June 16 2015 11:49 PM

Our readers tell us what they think



I am grateful to the California Senators for passing SB 128, End of Life Option Act ["Yes to death with dignity," June 10]. I have terminal melanoma. So far, it cost me two toes, lymph nodes in the groin and numerous complications. The likelihood of continued metastasis is very high. When my cancer moves to Stage 4 and I will have less than 6 months to live, I will want the option to choose death with dignity. I want to be alert, say goodbye to my loved ones and fall asleep and die peacefully, without pain and suffering. 

I'm a devout Roman Catholic and I believe than an all-merciful God doesn't want the human beings He created to suffer needlessly. Don't force such needless pain upon me in the name of religion or declare that my chosen death is suicide— it is not. If I have six or less months to live and choose not to suffer the pain and indignities of my disease, it is not suicide. I do not choose to end my life before my time; I choose to end my suffering. 

The End of Life Option bill is modeled on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which has nearly 20 years of history with no abuses; similar laws in Washington and Vermont have worked without flaws as well. Time and again, the arguments against the proposed California law have been proven to lack validity. When my physician certifies my end is imminent and my time to leave this wonderful world is fast upon me, it is my right to choose a merciful death. No legislator or other human being should deny it to me. It comforts me that the Senators voted to provide me, and my fellow Californians, with this option. I urge the California Assembly to follow the Senate's lead and swiftly pass the End of Life Option Act. 

Steve Mione, Banker's Hill 


I agree with much of what Aaryn Belfer wrote ["About that drought data," June 10], however, I will not try to conserve and advise everyone to consider the bigger issue. I have lived in San Diego for about 65 years and we have had a water problem the whole time; conservation will NOT solve our problem. Conservation at this time is like wrapping a piece of tape around a rusty pipe to stop a leak. 

I am not against conservation once society wakes up to the real issue. It took over 10 years for approval to build the desalinization plant in Carlsbad. We elect people and have judges who over the long haul do what the population wants (anyone who thinks judges do not pay attention to what society wants is living under a rock). The politicians want only to be re-elected, and do most anything get votes. If society wants to have desalinization we will get it. I do not know of any other solution for our semi desert. I hope we get severe water rationing and then maybe society will look for a solution to obtaining an unlimited water supply.

Basically it seems there is still too little talk about a real solution and certainly too little action. 

Barry Shiloff, San Diego 


Thanks for your excellent editorial ["Housing first, stadium second," June 3] comparing and contrasting the funding needs for two San Diego issues—a billion-dollar new Chargers Football stadium (where there are 20 games total played in a year) versus less than two-million dollars for a proven-effective project to begin to house homeless people (who are everywhere on the streets of this city) and to provide them social services. Elected officials should jump at the chance to make a difference in the impoverished lives in our midst. 

Frances O'Neill Zimmerman, La Jolla

Write to editor@sdcitybeat.com.


See all events on Wednesday, Nov 30