 |
 |
Friends-- I hesitated for some time before posting my response on the euthanasia/death-with-dignity question, precisely because I feared it would be seen as an "attack". It was only intended as an expression of OUR opinion, as this is something Peter (the PWP) and I have spent HOURS talking about personally. _Of course_Jan, Kathie, and anyone else is entitled to express an opinion which differs from ours--that should go without saying, and if anything we said seemed to imply otherwise, I'm sorry. Our only concern is that with this matter, which is so controversial here as well as in Australia, we respect the views of others and as a part of that respect agree that we can disagree without "putting each other down" . On this list I believe the topic is a legitimate one--whatever view one takes, and that is no doubt why Jan introduced it in the first place. Like so many other things, it is an intensely personal decision. Nor would I ever want it made by "doctors, social workers, politicians". Anyone familiar with a Living Will or Durable Power of Atty. for Health CAre knows that they are meant as an expression of one's own wishes, and as a help to family members who may be left with a very painful decision in en extreme situation. Yes, we are probably not all talking about the same things, and that's often true in human discourse! We have NO wish to FORCE ANYONE to agree with us--and only ask the same from others. Can we manage this topic "out of the closet"? Or must it, like sex, be s forbidden topic? We are open to hearing anything that may be said in a spirit of exploration? We won't solve this issue here, but we may stimulate each other to consider it from a different perspective. Our comments on the * arguments * used in the piece Jan posted were NOT directed at her personally, but at the arguments themselves,BTW. Peter and Camille Flintermann(PWP 78/7) and CG, Ohio