xml:space="preserve">

I have been reading about the debate over allowing someone to decide to end his or her life ("Reviving 'death with dignity,'" April 6). I am sure that the organizations lobbying against such a law do a lot of good work. However, I fail to see the government's interest in keeping me alive. What difference does it make to the government whether I am here or not, except for their tax base of course?

It seems to me that if someone has had enough, they should be able to get off this planet legally. And I am not limiting this opinion to those with verified terminal illnesses. As I recall, part of the abortion argument dealt with the number of botched back alley type abortion attempts. How many botched suicide attempts are there every year? Keeping someone alive very well can be labeled cruel and unusual punishment. Suffering does not serve any useful purpose.

Advertisement

Our rulers in Annapolis decided that it was wrong for state government to take a life. OK. But a right to die law would not involve a state government decision. Why is the government so reticent in not passing a "right to die" law? Could it be the health care lobby? Hospitals, nursing homes, etc. make a lot of money from providing simple custodial care. No one I know wants to be maintained like that. If the law existed which gave people a choice, those that wanted to stay alive would have every right to do so.

William M. Libercci Sr.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement