4
University Daily Kansan / Monday, November 11, 1991
OPINION
Throwing the bums out takes more effort
Last week, voters in Washington state defeated Initiative 553, which would have imposed term limitations on their elected officials. The election had the highest off-year turnout in state history. Term limitation motivates an otherwise apathetic populace to vote.
Why is that? Simple. The incumbent is viewed as protecting constituents' interests—a must to maintain support for the next election. No problem. After all, the congressman is elected as a representative. Isn't he just doing his job?
Incumbent power
More than just apathy, the sleeping electorate is guilty of voter irresponsibility. There is blind acceptance of the incumbent and an unwillingness by people to throw their burn out. Everybody hates Congress, but they love their congressman.
Yes and no. Representationism only half the job. The other half is leadership,
which is precisely what we lose when congressmen decline to make hard, unpopular decisions. National issues are not being addressed when congressmen focus only on "voter-safe" issues that assure-re-election. The result is policy deadlock.
Coloradoans already have imposed term limitations on their elected officials, although the limitations do not take effect until 2002. Term limitations are a drastic, some might say unconstitutional, step. The founding fathers, however, were not dealing with a 90-percent incumbent retention rate, which gives Congress a lower turnover rate than the former Soviet Politburo.
Term limitation is more than a Republican attempt to control the House; Democrats would do the same thing. This is a matter of accountability, and even though Washington voters turned
down the measure, we will hear more of it. Voters are sick and tired of the old school, but whether they will sacrifice their own powerful incumbent for the greater good of a real House cleaning remains to be seen.
Limiting terms of representatives and senators may be a clumsy tool, but given Washington, D.C., power games and the American love affair with do-nothing incumbents, what can we do?
Congress had better take notice. If the turnout in Washington state is any indication, voter irresponsibility may be waning. If some states had the unselfish far-sightedness to impose term limitations on their own congressmen, it would scare the hell out of those in office. Perhaps then they would get to work.
Michael Dick for the editorial board
Terminally ill people have right to decide their fate
For the last few months it has been impossible to read a newspaper or turn on the television without being exposed to the issue of assisted suicide. And although media coverage has been prolific, it has hardly been in depth. Instead of dealing with the many issues involved, the media has often employed a simpilistic and inaccurate debate about death and horrible death. I believe there are many facets of this issue, and I would like to discuss a few of them here.
First, what is life? That sounds basic, but to people dealing with the tragedy of a terminal illness, this is not a cut-and-dried question. It is life to lay in a hospital bed for weeks or months, attached to oxygen tubes but still gasping for every breath! It is life to be delirious from pain or out of touch when you are deprived of oxygen or treated for that pain! Is it life to deteriorate so far that you are terrified by your own family members? Certainly this is not how most terminally ill people would have described life before their illnesses were diagnosed.
Heather Dennis
Guest columnist
People's definitions of life vary as much as their definitions of quality of life. So I question whether it is really life we value so much or the quality of that life. Is it all that important to live when you are suffering immeasurably? Few people would argue that when a healthy person with a promising future seeks assisted suicide that something is wrong. But that is not the issue here. The terminally ill people are living under a death sentence. Is this the sentence we are prepared to mandate for all terminally ill patients?
By making it a punishable crime to assist in a terminally ill person's suicide, we mandate one path of action. Do we have a right to impose an
“appropriateness” standard on people’s reaction to their own imminent death? As it stands, it is our standard to force family members to stand and watch a loved one suffer, even if they request an end to the suffering. Is this how we value life? As we value life, we should also value a person’s dignity and right to make a choice about their last days.
To portray it as a right vs. wrong, moral vs. immoral issue is an insult to the thinking person. Couching the issue in such simplistic terms not only insults the terminally ill people who have made the courageous decision to leave suffering but also those who have found the courage to let nature take its course. Some people will believe that assisted suicide is always an unreasonable decision. But that does not change the facts. As reported by the Kansan, a poll conducted by the Boston Globe and the Harvard University School of Public Health found that two-thirds of people polled thought terminally ill patients should have a choice in the matter of doctor-assisted
suicide. We should all examine this issue for ourselves and make an effort to understand the pros and cons of assisted suicide. Form an opinion based on your own values, not on those who are most sensational or most vocal. For as far off as it may seem to most of us, chances are among us may find ourselves or a member of our family in this same position, if we haven't already. Is it the responsibility of society to tie the hands of a family when a loved one seeks assistance? Is it more ethical to help someone die or to force them to live? Or is it the responsibility of society to take the person's fundamental right to control his or her own life and death? It is our responsibility to support the dying in their decision — whether that involves making those last days as comfortable as possible for those who choose to remain or finding strength and understanding for the person who chooses to leave us.
Heather Dennis is a Bolse, Idaho, junior majoring in human development and family life.
LETTERS to the EDITOR
Housing cost article is slanted
I'm writing in reply to the article about housing increases written by Stephanie Patrick that ran last week in the Kansan. I feel the reporting was poor and the coverage of the meeting was slanted. The focus of the story was the increase in costs, but it neglected to report what improvements and renovations will be funded with this increase. Most of the meeting was focused on what will be done with the money. Every member of the housing board approved the increases, yet Patrick made the Towers sound like the only association that approved the increases. Towers only agreed to the increases provided ceramic tile would be made. Despite the increases, KU still is still cheaper than housing at most other Big Eight schools. The reporter needed to tell both sides of the issue. The cost increases are only half of what was discussed. There are contradictions throughout the article. I feel that slanted articles such as this are detrimental to University housing. It wrongly influences people to avoid living in University housing.
