Editor:

I respect Jeremy Loverich's (March 27) concern that physician-assisted suicide should not be taken lightly. His use of such arguments as the slippery slope of one legalized suicide leading to countless misuses and the distinction of passive euthanasia versus active euthanasia are well-known arguments. Nonetheless, the arguments of quality of life versus quantity of life, and the rights of mentally competent adults to self determination are ignored or slighted. Any current legislation regarding physician-assisted suicide (e.g., the Oregon legislation) is so tightly defined that it is practically meaningless anyway. But to determine for others what their rights are, having not "walked in their shoes," I find totally irresponsible and naive. The fact is, we live in a society with diverse values and lifestyles, and the fact that one person will put his fate in the hands of God, while another will put his fate in the hands of his physician, should not exclude a third person from the right to make his own decision as to how his life should be sustained or ended. To argue for less than this is to truly "cheapen human life;" the argument Loverich supports.

Robert Wrenn
professor of psychology