Readers React: Huntington Hospital’s decision on end-of-life law wasn’t as simple as opting out

To the editor: It is disingenuous to imply that Huntington Hospital’s opting out of California’s new assisted suicide law will somehow inhibit physicians from providing this service outside the inpatient hospital setting. (“Will hospitals reject California’s assisted suicide law?” May 6)

This is simply not true. All Huntington physicians will be free to offer end-of-life services in home and hospice settings, where such services are probably more appropriate.

The patient you describe in your article who asked her Huntington oncologist to “put and end to her suffering” while on home hospice care in 2008 was denied because at that time that was the law.

I have been a staff physician at Huntington in Pasadena for 27 years and have participated in many discussions regarding the changes in the practice of medicine. These discussions have been thoughtful, respectful and focused on serving our patients’ needs to the best of our abilities.

This article reflects a poor understanding of a complex and important issue.

Patrick Sutton, MD, Pasadena

..

To the editor: I strongly object to the use of the word “suicide,” both in the headline and in the column. “End of life option” would be the correct phrase; “aid in dying” would be acceptable.

Reducing the point size of the headline to accommodate either of those would have been a smart editorial move.

While I understand that a column, like an editorial, can be expected to use loaded language, writers should keep in mind that there are many of us in California who welcome this legislation and who do not wish to be stigmatized as “suicides” should we ever choose to avail ourselves of the end-of-life option.

Barbara Tye, Orange

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook