NYS assisted suicide bill, bishops' world views, golfing fees

The article “Assisted suicide bill” [News, May 7] misrepresents the Medical Aid in Dying proposal being considered by the State Legislature. The measure would provide adults with terminal illnesses who are medically competent and not depressed the opportunity to end their own lives compassionately under the agreement and supervision of their attending physician after consultation with a second concurring physician.

As a recently retired pulmonary physician, I have cared for many patients with advanced diseases such as emphysema, cancer, heart failure, and kidney failure who were suffering near the end of their lives. Legally helping people die with dignity and without struggling to breathe is both noble and compassionate. It is important for physicians to relieve pain and suffering without being perceived as assisting in “legalized suicide.”

I recognize that medical aid in dying may not be acceptable to everyone’s beliefs, and it is not clear how many physicians would participate. However, anyone who does not wish to participate can opt out. There would be no forced premature end-of-life by “death squads,” as some have feared.

Hopefully, the State Senate passes this legislation and it is signed so compassionate end-of-life care can be provided to those who request it.

— Dr. Robert T. Schreiber, Oyster Bay

The writer is president of the Nassau County Medical Society.

Confusion about implementing the Medical Aid in Dying Act is no surprise. As a witness to end-of-life care for my two parents, a stepfather, and an aunt, the thought of suggesting, effectively, poisoning the dearest persons in my life is unthinkable and an assault on human dignity.

Advanced care directives, pain management, and hospice care combined are proven methods for ethical end-of-life situations and leave the door open for the chance of a miracle, especially for the young and misdiagnosed. Applause for Dr. Patrick O’Shaughnessy, CEO of Catholic Health systems, for his opposition to this bill. The likelihood of misuse, devaluation of human dignity, and litigation against any health care system implementing suicide is too apparent.

— Marc De Venoge, Manhasset

Those trying to stop the long-awaited bill are being hypocritical. If they don’t want to use this bill, no one is forcing them to do so.

When a person has a beloved family pet that’s suffering, you are sensitive, compassionate and do the thoughtful, caring thing to make the end of the pet’s life happen to avoid prolonged suffering.

Ever watch a loved one going through the throes of cancer near the end of life? Have you watched their suffering or heard their cries?

How is this any different? If a suffering person has no hope or treatment left to explore and is in pain and suffering — and that individual wants an end to come quickly to die with dignity — why should that person not be given the same right as a family pet?

The bill should be passed.

— Barbara Diamond Obstgarten, Port Jefferson Station

Bishops should heed other world issues

A reader eloquently described the indirect responsibility that Catholic bishops bear over the end of refugee work to support those fleeing violence and oppression “Bishops’ endorsement backfired on Church,” Letters, May 2].

One, however, cannot be a “one-issue voter” since so many things are important. The dismantling of important programs like USAID can lead to the death of many due to starvation.

Reductions in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization will leave us less prepared for pandemics.

Frequent mass shootings exacerbated by a resistance to gun control result in the deaths of innocent people.

Reductions in health care may leave people unable to get lifesaving care. Rollbacks of climate change initiatives can intensify floods and wildfires leading to the loss of life.

While I grieve for the unborn, I grieve even more for the already living humans who will not survive the end of some of these important programs. Because of the politics that the Catholic Church has embraced, I am no longer a practicing Catholic.

— Carol Raab, Wading River

Low fees, not robots, will attract golfers

Adding refreshment delivery robots to the Harbor Links Golf Course in Port Washington is supposed to attract younger golfers [“Robots deliver drinks at links,” Our Towns, April 30].

A problem at the course, however, is the exorbitant fees charged that deter many golfers from playing there. The money would have been better spent in reducing greens fees to allow more golfers to use the course even though it is already crowded on many days.

I understand the Town of North Hempstead needs to increase revenues, but not at the expense of everyday golfers.

— Rich Helfont, Port Washington