(3 of 5)
Your article "A License To Kill," about the legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands, compared that law with Oregon's Death with Dignity Act [ETHICS, April 23]. As one of the principal drafters of the Oregon law, I would like to set the record straight. Contrary to what the story's graphic indicated, "mercy killing" is expressly prohibited in Oregon. Oregon's law is narrowly tailored to allow only competent, terminally ill adult patients the option to hasten an imminent and difficult death. No one else may make this decision for the patient. There are far more differences than similarities between the Oregon experience and that of the Netherlands. Most of what occurs in the Netherlands under its euthanasia law would not be tolerated under the Oregon law. To borrow your phrase, Oregon is no "Hemlockland." ELI D. STUTSMAN, ATTORNEY Portland, Ore.
The Netherlands' legalization of mercy killing is a bold and sensible step to benefit patients who experience endless suffering and who have no hope of improvement. Every human being must have the basic right to live with health and happiness and to choose to die if suffering terribly from an incurable ailment. All countries must legalize such a right for the benefit of mankind. ANANTHAPADMANABA KRISHNAMURTHY Dublin, Ohio
Oregon's euthanasia law notwithstanding, the Dutch have taken the lead in laws that govern euthanasia. The U.S., at best, can only follow the Netherlands' lead. With a few safeguards legally in place, all people should have the right to life and, conversely, the right to death when and where they choose. PETER MORRISON Chicago
The End of the Affair
How can you say President Bush developed a "carefully engineered game plan" that brought the American air crew home after the standoff with China over the surveillance-plane incident [SPY PLANE FINALE, April 23]? Bush came out at first with a threatening, demanding attitude and received a negative reaction. When it became obvious that his demands impressed no one, more intelligent, well-seasoned people pitched in and came up with a solution. Bush is acting like a high school freshman trying to run a university! May God guide him and protect us. GENE THOMAS Hurst, Texas
Justification for U.S. surveillance of China can be given in three words: Remember Pearl Harbor! The U.S. cannot be so complacent as to believe that it lives in a safer world today than in 1941. Forces beyond our control are always testing us. Vigilance is our only safety net, and these missions should continue within the strictures of international law. RICHARD L. LELONEK Baltimore, Md.
The tangle between the Chinese fighter jet and the U.S. spy plane demonstrates that in today's world, might is right. From the American point of view, the U.S. has the right to spy on other nations in a manner akin to standing on a public road in front of someone's house with a pair of binoculars and peeping through the windows, even though the owner is a supposed friend. The U.S. says it has the right because the road is a public road and also because it has the capability to back up its demands. Dear America, where is your sense of right and wrong? CHEW TEK ANN Nilai, Malaysia
Who Is to Blame?