Online-only letters

Editorial melodrama:

I-1000 debate, cont.

Guest columnist

waxed a tad too eloquent

My attention was riveted by Margaret Dore's literary style in her column opposing I-1000 ["The indignity of I-1000: Backers' claims misleading," Times, guest commentary, Aug. 20]. She begins by presenting herself as a disinterested lawyer. Gradually she introduces a fictitious character she dubs as the "greedy son." Within a few paragraphs, this villain goes from pressuring "dad" into signing a will to murdering him!

At the sad end of this dark fantasy, she no longer refers to the victim as "dad" but she says you'll be "spending the last minutes of 'your' life trying to fight 'them' (your loved ones) off."

All this as a result of passing I-1000.

Toward the end of this macabre psychodrama, I expected "dad" to yell out, "Somebody help me: Is there an attorney in the house?"

Alas, yes, there is.

For more realistic information go to http://yeson1000.org. This site includes the correct wording of I-1000, as well as an explanation by the state's attorney general. I would also recommend you read the personal-stories section on the site. It talks about real people and the real effects Washington state's current laws have had on them and their loved ones.

— Joseph Ryan, Port Townsend

"Death with dignity" initiative

a wrong first step

I value greatly the compassion that prompts people to want their loved ones to be spared suffering. But in this era of great advances in palliative care, much pain can be avoided. I believe that as responsible citizens, we must consider the possible outcome of the legislation we support. I have been involved in more than one conversation where I have heard people suggest that laws such as this could help control insurance costs.

I have recently read of a case in Oregon in which an insurance company denied a requested treatment for a cancer patient, but would cover assisted suicide.

Is this an acceptable outcome? Mahatma Gandhi taught us that the most important consideration when pondering proposed changes in public policy is the impact it may have on the poorest, most vulnerable person among us.

The insurance companies already seem to have more power than the individual. Rather than giving them a truly frightening increase in power, should we not rather enhance our palliative-care efforts even more?

Let's choose compassion rather than euthanasia by corporation. If there ever was a "slippery slope," this is it.

— Maxwell Lewis, Seattle

Initiative will help insure

a dignified death

Margaret Dore uses her legal credentials to scare us about the potential for I-1000 to allow unscrupulous heirs to hasten the death of an elderly relative.

Of course, such a criminal act is possible — with or without I-1000. We have all read in this newspaper about children and spouses doing away with relatives to get at assets or insurance, but nothing in Oregon's 10-year experience with a nearly identical statute supports the notion that there would be an increase in such behavior following the passage of I-1000.

Oregon's experience actually shows us that the overwhelming majority of the terminally ill who chose to take advantage of the law — to abbreviate their suffering at the end of life — did so in the comforting presence of family and friends who gathered to say a reluctant farewell. They understood that as much as they wished a longer life for their loved one, modern medicine had reached the limit of what it could do to sustain a life free from pain.

Don't be misled by scare tactics and hypothetical scenarios of rampant abuse. Instead, think about your own family and make the decision that, should you need it, will give you the option to leave your life as you have lived it — in dignity and peace.

— Susan Beverly, Newcastle

One pencil too many

Kudos to The Times,

but school-supply lists too long

People who can afford it should contribute to the school-supply drive mentioned in Thursday's editorial ["Preparing to launch," Aug. 21]. Even more necessary, teachers should consider eliminating the long list of supplies they are demanding parents buy. In today's economy, parents have to make choices between putting food on the table and purchasing back-to-school clothes.

Families with several children are receiving long lists that are putting a strain on their budgets. There could be a minimal list at the beginning of the year with additional supplies spread out over the school year.

School districts are aware of their budget problems, so they should be demanding restraint from their teachers concerning materials requirements.

— Anna Denton, Burien

Censoring censorship

Random House drops the flag

of literary freedom

Random House's censorship of author Sherry Jones' new book "for fear of [a] violent reaction from Muslims" ["National publisher kills Spokane writer's book," Local News, Aug. 20] is a disgrace and a threat to free academic exchange everywhere.

Giving into the fear of an imagined threat posed by some Muslim extremists merely helps to convince them that violence is effective. Not only that, but this censorship out of fear reinforces a negative stereotype of Muslims that already threatens mainstream Muslim communities.

Hopefully, other publishers will not show themselves to be so cowardly and the book will eventually be published.

I, for one, will think twice before purchasing another book from Random House.

— Daniel Miller, Redmond

Clichéd conversations

Faith forum highlights differences

between Obama, McCain

Leonard Pitts Jr. spoiled an otherwise fair-minded column ["Mr. Blunt vs. Mr. Thoughtful," Aug. 21] by resorting to a cliché popular among liberal columnists: "Republicans don't have the burden Democrats do; by and large, they don't do nuance."

By repeating this tired cliché, Pitts falls into the same kind of simplistic, black-and-white thinking of which he accuses Republicans.

Democrats and Republicans are equally capable of both simplistic and nuanced thinking. Moreover, what some may see as "simplistic" might be described as "straightforward" by others, whereas "nuance" might be alternately viewed as "equivocation" or "obfuscation."

Regarding the recent presidential forum at Saddleback Church, I agree with Pitts that John McCain gave the more impressive performance. McCain's answers, although concise, reflected a great deal of prior thought and soul-searching, whereas Barack Obama's "thoughtfulness" often seemed fuzzy and evasive.

This does not bode well for Obama, whose verbal dexterity is supposed to be his greatest asset.

— Stephen Triesch, Shoreline