Ohio End of Life Options supporter David Hollister poignantly disputes a New York Times opinion writer for her dystopian argument against Medical Aid in Dying. He would like access to MAID to achieve a peaceful death.
“I have rapidly advancing A.L.S. I’ve had a wonderful life, but I face a miserable death. As that time draws near, I want to be allowed the option to end my life in the peaceful manner allowed by medical aid in dying. Sadly, I live in a state that does not authorize it.”
August 8, 2025
To the Editor:
Louise Perry opposes end-of-life autonomy for Americans like me with irrelevant arguments about how MAID is practiced in other countries.
I have rapidly advancing A.L.S. I’ve had a wonderful life, but I face a miserable death. As that time draws near, I want to be allowed the option to end my life in the peaceful manner allowed by medical aid in dying. Sadly, I live in a state that does not authorize it.
Ms. Perry would deny me access to MAID based on what she thinks might happen in Britain. That is a pretty impressive example of false equivalence. We already know how MAID works in the United States. It offers compassion and ends needless suffering. There is little, if any, documented history of abuse or coercion. There is therefore no need to compare it to an imaginary scenario for a policy not yet adopted in a foreign country.
Ms. Perry argues that a government health system, as in Britain, should not also be able to recommend MAID because it will be subject to “perverse incentives.” But in the 12 U.S. jurisdictions that allow it, MAID is strictly a private request by a mentally competent, terminally ill patient to a health care provider. There is no government involvement in each individual patient’s decision.
I and others like me should be responsible for end-of-life decisions alongside our health care providers.
David Hollister,
Chagrin Falls, Ohio