No Need for Physician Assisted Suicide when Hospice Available

After submitting testimony in opposition to the physician assisted suicide legislation proposed by Sen. Roger Katz, I heard compelling testimony from both sides of this emotional issue from people who care deeply about their personal and professional opinions regarding quality care, at the end-of-life.

Both sides of the physician assisted suicide debate acknowledged how hospice care is the compassionate choice for the dying, because the benefit provides for appropriate pain management, as well as extraordinary family support through the death and bereavement of the terminally ill patient. Ironically, in other State House legislative committee rooms, the terrible epidemic of opioid drug overdose deaths was discussed, while proponents of physician assisted suicide were advocating for dangerous compounded drugs in capsules to be available for the terminally ill, to ingest in the prescribed procedure. There is no need for physician assisted suicide, when access to hospice is made available, especially if end-of-life palliative care and hospice are compensated by health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits. Thank you to Maine’s hospice providers and volunteers, for providing compassionate and quality care to our families, neighbors and veterans at the end of their lives. Support for hospice is the preferred choice for end of life care, acknowledged by both sides of those who testified in Augusta on the physician assisted suicide proposals. There is no need for physician assisted suicide when hospice care is accessible to everyone who is facing the end of life.

Juliana L’Heureux,

Topsham

Bridge Presentation a Bait and Switch

I write as someone whose very high level of trust in public servants’ integrity and competence has been challenged by the way the Maine Department of Transportation manipulated tonight’s public “hearing” in Brunswick for five Frank C. Wood Bridge proposals. I came home feeling hoodwinked, disrespected, shut down by the bait and switch format. During a half-mumbled presentation, one listener requested clarification of some technical terms. The answer was, ask someone at a table afterward. So, the semi audible presentation continued with many not able to hear and others not able to understand the presentation. The presenter addressed none of the safety or aesthetic concerns raised by community members at an earlier hearing. When he was done, we were informed that now the “Open House” format would allow us to ask questions at topical stations and that comments could be submitted on paper or with the court recorder.

Those in attendance expected an opportunity to have respectful public discussion, to hear each other’s questions and input. There was no prior notification of the new format. The effect was to silo information and eliminate the give and take of public engagement. If a question was beyond one table’s topic, you were sent to another. 3-4 people could gather around a table. The community dynamic of citizen participation that I love about Maine was utterly derailed. It was obvious from others’ reactions that I was not alone.

If the Bridge option I prefer is not the one chosen, I will be disappointed. But to have the process itself be so non-democratic breaks my heart and undercuts my trust in the people in charge of important decisions on my behalf.

Karen L. Munson,

Topsham

Bridge Meeting a Travesty

I attended the April 5th public meeting that the Maine Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration held about replacing or reconstructing the “Green Bridge” that connects downtown Brunswick and downtown Topsham. [Times Record April 4]

The meeting was a travesty! I went there expecting to hear the pros and cons of the five design alternatives. I expected to hear from the highway agencies, the towns, the citizen group, businessmen, and individual citizens. That didn’t happen. The “open house” format prevented any public discussion. Our questions to the project manager were instantly rejected. We begged to speak; and we were told to ask our questions one-on-one to the 15 specialists who were standing at tables around the hall. There were 100 to 150 people in the audience; and we were told to talk one-on-one with 15 specialists rather than ask our questions, express our concerns, and promote our positions in an open meeting.

The meeting I attended was a farce! The open house format was a “divide and conquer” ploy; and it worked. Some of us left the hall without talking to the specialists. Some of us talked to the specialists one-on-one; and we were heard or ignored by them one-by-one. Our collective voices were stifled.

The representatives of the highway agencies were arrogant and disrespected the citizens. They did not want meaningful public input. They wanted to hold a public meeting and collect comments from us, so they could report that they had held a public meeting and collected comments. They will scan our comments, post them on the MDOT website, and ignore them.

There should have been a fair opportunity for us to be heard both individually and collectively. We deserve to have a town hall meeting or a public hearing where the decision-makers will hear our voices and genuinely listen to us. We deserve better treatment from our public servants.

Hugh Maynard,

Bath