My wife died in January after a two-year struggle with cancer. That journey gave me new and deeper perceptions about life and death. One firm conclusion is that all people should have the right to decide whether or not to end their lives with available medical assistance. It is a deeply personal decision that should be made by the individual, not by the government or the Catholic Church.
One part of my wife’s cancer journey was an increasing loss of control. She couldn’t control the cancer. She couldn’t control her body. Despite hospice and palliative care, pain was limited but not controlled.
Another part of her journey was increasing hopelessness. Scans provided bad news, and medical options were limited or none. Her life became narrow. Not much more than visits for medical care and support at home from her family.
After a long and heroic battle, she told us that she had enough. She wanted to die. It was a rational, well-thought-out decision. We had to accept that if we loved her, we had to let her go.
Melanie died before Illinois’ new legislation. She should have had the option to die her way, when she decided. It would have given her a slice of control and more dignity at the end.
It is disrespectful for the Catholic Church to try to take this right away. If Catholics want to die another way, they have that choice. Don’t try to impose your beliefs on others.
— Tom Berg, Chicago
Wrong to prolong suffering
The signing of the End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act put to rest one of my greatest fears. Now I can assume control over my body if I should become terminally ill.
Thank you to Gov. JB Pritzker for his brave and wise signing of that law. I don’t have to suffer physically or emotionally because of religious-leaning interference in my decisions. It makes no sense to prolong suffering. It makes all the sense in the world to allow individual freedom of choice in how we control coming to an end.
— Fran Orchard, Naperville
Archdiocese’s priorities
Earlier this year, the Tribune ran an article about the Archdiocese of Chicago closing a number of schools due to financial constraints. One of Friday’s front-page stories (“Cardinal Cupich, nuns sue Illinois to block medical aid-in-dying law”) was about Cardinal Blase Cupich, two orders of nuns and a pharmacist suing Illinois to stop a law that allows physicians to assist in an individual’s decision to seek end-of-life treatment. The article clearly states the steps required for someone seeking this assistance. It is not a decision anyone would make on a whim, nor is it one that anyone not wanting this treatment would be forced to take.
If one is a practicing Catholic, they most certainly can follow the teachings of their religion. This is their right, and any rational individual would argue on their behalf. If one is not a Catholic, why must this religion dictate their choice?
Meanwhile, an organization with cash constraints is hiring legal representation and filing a lawsuit while shutting down schools its membership pleaded for keeping open. Make it make sense.
— Michael Nalepa, New Buffalo, Michigan
More Top Picks Best Progressive Reading Glasses
Accusations against editorial
I’m a member of Emanuel Congregation, located east of the Red Line’s Thorndale station. The synagogue has proposed a redevelopment of our aging building to construct a new temple, which would also include some 120 affordable, transit-friendly apartments upstairs.
I’d like to fact-check a couple of false and misleading statements in the Sept. 7 letter “Setting dangerous precedent” by Harris Meyer, who appears to be a member of Edgewater Residents for Responsible Development (ERRD), which opposes the project. His letter is a response to the insightful Sept. 2 editorial “A whiff of antisemitism permeates Edgewater high-rise debate.”
Meyer writes: “A Sept. 2 editorial accuses our group of antisemitism because we oppose the Fern Hill/Emanuel Congregation’s proposed high-rise development.” In reality, the Tribune Editorial Board does not allege that ERRD is guilty of anti-Jewish sentiments or statements.
Rather, the editorial says: “We’ve read some of the coverage of this matter in the News Star, a local publication put out by Inside Publications, and we do indeed see examples of problematic language referencing ‘money changers in the temple’ (seriously?) and making accusations that the Emanuel Congregation is ‘hell-bent on monetizing their sacred space.’ … The News Star should be helping its readers think through a complicated debate, not indulging in antisemitic language to reinforce its point of view.”
So while the editorial board accurately calls out the News Star for anti-Jewish statements, it does not accuse the ERRD of being anti-Jewish.
Meyer also writes: “Our group of community activists never has and never will tolerate antisemitism. We had nothing to do with the objectionable News Star coverage the editorial cites.”
The News Star article ran on May 20. Following its publication, Edgewater residents and clergy wrote letters to the News Star opposing the anti-Jewish language.
ERRD President Patricia Sharkey wrote a letter to the News Star not long after the problematic piece ran. Her letter “Why is Fern Hill Lakefront high-rise still on the table?” published in late June is about the Emanuel Congregation redevelopment proposal. But what about the paper’s “money changers in the temple” rhetoric?
So much for Meyer’s claim that ERRD activists “never will tolerate antisemitism.”
— John Greenfield, Chicago
Big developers’ propaganda
The Sept. 2 editorial is wrongheaded and deeply insulting. There are many members of the community as well as of the group Edgewater Residents for Responsible Development who are both Jewish and against this development like me. In addition, I have been attending high holy day services at Emanuel for over 20 years. Nothing would make me happier than to see Emanuel thrive.
However, neither Emanuel nor any other house of worship, regardless of denomination, has the right to violate the Lakefront Protection Ordinance at the expense of the existing community.
Waving the “affordable housing” flag is similarly misleading. Fern Hill has provided nothing that would suggest its affordable housing will be anything more than $1,700-a-month studios filled by post-college kids looking for a place to stay before their next career move. Those of us who live here know that there is already a major congestion problem with traffic entering and exiting DuSable Lake Shore Drive. Yet our alderman, who never met a big developer with a checkbook that she didn’t like, is pushing this forward.
There is no mention in the editorial of the many existing parcels in the ward that are wide open and in need of development that could help address the affordable housing issue in a way that would only help, not harm, the community.
Next time, please try to see the entire picture and not the propaganda sold by big developers trying to land their next financial windfall.
— Steve Hutton, Chicago
Where are the spending cuts?
I’ll keep it simple. Chicago’s budget is about 600 pages, and the mayor has all sorts of new ideas of how to fill a dramatic deficit. I would like to see the city document that emphasizes reductions and cuts in the budget where there are redundancies, waste and useless spending.
More Top Picks Best Noise Canceling Headphones For Migraines
When people face a deficit at home, they cut expenses in many ways. They strive to spend less money, not more. They don’t continue to spend and/or try to find more money to spend. Before any tax, fee or revenue producer is proposed or enacted in the new city budget, we citizens should see where the spending cuts were made.
That’s called fiscal responsibility.
— Robert Stasch, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].