Decision to die choice of patient

Whether or not Americans have a right to end their lives is a prominent issue. More people like Jack Kevorkian are assisting terminally ill people in Michigan to die and activist groups in Washington and Oregon are moving to gain legality for the procedure.

As is the case with many other areas, government has no right to ban or condone the decision of a person to end a painful life.

America's self-appointed moral and religious leaders are against assisted suicide, citing it as an offense to all of society. The idea of a person choosing to take his or her own life confuses some people, who have no idea of the agony and suffering of those stricken by such disease such as AIDS, cancer, or Alzheimer's.

Without insight into such distress, it is probably easy for "right to lifers" to condemn someone to suffer a slow deterioration so the healthy have a clean conscience.

Opponents of assisted suicide would have one believe that such a right would be abused by people who are not terminal. It should not be believed that pro-freedom groups are trying to get this option made available in all situations.

Obviously, it is counter to human instinct to support someone who is merely unhappy with the way he feels today, although perfectly healthy, in his endeavor to commit suicide. Counseling and encouragement is the course to take with a person in that situation. But we must abandon our false compassion and develop true sympathy for those who are clearly not getting any better.

In some situations, the suffering is so intense that the victim is determined to end his or her life in any manner available.

Just as the criminalization of abortion in past decades caused many women to seek unhealthy alternatives, so will terminal patients continue to do themselves in a manner which causes greater distress to the loved ones they leave behind. Friends and family members will me more comfortable knowing that a patient died with a doctor at his or her side.

Dr. Kevorkian has done more for the terminally ill than the U.S. congress and all 50 state legislatures combined. Kevorkian's assisting of more than 40 patients has cast the issue of assisted suicide into the national spotlight.

The emergence of what may be a new wave of compassion has produced among its many results the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, which was approved by 51 percent of voters.

Also, reported in the Los Angeles Times, the 9th circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles has ruled that we have a right to seek a doctor's help in ending our lives. So is the Oregon state legislature, which passed a law banning such suicides, really acting in the best interest of its constituency?

This trend indicates that there is a place in America for dynamism. When new ways of thinking emerge, we must be allowed to practice them. Indeed, in 1990, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that competent adults could lawfully forgo medical treatment, even if such treatment would do no more than keep the patient alive.

The 9th Circuit logically extended this right to those who wish to control their inevitable demise on there own terms. The Los Angeles Times reported the 2nd Circuit in Chicago was even more progressive with its finding that state laws banning physician assisted suicide deny equal protection to those not on artificial life support.

The Supreme Court has a very serious issue to deal with. Whether the two appellate court rulings are affirmed or overturned, someone will disagree.