Easing Suffering of Dying Patients

I was not surprised by the Times Poll that showed most people make a distinction between “extending the life of a patient needlessly” and “doctor-assisted death” (“Most Would Let Terminally Ill Die,” March 9).

I agree with euthanasia advocates that there is no moral difference between letting a terminally ill patient die (i.e. unhooking life-support devices), which is legal under certain circumstances, and physician-assisted suicide, which is not. Both methods require another person to be “active” in the death of the patient.

I challenge anyone to tell me the moral difference between unhooking a respirator and administering carbon monoxide or a lethal injection to a dying person. Not only can “letting a patient die” result in additional suffering for the patient, which does not occur with physician-assisted death, but suffering is also caused by botched suicide attempts of dying people who have no legal recourse.

I suggest that the Times take a poll of people, like myself, who have stood by helplessly watching as a loved one died slowly of a horrible terminal disease, suffering inhumanely through the final days or weeks of life in agony that morphine cannot alleviate. This experience will definitely change one’s attitude toward euthanasia.

I believe the humane act is to end this form of suffering if the sufferer wishes it, even if it means physician-assisted death. If our pets are worthy of this humane act, why aren’t we?

The only consideration should be the wishes of the dying person who deserves our compassion, not our misguided morals.

MARK S. FISHER

Orange