ShareThis Page

Doctors should save lives, not end them

| Tuesday, June 7, 2016, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding Christina Thomas' letter “Legalize physican-aided suicide” : Killing patients has never been a part of the ethical framework of the medical profession going back to the Hippocratic Oath. It has no place in either civilized society or the medical profession as it often targets those who are sick and disabled, those very persons society should be committed to compassionately assisting. Often one hears the reason for allowing this barbaric practice is excruciating untreatable pain that candidates for assisted suicide must endure. This is myth-making on the part of advocates. Doctors are capable of treating pain effectively.

The disability community is very concerned about this push to legalize the practice of killing patients. The advocacy group Not Dead Yet reminds us that many disabled persons live very meaningful and useful lives. Consider the brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking who has lived with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) for over 50 years. Also, in some European countries where euthanasia is legal, individuals have been euthanized by their own requests not for terminal illlnesses but because of grief over the death of a loved one, depression and nonterminal illnesses.

Sadly, some will always find a way to commit suicide. Why would Pennsylvanians want their doctors, those responsible for their healing and comfort, to be co-opted to become their killers? Thomas' own professional organization, the American Nursing Association, opposes this practice.

Dr. Ralph A. Capone

Greensburg

The writer is a physician board-certified in hospice and palliative care and a bioethics instructor at St. Vincent College.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.