Letters
September 18, 2008
By Contributed
Dog Park
I Live in North Bend and I am able to function just fine taking my dogs down to Snoqualmie to play in the park. Before that, we had to drive to Marymoor or Robinswood to legally let our dogs play off-leash. I have friends that live in lower Snoqualmie that don’t mind at all bringing their kids up to North Bend to skate at the park.This community, “The Valley” has always depended on all the towns to provide the many benefits of living here. I grocery shop in North Bend, fish in Fall City, Carnation or Duvall, send my kids to high school in Snoqualmie, and swim in the pool in North Bend.
I moved here with no false expectations of a small town being able to provide and support all of the amenities I like to use, but I could see that “The Valley” could give me and my family everything we need. I am sorry that all of you up on the Ridge paid $100,000 more for your house than it’s worth, but that doesn’t make you all better than the rest of us. You have the library, police station, post office, fire station, city hall, and God knows what else from down in lower Snoqualmie. Can’t you guys be a part of the larger community and just drive to other parts of “The Valley” and support some of those areas too?
Your sense of entitlement is sickening. Please get off your high horses and join in a pretty darn good place to raise a family.
Andy Sroufe,
North Bend
McCormick leaving
Last week Gary Wilson wrote, “…personal agendas have been pressed on our students and (parents) are asking that our teachers refrain from indoctrinating our kids….”
If by ‘pressing a personal agenda’ you mean calling people out on their homophobia and hate-filled rhetoric and if by ‘indoctrinating our kids’ you mean creating and promoting an atmosphere of mutual respect and inclusion where everyone has a place at the table, then I’m all for it. However, my guess is you meant none of that. It’s biology Gary and being statistically conservative, it’s the biology of 1 in 10 that you glibly reduce to nothing but ‘a personal agenda’.
I’m heartened by people like Wendy Palmer who valued Kit for exactly who she was(is)…a gifted and talented teacher, who just happened to challenge a minister who continues to target the gay community with his hate-filled religious doctrine.
Sue Kauffman,
North Bend
Initiative 1000
I have to disagree with reader Kira Clark regarding the Death with Dignity initiative. The example she cited (an older woman with hearing loss being pressured by her daughter to kill herself) would definitely not be a candidate for help under the initiative. First, the initiative applies only to people who will die in less than six months, as certified by two physicians. Secondly, there are many safeguards to ensure that any person who requests help is not being pressured by other parties.
Whereas Ms. Clark says that studies show that severe pain and distress have increased in those using similar laws, all the studies I’ve seen show the opposite, that people who ask for and obtain medication are greatly relieved; in Oregon most people never use their medication and die naturally, but are happy to know they have it if they want it. No abuses have shown up in the 10 years since implementation of the similar law in Oregon. In the first eight years, only 248 patients used the medication — not a huge number.
I-1000 gives people a choice. If Ms. Clark doesn’t like this idea for herself, that’s fine. But should I ever find myself with less than six months to live, I would like the ability to make my own choices. If I were in such severe pain that it either couldn’t be controlled, or controlled only by rendering me barely conscious, if I don’t relish the indignity of diapers, if I don’t want to spend my last days hooked up to machines in a hospital, if I want to spare society thousands of dollars for end-of-life care, if I want to ensure that my family is around me when I choose to go – whatever my reasons for deciding to leave a few weeks or months earlier than predicted — they would be nobody’s business but my own. Please don’t deprive me of this choice.
Arlynn Kerr,
Snoqualmie
Please do not vote for I-1000. The initiative will allow physicians to give medicine to terminally ill patients so the patient can commit suicide. Besides the obvious fact that this idea would allow the very people who are supposed to be helping heal people help kill them instead, it also ignores cases where patients have been cured of supposedly incurable illnesses.
Healing miracles do happen. A friend of my family developed cancer and was given four months to live. Under I-1000 this man, depressed by the news, could have requested medications to end his life prematurely. I-1000 would not even have required his family to be notified about this course of action. This man went through treatment and lived six months longer than expected. He and his family enjoyed half a year longer with each other than a potentially rash decision based on overwhelming emotions would have allowed. If I-1000 is passed, anyone who is terminally ill can ask their physician to help them commit suicide by giving them medicines. I know the family of this man was so glad to have their husband and father with them for six months longer than expected, and he loved the extra time with them.
This initiative would degrade life. Even those who are dying deserve the chance to live as long as possible before they leave their friends and family. I will be voting against I-1000 for every patient who, like my friend, will live longer than expected.
Anna Wilke,
Snoqualmie
I strongly oppose Initiative 1000 on the grounds that it goes against the role of doctors, and reverses how they are traditionally supposed to conduct their jobs.
The job of a doctor is to look after the physical well-being of the patient. This includes attempting to heal the sick and wounded and prevent the death of the patients. The so called “Death with Dignity” act directly violates this role, and, instead of providing more means for the doctor to protect the patient, simply provides a legal way for the doctor to give up on trying to help the patient.
Up until recent times, doctors took what is called the Hippocratic Oath (believed to be developed by Hippocrates, who is considered one of the father’s of modern medicine.) before becoming doctors. Although this is not a requirement for physicians in the United States, it still contains many guidelines as to how doctors should conduct themselves that are still in use today.
One of the principle ideas contained in the Hippocratic Oath is that the doctor should not administer lethal doses to patients. Translated this section reads, “And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked (for it).” This was viewed as wrong and evil. Yet, this year the public of Washington is being asked to vote to legalize physician assisted suicide.
Approval of Initiative 1000 will directly violate the traditional role of doctors, and undermine their jobs as protectors of patients. I strongly urge others to vote against this.
Max McDevitt,
Snoqualmie
Comments
Got something to say?
Before you comment, please note:
- These comments are moderated.
- Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
- Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
- This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.
