mind, is legally responsible and desires to die-- even if he or she is not terminally ill.
name: Karl Black
email: Karl.Black@TRW.com
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 09:49 PST

The attitude of the church regarding suicides, even to end excruciating pain, harkens back to the old, dogmatic idea that life for humans on this planet is only a test for us to get into a non- existant heaven. Mother Teresa's comments, as exposed by brave writers recently, about pain being a wonderful thing made me feel nauseaus as they clearly demonstrated the church's disdain for the quality of human life. Their (church leaders') masochistic ideas about living with pain should never be allowed to become law for the rest of us.
name: Terry Johnson
email: tjohnson@ntl.sympatico.ca
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 10:01 PST

I believe in quality of life. Quanity is alright if the quality is there. If it is known that the person is going to die a slow lingering death then the person should have options available to him or her.
name: Robert D. Meade
email: rdmeade@cc.wwu.edu
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 12:00 PST

1. In my state only those sentenced to capital punishment may choose how they die: hanging or lethkal injection. 2. The people of Oregon have spoken twice on this matter and that should end the matter. 3. Polls show tha a great majority of American favor death with dignity. When it comes to making it legal, the christers muddy the wathers with all sorts of untruths and this discourages many from voting for it. 4. If religion can put millions to death for non-belief, why not allow anyone to choose the same for himself?
name: Barb Reiland-Holcomb
email: bfreiland@cavemen.net
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 12:07 PST

Coburn (R-OK) argued, "There is no right to death in our society. There is a right to life." This attitude astounds me, death is an inevitable function of life. Damned theistic beliefs, thru federal mandate, would deny the individual's right to make an informed choice. That is unconscionable. If any federal legislation were passed it should support the informed choice of the individual, nothing more, nothing less.
name: JR Ector
email: jr.ector@mail.sprint.com
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 13:12 PST

I'm a former Roman Catholic and I have serious problems with them being involved in drafting legislation of any sort. I know first-hand how inflexible and one-sided they are. Their goal is to forward their agenda, nothing more. They should stick to fostering guilt and collecting money.

JR
name: Don Matlack
email: matlack@compuserve.com
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 17:03 PST

In my opinion and experience, any ban on physician assisted suicide is cruelty through ignorance. I lost my mother to cancer earlier this year, and her passing was made all the more wrenching because her doctor could not help her to die in peace and comfort.
name: Bill Talley
email: BTa1059192@aol.com
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 20:30 PST

Nobody really cares if someone opts for physician assisted termination. What the theocratists really want is money and power; the kind that can only come from low IQ dupes over intractible issues that generate fear in the easily spooked. We, however, have to pretend that we believe that they really believe, in order to take part in the debate. This latter is the hard part for me. bt
name: john Miller
email: jmiller@infoave.net
Tuesday, 28-Jul-1998 21:31 PST

I have read the other comments, many of them reflect my own opinion. Still I wish to state my views.

First, lets consider the record of preachers and their flocks who pray for the terminally ill. If they speak for an all powerful diety, then let it answere their prayers in some obvious way, instead of them telling the sick and suffering that everything is alright because their deity says we all have to do it. They should be licensed before advising the terminally ill, after all, does it help a person's will to live if all of his friends keep telling him he is about to pass into glory? Let us introduce legislation to take preacher's licenses when they brag about their deity's ability to heal the sick and then are unable to deliver on their promises! How many times have ill persons stayed away from doctors while waiting for the church to pray away their symptoms? It happends every day, besides the fact that some people are so encouraged to believe that they are fooled into thinking they are healed when actually the best thing for their health is to take their symptoms to a doctor!

The religious value of suffering is a hoax. There is no purpose in staying poor or sick while there is the means to get help or help one's self. Ignorence is one of man's greatest enemies. Unfortunatly, the educated clergy use their knowledge to maintain the ignorence of their subjects! Listen up, those of you who believe religious junk!

We atheists know the value of this one life and wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly decide that there is no use living. I think it is fair to say that in the present state of medicine two rules hold true. One is that everyone has to die, and the second is that once you are dead there is no chance of revival. Under these circumstances, each one of us ought to have the choice to live or die as long as we can prove our competence to the satisfaction of a fair society. It will prove to be detrimental to society, that under the current fad of religious awakening, too many aspireing politicans felt led of some deity to bring about government controlled morality!
name: Richard Max Andrews
email: Rich123@aol.com
Wednesday, 29-Jul-1998 06:32 PST

It's very important to me to be able to decide when I have suffered enough pain and to be able to end life without too much suffering.
name: Thomas E. Buckley
email: tbuckley28@hotmail.com
Wednesday, 29-Jul-1998 11:20 PST

My body is MY body. My life is MY life. If I have an immortal soul, it too is MINE. Providing I have committed no terrible crime, no Government and particularly no gang of religionist fruit loops, such as the catholic church have any right ordering when or how my life will end. I, my family, and ethical medical professionals are the only ones that should have a say. The rest, bug the hell out!
name: Phillip Posey
email: pposey@airnet.net
Wednesday, 29-Jul-1998 11:42 PST

Give up non-believers, there are too many people in the Religious right.
name: Tim Morgan DVM
email: tmorgan@iastate.edu
Wednesday, 29-Jul-1998 15:08 PST

As a veterinarian, I have assisted many people in ending the life of a suffering pet. It is never an easy thing to do, but I have no doubt that what I did was beneficial to the animals.