Robin Valetutto vice president, Jayhawk Towers Tenant Association
Kevorkian cares about life quality
I am writing in response to Kevin Bartels' editorial in Tuesday's *Kanan* regarding Dr. Jack Keviank and the development of his suicide machine. The editorial stated, ".what Keviank actually demonstrates is a callous disregard for human life." But although the choice of suicide and the idea of responsibility in making that choice might offend Bartels' sensibilities, his statements do not exhibit much depth.
Kevorkian's efforts show an incredible concern for life, quality of living and the choice of an individual to end his or her own life. The life-death decision that he addresses is not that of the emotionally imbalanced, self-destructive or mentally ill, it is for the rational people with an appreciation for living who have carefully and painfully arrived at the decision to take their own lives. The machine does not offer an easy solution to the "thorny questions of life and death." It's sometimes as difficult a decision to live as it is to die. Kevorkian offers an option, or at least an acknowledgement, to people for whom suicide is a reasonable choice. These people, for whatever reason, have their quality of life and the lives of their loved ones threatened with the reduction of living to merely exist.
Although I appreciate the reasoning behind the editorial, the modest proposal about doctors doubling as morticians and one-stop suicidal shopping is so ridiculous that is obscures any point he was trying to make. Kevorkian is not an unscrupulous ghoul attempting to capitalize on the emotional state of others. He is thoughtfully addressing an extremely difficult and personal issue of growing social relevance. With all due respect, the decision to die is as valid and sacred the decision to live.
Shane Martin St. Louis senior 'Suicide' doctor falsely portrayed
A Nov. 5editional addressed the difficult, yet important, issue of autonomy and suicide completely superficially. The editorial board raised illogical questions and painted a picture of Dr. Jack Kevorkian as an unconscionable physician whose interest is monetary. If one is seeking the establishment that often cares for patients, one need look no further than the American Medical Association.
The use of slippery slope reasoning that the editorial board demonstrated was wrong. Nowhere in the doctor-assisted suicide debate has the issue of assisting the mentally ill to kill themselves been raised. The fundamental cleavage in the debate is the right of an autonomous patient vs. his or her best interest as a viewer tests. a Mentalily ill person lacks the autonomy to make this type of decision because of his or her mental state, and any doctor adhering to the rules established by the Nuremberg Code would not even consider such a matter.
In how many suicides has Dr. Kevorkian assisted? Three? Maybe five? Is that a booming business? Indeed not. It is certain that many people in our society contemplate suicide to escape from their various problems, and for the most, it would not be in their best interest to carry out those thoughts. His practice is not an assembly line, as the editorial made it seem. His actions demonstrate the many questions that he debates and poses to those who seek his assistance before he would proclaim his assistance. He understands the weight of the actions. He understands the mental stress that terminally ill patients may have. Yet he also understands the autonomy that is often ignored by the medical establishment.
In whose best interest is it to keep alive a terminally ill patient who wishes to die? Certainly not the patient, if his or her mental reasoning can be considered competent. The only ones benefiting are those who would ignore autonomy and prolong life through "life-sustaining" "measures". Generally in today's health care environment a person would not be accepted into a hospital without adequate insurance. That insurance pays the bills, and the doctors will receive payment no matter what condition the patient is in.
Who is it that disregards human life? One that respects its autonomy, especially in such a personal decision, or is it the one that prolongs a competent suffering? How dare anyone decide what is best for a competent student? How can the University Daily Kansan editorial board be satisfied with such rubbish. Michael Grossman St. Louis, senior
Fraternity leader inspires diversity
At a time when the KU landscape seems bleak with realities of sexism, racism, classism, size-ism and homoathed, a bright spot has emerged from what some would view as an unlikely place.
We placed a call to the University Ombudsman reporting an instance of verbal attack. A man riding in a car had shoted a number of lesbian-hating slurs at us. The ombudsman, with the help of other University officials and the Interfraternity Council, found the perpetrator of this harassment. He has written us a letter of apology, and his fraternity will host a panel discussion presented by gays and lesbians.
A key player in this process has been the president of the Phi Gamma Delta house, Doug Draper. He has been extremely considerate throughout this proceeding and has undertaken the education of his house members in the impropriety of such actions and the rejection of diversity
We laud Draper's approach. We hope that Draper and the involved University officials' example will help communicate the importance of taking a stand.
Ami Hyten
Topeka sophomore
Michaela Hayes, Dallas, Texas,
sophomore
KANSAN STAFF
HOLLY LAWTON
Editor
JENNIFERREYNOLDS Managing editor
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
News | Erik Schuk
Editorial | Karen Park
Planning | Sarah Davis
Campus | Eric Gorski
Sports | Mike Andrews
Photo | Brian Schooni
Features | Tiffany Hannes
Graphics | Melissa Unterberg
Editors
KATIESTADER Businessmanager
RICHHARSHBARGER Retail sales manager
Campus sales mgr .. Leanne Bryant
Regional sales mgr .. Jennifer Claxton
National sales mgr .. David McWalshire
Co-op sales mgr .. LaKeer Lee
Production mgrs .. Jay Steiner,
Wendy Stertz
Marketing director
Creative director
David Habiger
Classified mgr .. Jennifer Jacquotn
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
by Mike Romane
Letters should be typed, double-space and fewer than 100 words. They must include the writer's name, the title of the course, the date, and the university or Kansas institution must include className, or homecity, or faculty or staff position.
Guest columns should be typed, double-space and fewer than 980 words. The writer will be photocopied. The Kanen reserves the right to remove any content that can be removed from the manuscript, and cartoons. They can be made by a member of the Kanen staff, 111 Blanchard-Flinn Hall 111.
Last Hurrahs
I