sisters.jpeg

Laurie Wilcox, left, of Clark and her sister Melissa, of Bordentown, are advocating for the right to end their lives in New Jersey. Both have terminal diseases.

(Courtesy Photo)

For some, it's a matter of showing humanity and compassion for those in profound pain. For others, the issue boils down to where society draws the line.

An editorial last week titled "N.J. needs to allow terminally ill the right to die" drew hundreds of heated online responses as readers debated the merits of a bill before the state Legislature.

The measure, which would allow physicians to supply patients with incurable and irreversible conditions medication to end their lives, has twice failed to pass muster. We argued that it's time for lawmakers to listen to the anguished pleas of patient and their advocates and move ahead with its passage.

Not so fast, cautioned Horse:

"It's a short skip from this proposal to the eugenics and euthanasia objectives of the global cabal to begin erasing 90 percent of the world's population," the reader said. "The irony is that the global cabal knows the public masses are so easily mindwashed by simple programming and talkpoints that they will end up 'insisting' on their own deaths. Beyond comprehension how malleable the human brain truly is."

aconservativeview15 shared similar concerns:

"I encourage the proponents of this law to observe what's happening in the Netherlands. In 2013 some 650 babies were euthanized as parents and doctors deemed their suffering too great. Additionally, over 40 otherwise healthy adults with psychological problems were allowed to terminate their lives."

From overtaxed15 came a brief but powerful question:

"And when does the 'right' to die become the *duty* to die?"

For other readers, it was a matter of leaving the ultimate choice to the individual, rather than to government officials.

theantichristie1 put it this way:

"Once again the yahoos yelling for small government not interfering in their lives are all for it when it comes to controlling someone else's life as long as it suits their religious beliefs. According to them guns (which kill people) are good but death with dignity is bad. Hypocrites!"

And this from goldengrain:

"If we own anything in this land, it's our own bodies. It should be no one's decision but our own what we do with it. A person is the only judge of when he's had enough."

JohnnyActionSpacePunk argued that

"You and your loved ones should have full dominion over making end-of-life decisions free of further state interference after a medical doctor is consulted and agrees with your wishes and that you meet agreed upon requirements.

Similarly, Rutgers 2016 observed:

"We are able to put down our pets in the name of humaneness and they don't obviously have the capacity to make that decision for themselves. If a human who is suffering wants to do the same and they are capable of making that decision for themselves, what is the problem?"

And inside the medical world came this, from Jessica:

"As a nurse I support this if the patient is terminal and of sound mind."

Where do you stand? Vote in our informal, unscientific poll then continue the conversation below.

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.