I am curious whether Angela Loiacono means to imply that the State ought to deprive nonreligious people who are suffering of the right to end their live by reserving that right to God alone. Consider the image that Angela has asked us to accept as a paradigm for God: That an all-loving Father would torture one of his children so that his other children will be inspired by his suffering and grow closer as a family. Is this how she intends to run her future family? She further asks us to believe that a being of cosmic importance will - once He has chosen to destroy a life - mysteriously relent, apparently having allowed his all-knowing judgment to be swayed by the frantic begging of a small group of humans. How can any person - let alone a suffering person - find this image of God compelling?

I certainly have my doubts about whether I, personally, would choose to end my life in the face of great suffering, but no person should be bound by law to continue a life of anguish simply so society can feel faithful to the apparently torturous and capricious will of an unloving "God."

Daniel J. Parente

senior in engineering