Several years ago, I watched helplessly as my grandfather died by inches of an inoperable brain tumor. It was a difficult and painful death. His disease drug on and on, and the doctors told us for weeks that they didn't think he would survive the night. But the next morning he would still be there, suffering. It struck me that the vast majority of us would not allow our dogs or cats to die that sort of death, but in the case of our family members and loved ones, we, as a society, do not allow them the dignity of dying when they choose and how they choose.

I never talked with my grandfather about his feelings of doctor assisted suicide, so I don't know if he would have chosen that option, but it still should have been an option for him. I sincerely hope that when it comes my time to go, I have the option of dying with the same dignity as my pets.
name: Giuseppe Romano - Bologna - Italy
email: pepynet@tin.it
Wednesday, 29-Jul-1998 17:00 PST

Only a question : Why they who killed millions of people burning them live , call themselves "defenders of human life" ?
name: Michael Hrejsa
email: hrejsa@localline.com
Wednesday, 29-Jul-1998 18:56 PST

Since the gov'mnt can sentance us to die in the elelctric chair or on a battlefield what gives them the right to prevent our chooseing our own time to die?
name: A True Disbeliever
email: jcarroll@copper.net_nospam
Wednesday, 29-Jul-1998 20:48 PST

The religious have robbed inquisitive, forward thinking peoples of this land long enough; and to deny anyone THE ULTIMATE CHOICE is SO de- spicably arrogant and anti-social, as to piss TOTALLY off even those (like m'self) who have been "live and let live" until NOW. (no, no pun intended there)

NO ONE CAN legislate morality. LIFE is a choice. AND ALL aspects, respects, and prospects thereof, and therein, and thereby.

Therefore... pass the lilac, and strike up the band... mourn me not with empty verse, nor false sorrows. When I am so incredibly old, and disfunctional, and life brings me no joy, I KNOW what I WILL choose to do; regardless of ANY "moralegislation". <hic>
ALOHA!
name: Melanie Richardson
email: ang6969@mailexcite.com
Thursday, 30-Jul-1998 10:58 PST

This is just another instance of the the church and government trying to tell people how to live their lives.

If a person decides that they don't want to live anymore, then who are we to tell them other wise. We have to fight these religious leader everystep of the way when they try to get involved in government. If we don't then we are doomed, and at the mercy of the whims of these religious leaders. Remember in the Bible the only rights a person has is to worship god.
name: Larry Carter Center
email: larryfreedom@hotmail.com
Thursday, 30-Jul-1998 11:12 PST

..... restrictions upon requested medical services are not in the best interests of patients, but lo & behold, such restrictions are found to further religious interests & co-conspiring providers ....... like restrictions upon requested therapeutic or elective abortion, free bodies are chattels of the state when such restrictions are maintained .... compulsory pregnancy or compulsory suffering are theocratic tyrannies of the worst sort .... enslavement of the sick or women by theocracy must be resisted with the full force of reason & civil disobedience ..... life is not for the prescribed conditions of popes or politicians ...life is for living free from religion or other institutions seeking subordinates or victims for profit ..... American Atheists consistently lead the way for freedom from compulsory evils ....
name: Iain McBride
email: imcbride@bigfoot.com
Thursday, 30-Jul-1998 12:19 PST

Our lives are our posessions, to do with as we see fit! Nobody should have the power to take these rights away from each individual person. It is our right to end our lives if we do so choose, and it is a Doctor's place to honour our decision to terminate a life that is ours to command. The government certainly should enact legislation in this area, to explicitly give us the freedom of action we are entitled to as sentient beings.
name: Kenneth G. Cavness
email: kcavness@proxicom.com
Friday, 31-Jul-1998 17:25 PST

I'm not worried about an official representative helping to draft legislation, because in the end it all resides in the hands of representatives we helped to elect -- and can help to drive out.

Always remember that.
name: Mitch
email: Mitchii@aol.com
Friday, 31-Jul-1998 18:53 PST

No outsider has the right to decide the pain tolerance of an ill individual. It is a choice that should be free from others who would allow their own religious views to extend the suffering of the terminally ill because suicude is a "sin". Diseases ravage the body with excrutiating pain. Leave the Thinkers... the Humans, their right to decide with dignity when the time is right for them to leave this life.

