Mike Dambrosio: Well-crafted assisted suicide laws won’t lead us into immorality

Re “Should we encourage death or life?” (Opinions, Feb. 24): Don’t be misled by writer Richard Weikart’s argument against physician-assisted suicide. To him, the real villains are humanism and Darwinian evolution. In his view, “science” equals rejection of God and loss of morality. And unless we believe humans to be the special creation of an all-wise God, we are doomed to act out our worst animal instincts.

Is this a fair description of citizens? By rejecting the idea that God created the world in seven days, would you become an animal harshly competing for resources, willing to kill anything in your way (like old, sick people)?

I know atheists who are compassionate and religious people who are selfish and vice versa. Many accept evolution. What does the fact that genes mutate in response to nature’s demands have to do with being nice?

Assisted suicide could be helpful if the law is well-crafted, or result in abuse if we aren’t careful. We struggle with the ethics of proper treatment because the problems are real, regardless of religion. Shall we accept that God’s plan includes suffering in large doses, and we aren’t allowed to make the world better? How immoral would that be?

This story was originally published March 2, 2015 at 2:08 PM with the headline "Mike Dambrosio: Well-crafted assisted suicide laws won’t lead us into immorality."