Dear Editor,

The issue of assisted termination of a human life is a conundrum lacking a definitive and fully satisfactory answer, currently or in the future. The reason being that neither individuals nor politicians are omniscient in determining the true value of a single human life to society as a whole via his or her relationships. Moreover, such value will differ between the atheist and the theist.

If we knew, ‘beyond the shadow of any doubt ‘ that we are no more than psychobiological machines the answer would be trivial. If it can be fixed, fix it; if not terminate it. This should satisfy pure scientific materialists as the decision is rational and definitive.

If we knew, ‘beyond the shadow of any doubt,’ that most human vehicles subsist with a divine monad which answers to an authoritarian, termination of a life is not within another’s authority. So should not be supported.

Fudge as we may, the persons suffering, as well as those personally involved, are likely not to psychologically benefitted in the end and social unrest will continue violently as demonstrated by the ‘right to life’ situation in the States. At least for awhile.

My prediction is that assisted termination of life will ‘carry the field’ eventually because the human population must be decreased to a sustainable level where poverty is minimized and society more altruistic. A dream, I hold.

In the end, species continue or go extinct depending upon how each adapts to its geopolitical niches.

Thoughtfully and sadly submitted.