'Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston said in 2000 that assisted suicide was "not an expression of compassion, it is a flight from compassion." Then the bishop of the Fall River Diocese, he wrote in a pastoral letter: "Like many facile solutions, it is immoral. What passes for mercy is really an act of isolation and abandonment."" What is immoral, Cardinal O'Malley, is your dictating to me, on the basis of your religion's convoluted morality (as so recently proven...), the way I choose to live - or die.

There is little enough to read in the Sunday Globe. Putting it on line on Friday strikes me as not so much a good idea.

I am an advocate for the right to die. Not because I watched my brother suffer a tragic death from AIDS in 91 or because my mom is in her 12th year since being diagnosed with Alzheimer's. It's not because of all the friends and acquaintances I've gotten to know so well at the hospitals and nursing homes who deal with real life and death issues daily. Not even because my oldest brother was just diagnosed with an aggressive lung cancer or that my dad and both grandparents lingered in pain in nursing homes for years. I am an advocate for the right to die because there is nothing more fundamental and personal. There is also an enormous benefit to those who are terminally ill knowing they have some control over their lives that have become uncontrollable. Even if they never choose to participate, the knowledge that they could brings enormous comfort. I've seen the will to live keep some alive past any state I thought imaginable and I've witnessed the will to die have an equally unimaginable power. All of my loved ones would have and did embrace the right to die, but I suspect few would have engaged it. Nonetheless, it would have been their decision and that is the only decision that matters. If given the choice, I will vote affirmatively for the right to die because selfishly, I want that right for myself as much as I wanted it for those I love.

I will support this.

When the time comes the question becomes, quality of life or quantity of life. Let the individual decide their fate.

The Catholic Church should limit their editorial opinions to the Pilot. Keep the flock informed but the rest of us do not care.

I hope this passes, but I fear for the safety of the doctors who are willing to write the prescriptions.

Of course. Of course people should be able to die with dignity and without further pain, in love and compassion instead of being forced to suffer or to leave others to find them if they must take the journey themselves. The religious compassion-mongers really have none, nor critical thought. They should be able to do as they please - but MUST stay out of our homes and laws. It's a sign of how distorted and crippled our system has become by religious influence that this is even a debate. Choice and freedom can not be defined or limited by any church. How dare they even try?

I find it interesting that today's Sunday newspaper brings two in-depth articles about medication use in the care of patient's with terminal illness. The Globe Magazine article entitled "Dying Wishes" examines the subject of physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients who wish to end their lives with a fatal dose of sedative. In general, it paints a rosy picture of families who have chosen physician assisted suicide, whilst underreporting the significant moral dilemma of families who coerce and pressure sick folks to hasten their own deaths. Hospital ethics committees wrestle on a regular basis with cases of the competing interests between patients and their families.  Upon further reading, the front page of the same paper carries a headline, "Rampant prescription, A Hidden Peril" which examines the use of off label antipsychotics use for elderly demented patients who reside in nursing homes. Both articles deal with opposite sides of the same coin:  We yearn for control over every facet of our demise, its timing, its setting, etc, and we are intolerant of letting our end of lives be a natural process which we accept as part of being human. Death either has to be put off at all costs, or hurried along. The first article fails to recognize that dementia is a terminal illness, often accompanied by troublesome symptoms that can and should be addressed with the same skillful medication use with which we address other symptoms sometimes associated with terminal illness, such as pain. In contrast, the article on assisted suicide suggests that lethal medications are a necessary part of the end of life arsenal. It completely overlooks the robust evidence that reasonable alternatives to suicide exist that are associated with a high degree of family and patient comfort and satisfaction. The truth is, suicide isn't necessary if you access skillful hospice care, which is directed at aggressive pain and symptom management, and spiritual support for self and family.  Sad to think of the poor gentleman who thought his "only option" for a dignified death was to shoot himself, alone and without support.  What is dignified about any part of that lonely scenario? Palliative Care and Hospice programs can help people achieve real quality of life, if not quantity, and enable families and patients to go through what is a natural stage of life, filled with rich possibilities of personal growth and meaning for patients and their loved ones, which I consider the real definition of "death with dignity". 

On another note****** What effect will a PERSONAL CHOICE DEATH have on life insurance? *****

Massachusetts is one of only three states that do not recognize the legality of a living will! So, if you think you last wishes will be fulfilled, think again. If you are in the process of dying and you and you are in a hospital or rehab center, the staff is obligated to resuscitate you! And you thought the Catholic church had no power!

I will probably never do it, but I want the option. It's my life and my death. Hopefully when the time comes, I won't be on a gurney in the hospital with multiple tubes and wires attached. That thought is horrifying. Everybody dies. Shouldn't we try to make death as pleasant as possible?

At least the church is consistent that we should follow their rules to the letter, no matter the circumstances. Unless, of course, you're wealthy and you want a divorce.

In Massachusetts a woman can elect to end her pregnancy but an adult can not elect to end their life? Seems to me freedom of choice should be freedom of choice for all. No exceptions.

It is simple common sense that we should have a choice on how we would like to die. The very fact that we may indeed have a choice is a testament to our intellectual advancement both as individuals and as a society. It is also common sense that we have meaningful discussions on end-of-life issues with family and friends not at a time of urgency and distress, but as a part of conversations about healthy living. There are many resources on how to approach end-of-life issues. My blog (www.eol2die4.com) is only one such site that seeks to help individuals initiate such discussions. Also, I recommend that 'dignity' replace 'fatal' when describing the final prescription; the positive meaning of the former clearly outweighs the negative definition of the latter.

Massachusetts asks that every person name a health care proxy, and an alternate to represent the wishes of the patient. Make a living will out (see Five Wishes) and give it to your proxy. Hospitals are required to honor the proxy's instructions.

"Dying isn't suffering. Resistance to dying is suffering." (from The Best Care Possible by Ira Byock, MD)