Challenges to Prop. 161 ‘Strong Safeguards’

Warren Bostick and Ronald Koons (“Embrace a Chance to Ease Life’s Final Pain, Suffering,” Commentary, Sept. 16) are so eager to promote Proposition 161 that they have resorted to deception. They claim that Proposition 161 has “strong safeguards.” Not true. Strong safeguards would include:

* A waiting period of at least a few hours or days after a patient’s initial request to be put to death.

* A requirement for an evaluation to make sure that the patient is not motivated by depression or by pressure from others.

* A requirement that the physician be a specialist in the diagnosis of terminal illness.

* A requirement that there be witnesses when the patient asks to be put to death.

* A requirement that there be a mechanism for oversight and monitoring.

None of this is provided for in Proposition 161. Where the taking of human life is concerned, we cannot be too careful.

Another curious aspect of Bostick’s and Koons’ commentary is their sleight-of-hand with the English language. They claim that “to kill is to end the life of someone who does not want to die.” Since when? My dictionary says that to kill is “to deprive of life; to put an end to.”

Maybe the person wants to die; maybe not. Everyone understands what the act of killing is, and that’s why supporters of this initiative don’t want to use the word.

Bostick and Koons have it right when they say: “Doctors must not kill, ever.”

CORRINE BAILEY, Orange