I don't want euthanasia to be a legal option. And no, my reasons aren't religious.

I don't want it to be a legal option, because it would be used to get rid of old people (and others) whose relatives are tired of them. Consent? No problem. It would be very, very easy to guilt-trip or nag many elders into signing a consent form "so as not to be a burden."

The story in this article is peculiar in that if the grandmother had really wanted to kill herself, she'd have been successful. The grandmother in this article attempted it only at a time when "her cleaning woman had a scheduling conflict that week and was showing up a day early." Did she forget? Or was she a mentally ill person who wanted to be found? Does a sane person talk for years about wanting to die, keeping Hemlock Society literature on the coffee table?

Our medical system doesn't deal gracefully with death, I grant you. At this moment in U.S. history, it doesn't seem to do anything gracefully, actually. However I am not willing to let that system off the hook and "solve" the problem by killing off people. For the terminally ill, pain can be successfully managed and death will come in its time. In a brief year's internship in a nursing home facility, I have seen friends and families have important conversations in those final days that would have never taken place had death been hurried along.

Frankly, I don't want someone trying to persuade me that I'm too much trouble, that I'm fiscally a losing proposition, or anything else. In the current situation around medical care, with the bean counters running everything, euthanasia strikes me as a particularly scary option.

No thanks.

Some of the best letters are from Anonymous. Some of the worst letters are, too.

How about making it possible to REQUEST anonymity for a letter, at the editor's discretion? If you don't see a darn good reason for anonymity, then don't post the letter where readers have to slog through it.

Occasionally there's a letter from someone whose anonymity is understandable. But usually that's not the case, and I agree with Slashdot, those are a cowardly option.

NO ONE here has to use their real name, after all!

The motto over on the WELL strikes me as wise, for high quality conversation: "You own your words." "Anonymous" doesn't own anything; I'd prefer, 8 out of 10 times, not to read his/her stuff.

I don't think that either Clinton or Obama is electable right now. She inspires such amazing hatred from some people, and not all of them Republicans. Moreover, as the Atlantic pointed out a few issues past, she's proven herself to be very effective in the Senate and frankly, we need her there. (Hillary Haters: Yes, I know you disagree.)

Obama is troubling to me; give him another term of experience, give him more executive experience of any kind, and I would be enthusiastic about him. But no, not right now. Not this year.

After eight years of George Bush, who'd never done anything but run businesses straight into the ground and then a stint as Gov of Texas, a figurehead job, I want someone who knows how stuff works and can get things done.

I'd much, much rather see Edwards or Richardson at the top of the ticket. I realize neither is a front runner at the moment, but we're a long way from the convention, still, and with Hillary and Obama whacking away at each other like a Punch and Judy show, who knows what may happen?

Anyone who spends that much time clearing brush in Texas should have realized that when you know of a nest of yellow jackets in a field, the last thing you do is take a stick and STIR it. Foreseeable consequences, indeed.

There are a surprising number of people who have a hearing problem of which they are not aware. I know, I used to be one of them.

Until I got tested, I had no idea how dependent I was on visuals, or why I hated phones in general, and cell phones particularly.

Turned out I had a 40% hearing loss, probably from birth (given the type of loss) and an auditory processing problem on top of that. Apparently I'd been getting most of my info about the world through my eyes, and cell phones and I do NOT tango nicely.

I now use a "smartphone" and text or email when it's important that I understand exactly what's going on. SO much better than screaming and swearing.

It is possible that LW's wife truly can't hear what is happening. One tactful way to approach it (since you are over 40) is to suggest you both go get your hearing tested.

The larger point bears some expansion: "Rather than blaming Bush for the overzealous cruelty of the Florida campus cops, he was addressing a subtler and more disturbing problem: the gradual diminishment of constitutional freedoms and, specifically, the freedom to assemble peaceably, to speak and to protest in a political environment dominated by war, terror and 'security.'"

I think we also need to look at a growing disinclination in all parts of our society to listen to people with whom we disagree. I know that I got so angry at the sound of President Bush's voice that I began to turn down the volume whenever I heard him; I worry that my brother or sister on the right does the same when he or she hears Clinton, Edwards, whoever.

We have to start listening to one another again. We don't have to like each other, but we have to live together. Turning the volume down, demonizing the Other: that's where democracy ends. We at least have to grant one another the right to speak.