Opinion | Is Assisted Suicide Too Accessible? - The New York Times
More from our inbox:
- Treating U.S. Politics as a Big Joke: 'Frightening'
- What Moderate Republicans Should Do
- Sweaters for Ukraine
- A Paper for the Elite?
To the Editor:
Re "As Eligibility Expands, Is Assisted Death Too Easy in Canada?" (news article, Sept. 19):
Suicide is a terrible word, but it is not always a terrible act. The Canadian woman tortured by constant pain looks forward to the assisted suicide her country allows her.
Thirty-nine years ago, in New York, my mother was the grateful recipient of an assisted suicide, although it was illegal in the U.S. and still is, in New York and in all but 10 states and Washington, D.C. And even where it's legal, you have to be patient and wait until the government gives you the OK. But Canada even allows certain applicants to speed up their assessments, although some Canadians don't approve of that.
Given the fast growth of her cancer, my mother was close to death, but in her opinion not close enough. "Who does it help if I die slowly?" she wanted to know. She got her way. And for her, suicide became a victory.
Since writing a book about my mother's death, I've received a lot of sad mail from people who were in my mother's situation, but couldn't do what she did. Or worse, they tried to die without help and failed. Most just waited to die, often for years.
For the most part, suicide deserves the bad reputation it has, but not for those who are near the end, suffering and want mercy. For them, mercy is death.
Betty Rollin
New York
The writer is a former NBC News correspondent and the author of several books, including "Last Wish," about her mother's suicide.
To the Editor:
The question in your article as to whether choosing death in Canada is too easy presupposes that everyone has choices. Personal autonomy is paramount for most people, but true autonomy in end-of-life decision-making would mean that folks have equal access to care.
However, Canadian systems are stretched to a breaking point. Our broken, profit-driven system here in the U.S., where health care disparities remain rampant, is no better.
When veterans in Canada are offered euthanasia for PTSD, when people with disabilities are approved for hastened death because of a lack of affordable, accessible housing, and when young people with anorexia at their wits' end are provided a prescription by physicians to die by suicide, we have to ask ourselves if this is really even a choice.
When care is denied or even merely delayed by budget-strapped public programs or greedy U.S. for-profit insurers, while assisted suicide is available, it sounds a lot less like choice and more like coercion and a quiet form of eugenics.
Matt Vallière
New York
The writer is an emergency medical worker and the executive director of the Patients' Rights Action Fund, which opposes assisted suicide laws.
Treating U.S. Politics as a Big Joke: 'Frightening'
To the Editor:
Re "The Big Joke That Became the Big Lie," by Carlos Lozada (column, Sept. 25):
What an extraordinary addition to the Times Opinion section! Mr. Lozada's refreshing perspective on the hard political times our country is experiencing will become vital to the search for a nationwide solution to our current political crisis.
Mr. Lozada's words painfully summarize the existential stakes for our nation and its future: "The big lie is that the election was stolen; the big joke is that you can prolong that lie without consequence. The former is a quest for undeserved power; the latter is an evasion of well-deserved responsibility."
Mr. Lozada's understanding of the big joke as "evasion of well-deserved responsibility" astutely captures the G.O.P.'s decades-long descent into banana republic territory. Unfortunately, all of us are paying for it: "We're not in Kansas anymore."
What's left for us to do next is figuring out how to undo the damage or, at least, minimize the blows our nation has suffered as a result of such a highly debilitating "joke."
Alejandro Lugo
Park Forest, Ill.
The writer has taught anthropology and Latinx studies at several universities.
To the Editor:
Congratulations to Carlos Lozada for his brilliant first column: thought-provoking, superbly written, highly relevant. What he says is frightening: Many politicians on the stump who are charismatic, inspirational and convincing may actually just be practicing their version of the big joke, polishing up their entry act for acceptance into the Big Club of Jokers.
Is this what democracy is really about? Or has it fallen to this, from somewhere more idealistic?
Leon Joffe
Pretoria, South Africa
What Moderate Republicans Should Do
To the Editor:
Re "Moderate Republicans No Longer Have a Home," by Peter Smith (Opinion guest essay, Sept. 23):
The last sentence of Mr. Smith's essay describing the demise of the moderate wing of the Republican Party provides the formula for upending the extreme segment of the once proud G.O.P.:
"If the Republican Party cannot be an instrument of democracy, independent-minded moderates will do what we've always done: Vote our conscience, and vote for someone else."
Americans must deliver a political rebuff to the party that opposes women's reproductive rights, fights to limit minority citizens' right to vote, wants to restrict the rights of same-sex couples, offers tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, believes that closing our borders and mistreating those who do seek asylum here are sound policy, and espouses violence when it loses an election.
We must send these fanatics packing, and only then can we expect to see a revitalized Republican Party with a renewed sense of American morality and fair play.
Bill Gottdenker
Mountainside, N.J.
Sweaters for Ukraine
To the Editor:
President Vladimir Putin of Russia is hoping that winter's cold weather and energy shortages will reduce support for Ukraine among the European public.
Here's an idea: Arrange for apparel companies to produce sweaters in the colors of Ukraine, blue and yellow, to be purchased by the European Union and other Ukraine-supporting countries and then distributed free of cost to the public — or better, sold at cost, the proceeds going to Ukraine.
This will save energy as people can dial down thermostats and also provide dramatic visible opposition to Mr. Putin — and have a real effect beyond symbolism if buying the sweaters provides funds for Ukraine.
Leonard Malkin
Troy, Mich.
A Paper for the Elite?
To the Editor:
Every time I sit down to peruse The New York Times I feel conflicted. I appreciate the factual political analysis, but when I start meandering through other sections of the paper I have to conclude that most readers are a very rarefied elite whose lives revolve around choosing among multimillion-dollar real estate investments, building kitchens in back of their kitchens, or planning exotic, expensive and time-consuming meals.
As David Brooks rightly points out in "There Still Is No Strategy to Defeat Trump" (column, Sept. 16), the culture war we face boils down to a conflict between the "coastal elites" (e.g., readers of The New York Times) and the MAGA crowd and others who resent the elite.
The Times could do us all a favor by presenting its news and analysis in surroundings that look more like the lives of the 99 percent rather than a fabulously wealthy 1 percent. Doing so could go a long way toward creating a more welcoming environment for sharing political perspective with those who do not embrace such lavish lifestyles — as a matter of choice or necessity.
Rachel Smolker
Hinesburg, Vt.
Comments
Post a Comment