As a radiation oncology physician, I must correct numerous inaccuracies in the op-ed by Dr. Cory Franklin and Victoria Tiller (“When it comes to physician-assisted suicide, safeguards aren’t effective,” July 30).
In their piece, they seem to conflate people in the throes of mental health crises who die by suicide and mentally capable, terminally ill adults who want the option of medical aid in dying to peacefully end unbearable suffering at the very end of life.
No U.S. medical schools currently administer the outdated 2,500-year-old Hippocratic Oath to Greek gods.
Every U.S. medical aid-in-dying law, including Illinois’ End-of-Life Options Act (SB 3499), has strict safeguards and practice requirements to ensure the highest standard of care, as detailed in the clinical criteria published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Palliative Medicine.
All U.S. jurisdictions that have authorized medical aid in dying and Illinois’ legislation limit this peaceful dying option to mentally capable, terminally ill adults with six months or less to live who can self-ingest the medication. There are no documented cases of abuse or coercion.
While physicians’ estimates of life expectancy can be wrong, they are much more likely to overestimate how long terminally ill patients will live to keep hope alive: A British Medical Journal study found doctors tend to overestimate how long terminally ill patients will live by nearly 530%.
The reality is terminally ill individuals who qualify for medical aid in dying, and exceed their life expectancy, wait until the bitter end before they ingest it. Oregon Health Authority data since 1998 shows the average time between the first request for medical aid in dying and death was 39 days and the longest period was 1,859 days (five years).
U.S. medical aid-in-dying laws and legislation don’t compare to euthanasia laws in other nations that are not limited to mentally capable, terminally ill adults and allow someone other than the dying person to administer the medication.
If either the attending or consulting physician suspects the individual requesting medical aid in dying has any condition impairing their ability to make a rational, informed health care decision, a third mental capacity evaluation is required by a mental health professional. The request for aid-in-dying medication doesn’t proceed unless the mental health care professional confirms the individual is capable of making an informed, rational health care decision.
I applaud Franklin and Tiller’s wish to make sure that the medical aid in dying process is as safe as possible. That is what we all want. But they are concerned about risks that just don’t really exist.
I urge Illinois lawmakers to pass the Illinois End-of-Life Options Act as soon as possible, so terminally ill Illinoisans have the option to die peacefully, instead of being forced to die painfully.
— Dr. Andrew Howard, Chicago
Voting and climate change fight
The recent news about record-breaking heat, wildfires and the destruction caused by Hurricane Debby has been depressing. But news about the passion and engagement of young climate activists gives me hope for the future. The coming election will be one of the most important in my lifetime for several reasons, not least of which are the potential impacts of climate change on future generations. Voters have a choice between a presidential candidate who has a strong record on climate issues and one who considers climate change a hoax and has suggested reversing rules and regulations to benefit the fossil fuel industry.
Anyone concerned about climate change should be making a plan to vote for local and national candidates who support climate action. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have strong records on this issue. They can be expected to build on the landmark Inflation Reduction Act that provides hundreds of billions of dollars for the transition to renewable energy and other technologies to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
It is certainly true that we have not done enough to fight climate change. Even with the current legislation and emission cuts anticipated under the IRA, the U.S. is not yet on track to meet the commitment of 50% emission reductions by 2030. We need to do much more to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy. A Harris administration would enable the country to make significant progress toward this goal.
I urge those who are discouraged and angered by President Joe Biden’s administration’s positions on climate, oil projects or its inability to end the war in Gaza to vote. Voting and encouraging others to vote are important ways to make elected leaders listen to our concerns. The more we vote, the more powerful our voices become.
We must then keep the pressure on legislators to implement effective climate policies to leave a livable world for future generations.
— Sheila Brown, volunteer, Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Evanston
Groups are working for climate
I share the sense of urgency young voters expressed about climate change in “Young voters focus on climate.” The article refers to the absence of a “silver-bullet candidate.” Decarbonizing the energy sources of the entire country is too big a task for a single candidate or technology. To be politically effective, young voters would do well to join civic organizations that have been fighting climate change for decades.
Citizens’ Climate Lobby and the Sierra Club, to name two, have the technical and political expertise to evaluate the merits of introduced bills at the federal level and to organize citizen lobbying of elected representatives for the most effective legislation. Such organizations do not let “the perfect” be the enemy of “the good.” They advocate for legislation that often is an imperfect compromise but has a chance of getting passed into law and then, year after year, moving the country to a sustainable future.
Young voters will find kindred spirits, discover useful expertise and feel politically empowered. If they in turn can recruit their peers to these organizations, then all the better.
— Albert Wagner, Orland Park
Pragmatism critical for change
Thank you for the article “Young voters focus on climate.” It reveals excellent insights about how younger, single-issue voters are less likely to be pragmatic and more likely to remain steadfast to their ideals. Some voters interviewed seemed willing to withhold their vote when a pipeline they didn’t like got built or permitted.
The challenge to get both parties to accelerate their efforts to transition away from fossil fuels is a marathon, not a sprint. It will take patience, fortitude, respectful engagement and a willingness to educate the electorate that has yet to recognize the urgent need. The battle won’t be won on gaining one vote or fighting one project at a time. It could be won by getting smart legislation passed such as electrical transmission line permitting reform and carbon pricing, which requires a pragmatic approach. This is how we can bury fossil fuels in an avalanche of cheaper clean energy and win the marathon.
In an evenly split Congress, it’s hard to make progress. It’s encouraging that last month, a U.S. Senate bill called the Energy Permitting Reform Act passed in committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. It could speed up getting clean energy onto the grid but also would enable some fossil fuel projects to get permitted faster. Since about 80% of energy projects waiting to be permitted are clean energy projects, this would be a win for clean energy.
Would younger clean energy advocates be pragmatic enough to take some bad with the overwhelming good? I hope so.
— Dorelle Ackermann, Mokena, Illinois
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.