In Maryland, "Assisted Suicide" is now illegal, as of the 1999 legislative session.  But in other states the debate still rages.

Any legalization of "Assisted Suicide" or permissive euthanasia law leads us down the slippery slope to more and more killing of the medically dependent. On November 3, 1992, Californians went to the polls to decide whether or not their state would be the first state in the US to make doctor-assisted suicide legal. The voters said "No" to the California proposition 161, "Physician Assisted Death."   Oregon said "Yes" to a similar proposal, and Michigan has debated it in court over Dr. Jack Kevorkian's case ultimately sending him to jail.  In the case of such euthanasia measures (such as "Proposition 161") Concerned Families of Maryland takes an official position of speaking out and taking action to uphold the worth of human life. In addition, the Churches our membership attends also express concern over the threat to human life in all issues like abortion and euthanasia. Such death is not "suicide" and not "mercy-killing."

Below we’ve outlined problems related to euthanasia proposals such as prop. 161. Many questions remain unanswered in regard to this issue. The person making the directive (or request) must be diagnosed as having a terminal illness and have a predicted life expectancy of 6 months or less. The written directive must be witnessed by two people with no interest in the person's estate. The desire to be assisted in dying must be stated at least twice and in most cases no requirement is stated that the mental and emotional state of the declaring had to be evaluated. Even advocates of euthanasia call for an evaluation by a psychiatrist at a time like this when depression can be such a problem. However in most cases a six-month life expectancy prognosis is a very difficult prognosis to make. No meaningful family involvement is required. The official argument for Proposition 161 said, "It requires that patients endeavor to NOTIFY FAMILY of their intentions." The patient's primary care physician has the task of administrating the assistance in dying. He or she need not do so if morally or religiously opposed to euthanasia. But the pressure will be there, if he or she refuses to comply, which is his or her right, then they are urge to assist in locating a colleague who will comply. Will this create an index of willing physicians? A new industry? Reporting requirements really have no way of being enforced.

Add the euthanasia option to the cost of health care, the vulnerability of patients, new definitions of what it means to have a "terminal illness", prejudice against the disabled and greed and aloofness among many in the medical profession, and down that slippery slop we will go. We believe that having statutes on the books permitting lawful "physician aid-in-dying" for the terminally ill will come a more tolerant attitude to the other "exceptional cases". How far might these "exceptional cases" be extended? They would put pressure on the people who are the most vulnerable (the elderly, the suffering). The right to die could become the duty to die.

Legalization would give euthanasia increased exposure and legitimacy, as well as more advertising among a population of extremely vulnerable people, patients and their relatives. It would deter us from meeting the real needs of the terminally ill. These needs are (1) good hospice care and (2) adequate pain management. America lags far behind England in dealing with cancer pain. In England, 80% of hospice patients can live pain-free or with only mild pain. They remain alert and often stay at home until they die. About 20% have moderate pain in spite of efforts to control it. Only one in a hundred has poorly controlled pain in spite of efforts to control it. Specialists and nurses are not taught hospice techniques for controlling pain. Recent textbooks on oncology have only 20 of 5,000 pages on managing pain. Only $1 Million of over $1 Billion spend on cancer research goes to pain control research. The financial side of medical care in America goes contrary to good pain management. No wonder a whole movement would think "Death with Dignity" is better than having to cope with serious, uncontrolled pain. Listen to Proverbs 31:6-7 on pain management, "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter. Let him drink and remember his trouble no more."

Ironically, when Dr. Kevorkian killed, the media responded by putting on "reasoned" discussions of euthanasia, asking questions about the "right to die", rather than seeing little difference between an elderly man with a death machine, and kids killing kids with baseball bats "to watch."

News stories show us pictures of "real life" dramas of children killing children to "see what it was like" or to see a real murder. Children throwing tiny victims from high-rise apartments. Stabbing and shooting each other necessarily comes when children are taught that life is worth less than tennis shoes, jackets or video games; and people have less worth than laboratory rats.  The Columbine Massacre is one of several recent and tragic examples.

Groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals advocate using coma patients and those classed as brain dead for medical experiments rather than the kinds of creatures that civilizations have historically understood to be of less worth than children.  In one survey, some people failed to understand that if a child and a dog were drowning, the child should be the first saved.

Until we determine to embrace human life as the sacred and valuable thing that it is, unique in all the world, and determine that we will work together to enrich the human experience in practical and real ways, we will have nothing in common but the fear and fascination we have with the only thing we know for sure -- the fact that we will all die and on that day we will answer to our Maker.