Vail Daily letter: ‘Yes’ on Proposition 106
As I am a strong proponent of Proposition 106, I decided I could no longer sit back and not respond to Peggy Warner’s letter printed on Oct. 19 in the Vail Daily.
First of all, you ask, “Why is there a ballot question that will allow those considering suicide to commit suicide?” Proposition 106 is not a suicide bill. Terminally ill people do not want to die, but rather want to live and they are mentally capable in making their own health care decisions. This is not the case with people who are contemplating suicide. If either the person’s physician or the consulting physician has concerns about the person’s ability to make an informed decision, a psychiatric or psychological evaluation is required. People who are terminally ill are insulted and hurt by the use of this word. They simply want to be relieved of their suffering and have a peaceful death surrounded by their loved ones.
I do agree with you that “our laws must respect the dignity in every person.” But to say that this measure will create “subgroups” that can be killed and will bring us closer to “death panels” is totally absurd. The following safeguards are written in the bill:
1. The person must make two verbal requests with a 15-day minimum waiting period in between.
2. A third written request must be made in front of at least two witnesses.
3. At least one witness cannot be related by blood, marriage, adoption or civil union and cannot stand to gain financially from the person’s death.
You can read further safeguards by going to coendoflifeoptions.org.
I respect your personal decision to not use this option no matter how much you may be suffering at the end of your life but please do not take that option away from me. I watched my brother endure a great amount of pain and suffering while he was fighting lung cancer and I want the peace of mind that I have an option if I am ever in a similar situation.