I was disappointed to see that the Tribune Editorial Board has failed to endorse the bill for medical aid in dying in Illinois (“‘Right to die’ debate comes to Illinois. Both sides have merit, but we would vote no.,” March 8). Though I realize that for some, this bill advocates for something contrary to their beliefs, the rationale forwarded by the editorial board does not follow those lines. Instead, the board fails to acknowledge the strict guidelines the bill includes.

A person must have a medically confirmed life expectancy of less than six months, must make the request for medication themselves (actually request it twice, with a five-day waiting period between requests) and must be able to self-administer the medication. No physician is forced to participate.

This bill does not apply to someone with a disability and poor quality of life but rather someone with a known short-term life expectancy. The notion that this process would be encouraged by a medical professional is simply outrageous.

I write this response wearing two hats. First, as a physician, having sworn to do no harm to my patients. To allow someone to exist with incredible pain and suffering and with loss of personal autonomy is to do them harm. My other hat is that of a daughter. I watched my mother die a painful death, while in hospice, while receiving medication that could not alleviate her pain. Having her beg me, her daughter, a physician, to help her end her suffering and having to tell her that I couldn’t will haunt me forever.

The bill for medical aid in dying is well thought out. It clearly defines who qualifies and how the option can be utilized. To interpret it differently does a disservice to those who will clearly benefit.

— Dr. Diane Schaar, Burr Ridge

Editorial’s leap not based on data

The “right to die” editorial has to be the shoddiest ever written by the editorial board.

Two key tenets of the editorial arguing against passage of the “right to die” bill under consideration by the Illinois legislature are grounded in unsubstantiated conclusions rather than data. The first is that physicians’ implicit biases against disabled people will lead them to coerce members of this vulnerable population to seek assisted death. This is a major, and quite frankly offensive, leap that is not borne out by any data, systematic or even anecdotal, collected over the 25 years since the first states enacted right to die legislation.

The second is that “the end-of-life comforts available to most of us … have greatly improved from what was offered to our family members and other loved ones in the past.” I would encourage the editorial board to review the body of studies that shows the inadequacy of current pain management and the staggering, and heartbreaking, suffering that terminally ill individuals experience in palliative care.

Finally, I submit that the editorial’s labeling of dying people as “courageous” and caregivers as “inspiring” is a transparently patronizing tactic designed to deflect criticism of the board’s untenable position: denying terminally ill individuals the personal agency to end their suffering.

Let’s trust that our legislators will approach the “right to die” option in a more humane, compassionate and evidence-based fashion.

— Joyce Keithley, Chicago

Elder abuse is a real concern

Responding to the article “‘Right-to-die’: Is Illinois next to adopt legislation?” (March 5) and the letter to the editor by Dr. Debra Stulberg (“Support for medical aid in dying,” March 10), I agree in philosophy with this proposed legislation and the highlights of compassionate patient care.

It is important to remember that elder abuse — physical and financial, two kinds that are closely intertwined — is on the rise. Approximately 1 in 10 seniors are victims of elder abuse, according to federal data. (More than 2 million Illinoisans are 65 and older.) Most abuse is by family members — for example, family power of attorney overreach, which can end in premature death and the release of assets.

Victims are often ashamed to disclose family violence.

Until we strengthen community education and pillars of professionalism that are required to recognize elder physical abuse, this legislation could potentially embolden brazen use of family power of attorney.

Money can be a tragic capstone. Elder abuse matters.

— Jan Roberts Stickel, Mount Prospect

Choice for terminally ill people

When the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos were children, commentaries have echoed the same concerns expressed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade — that women and pregnant people no longer have legal control over their bodies.

Ironically, in its March 8 editorial, the Tribune Editorial Board expresses disapproval for the right to control one’s body, at the other end of life, by recommending against Illinois Senate Bill 3499, which would allow for medical aid in dying.

The editorial board seems to confuse the right to decide with a requirement to make a particular choice. Nothing in S.B. 3499 mandates that a person choose medical aid in dying, and the bill contains multiple safety checks to ensure that a person is making an informed and voluntary decision.

The bill does not permit a family to request medical aid in dying for someone or to force a patient to carry it out. Nothing in the bill requires physicians to participate in medical aid in dying. Nothing requires a pharmacist to fulfill the prescription. The Illinois legislation is largely modeled on Oregon’s 1997 Death with Dignity Act, which has avoided the pitfalls that many critics have raised as concerns.

As a bioethicist in end-of-life issues and a death doula, I know there is some pain and suffering that medicine cannot treat. For example, Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old, moved to Oregon to pursue medical aid in dying rather than go through a prolonged death caused by an incurable and debilitating brain tumor.

Hospice is a wonderful service for patients facing pain and suffering at the end of life. Hospice and medical aid in dying are not mutually exclusive. This bill would permit a choice for those patients with terminal illness who wish to have control over their life and bodies, whether through assistance in dying, aggressive treatment or hospice. The editorial board would refuse patients that choice and suggest that the state, rather than the patient, knows what is best for them.

Religious organizations should not be deciding civil law. I am not a member of a religion that condemns medical aid in dying, so why should I be forced to live under someone else’s faith-based morality?

S.B. 3499 is about freedom of choice at the end of life to parallel our state’s commitment to such freedoms at the beginning.

I urge our legislators to pass this bill.

— Craig Klugman, Chicago

A solution to concerns? Vote.

In the Tribune’s “Voice of the People” on Sunday, the writers variously comment on legislation to allow medical aid in dying in Illinois, the cost of health care in the United States, the consequences of climate change in relation to the expansion of O’Hare International Airport, the continued damage arising from unregulated gun sales and ownership, and the cost of government funding for migrant care.

The solution to all of these concerns is to vote, to encourage like-minded people in your community and state and across our country to vote, and to express your concerns directly to your representatives in government.

We, the people, have the power to bring about change if we will only use it.

— Gene Kocian, Wilmette