THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, January 31, 1997 TAG: 9701310004
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: 30 lines
I concur with your position on the U.S. Supreme Court and the right to die (Jan. 10, ``That Slippery Slope'').
Considering the dominance of managed care (HMOs) in today's insurance market, it would behoove us to recognize the convenient and cost-saving feature for such plans if this or future Supreme Courts ruled in favor of doctor-assisted suicide. What choices would a patient or a family possess if their assigned doctor recommended death to a seriously ill patient? If the patient or family chose to continue treatment, could the health-care provider refuse to pay for further treatment?
This weighty choice to die is presumably made by a fully rational person who is suffering. Who is truly in his ``right mind'' when deathly ill and heavily medicated? In this condition, no one should be called upon to make any serious decision.
A case in point - my father-in-law was in an intensive-care unit several years ago. His doctor indicated there was no hope for his survival. As it turns out, Pop did fully recover and lived another 10 years - a very healthy, active and productive life.
Morally, assisted suicide is reprehensible, but practically speaking it could terminate a life many years before God intended. That's called murder. Indeed, a very slippery slope.
GAIL A. BALL
Virginia Beach, Jan. 10, 1997