One
name: E. Phelps
email: ephelps@cmc.net
Friday, 31-Jul-1998 20:59 PST

When it comes to medical decisions involving one's own body, the government's only role should be to ensure that it is in fact your uncoerced decision and that the service is delivered in a medically appropriate setting by medically appropriate procedures.

Anything else is excessive and authoritarian interference in those areas of a free citizen's life that no government has a right to enter, and that democratic governments are prohibited from entering.

Notwithstanding these facts, there are those, mostly of the Christian Coalition and their allies in Congress, who extoll small government, a laissez-faire economic philosophy, and "getting the government off the people's back", but then do a complete somersault when it comes to those very areas where government should absolutely be restrained from coercive acts of every kind, namely all of those decisions that rightly belong to the individual and in which the state has neither the right nor the moral authority to intervene.

This is one such attempt to subvert the core beliefs of Americans that government should be prohibited from coercing religious beliefs. Yet coercion is exactly what is intended here, based on Catholic doctrine.
name: John Favinger
email: swampjohn@yahoo.com
Friday, 31-Jul-1998 23:22 PST

I believe the quality of one's life to be inherently more important than the quantity. I have made it pretty obvious to family members that I do not wish to live in a vegetative or semi-functional manner. I have also extracted a promise from a close relative to provide a gun at the time I wish. I don't see anything like that at the present, but at 54 one never knows.
name: Ross Page
email: epage@ultranet.com
Saturday, 01-Aug-1998 11:37 PST

The Catholic Church and the Republicans are at it again. The damn Christian Churches that are "Pro-Life" are so concerned with what their imaginary "God" wants that they are trying to take away personal freedom. If someone is dying of a terminal illness and suffering beyond imagination, then you can bet that the Catholics will say, "Well you're doing it so that you may enter the kingdom and glory of God." Well, God does not exist and I am sick of Christians telling me what to do. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops should stay the hell away from U.S. Politics. We also need to get rid of all the stupid Republicans in office, all they want to do is turn America into a damn Theocracy. GET RID OF THOSE RACIST, SEXIST BIGOT CHRISTIANS!
name: Jen
email: j-roth@uiuc.edu
Saturday, 01-Aug-1998 12:31 PST

To me, assisted suicide and euthanasia show that we do not value the lives of the sick and disabled enough to make their lives better. Instead, it is "cleaner" to just get rid of them. It does bother me that religious groups are drafting legislation. It would be nice if freethought groups would take the lead in protecting the equal value and dignity of all human beings.
name: Troy M. Coughlin
email: troymc21@hotmail.com
Saturday, 01-Aug-1998 18:24 PST

I just wanted to make a quick statement that if someone has it in their mind to end their life, then it is very tough if not impossible to make them think differently. I guess it's the same kind of stubbornness as dealing with a Christian(ha, ha). But what I'm more worried about is the broad scope of how this topic was brought to the light of the government anyways, in what may be a clear indication of the church's political advancements.
name: Jason Tippitt
email: scarcrest@hotmail.com
Saturday, 01-Aug-1998 20:32 PST

Well, it makes sense the Catholic church would want to keep people languishing on under intense and expensive medical care long after their own bodies would have shut down without such care. The Catholic church owns plenty of hospitals, so such inhumane treatment brings them a profit...
name: Robert Mangus
email: rmangus@mail.netquest.com
Sunday, 02-Aug-1998 01:53 PST

There is no enumerated authority in the U.S. Constitution for Federal legislation.
Suicide?: Ain't nobody's business if you do!
Euthanasia?: Should be up to a jury of PEERS.

Robert Mangus
name: Carol Smith
email: humanist1@juno.com
Sunday, 02-Aug-1998 08:32 PST

In AANEWS the question was raised concerning whether clergy persons should be present at an 'assisted suicide.' This aspect of the issue is of interest to me.

Being respectful of someone's need to be religious should be a concern here in the same way we should be respectful of their personal choice of determining when they have suffered enough.

If a religious person's condition is such that assisted suicide is their only or best option and the presence of their clergyperson would give them comfort, then by all means they should have such comfort, just the same as they should have the relief of pain killing drugs and the ultimate relief of doctor-assisted suicide.

Of course finding such a sympathetic clergyperson might be as hard or harder than finding medical assistance in such a predicament.
name: Polly Rothstein
email: polpuffin@wcla.org
Sunday, 02-Aug-1998 09:10 PST

Your questions are too hard to answer. In 2, there's a big difference, but it's not a moral difference. Assisted suicide may be difficult to achieve and may be botched, which could be horrible; so why not euthanasia, which isn't easily botchable? And your questions about legislation doesn't ask what legislation we want; it seems to focus on anti-help bills. I'd like to see euthanasia made a right like abortion. It's up to individuals to control their lives and deaths. Autonomy is the issue.

Go to Poll/Results.

Back to Top of Forum.

Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.