Re: nh-adapt: Re: NH-PID #2

P. Myers (mpwr@u.washington.edu)
Sat, 13 Dec 1997 09:31:55 -0800 (PST)


Bruce, well-said, and I absolutely agree.  I would add, at the same time,
we must be alert and have a sufficiently strong coalition and
communicative system, to speak with our franchise, to any and all
political attempts to place decisionmaking in any hands that also hold
administrative discretion.

During the now successful (and thanks to any and all who wrote and faxed
and emailed to the City Council) San Diego fast (eventually some 7 fasted
for the 24 hour opening of public facilities), during this time, a number
of both local and federal representatives and senators were contacted, in
perhaps not an organized, but concerted way (Don Bokor speaks to this
dynamic of the individual unified so much better than I)...although the
media played little part in the opening of the rest rooms, people, made
aware of the problem, did.  

This is an area where the use of the franchise, and individual and
collective voices, must occur...so that the connection between the
decision and the dearth of services becomes immediately clear to everyone.

Well said, BDB!  Pat Myers

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Bruce D. Burleson wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Thomas Cagle wrote:
> 
> >  As some of your writers have allready pointed out, institutional care is
> > as homless as a body can get. Well, If PID (physician instigated
> > death)-PAS (physician assisted suicide) were ever to become the law of
> > the land. Things could get real tough real fast for a number folks with
> > any number of disabilities. 
> 
> 
> Well, I think that people need to have the *choice* to call on
> Kevorkian or someone like him if they wish.  I think the thing to do is
> not to fight *against* PAS, but to fight *for* the social services that
> are being placed on the chopping block.  I.e. health care, services for
> the elderly.  To argue against PAS, IMO, is a retreatist strategy.
> 
> :) Bruce Burleson
> 
> 
>