"My politically incorrect and politically unsophisticated response to those opposed to physician-assisted suicide is, 'Get out of my face!' wrote Sylvia Gerhard, a frequent contributor.

Dori Zook, the Hemlock Society's' 29-year-old Public Relations Director, could "definitely see the logic behind" Gerhard's comment. She understood her frustration.

Voluntary? Or not? If physical assisted suicide is legalized, it will become a "treatment option." What do you think that will do for the newly disabled person? Will he give himself a chance to find out that life with a disability is worth living or will he opt for the court-sanctioned, medically-recommended way out? And what about those of us who may get depressed for whatever reason? Hey, life ain't always a bowl of cherries! Who can deny that it's tiring having to fight negative attitudes and discrimination every day, that it's disheartening trying to make do without the proper supportive services? Really, how many of us have said at times, "I can't take it any more, I want to kill myself?" If assisted suicide is legalized, better make sure no one ever hears us saying those words.

A day or so had passed; the regulars seemed tired of Siegel. "I dismis you as a bore! Begone!" wrote a man from the West Coast.

"What bores us," said someone from the South, "is that you are completely unable to understand what voluntary means."

The discussion group had been "created for people who SUPPORT the right-to-die movement," said a Hemlock regular; it was "not intended as a place for endless debate by those who want to argue about things they barely understand."

A week after Mark Siegel had posted his first message, Humphrey logged on to put a stop to things: "I think the matter of disabled persons and physician- assisted suicide has been thoroughly aired on this mailing list, and recommend that it now be closed . . . ."

Obediently, Siegel posted one final message. He knew he hadn't changed many minds, but he wanted to add a final thought. "Individualism has its place. But sometimes we overlook the needs of the community."

It would be weeks, though, before things quieted down.

Siegel didn't understand others' suffering. A man who described himself as "a septugenarian who has suvived two kinds of cancer" wrote, "You want me to suffer like my mother and my sister-in-law? You've got some secret information that they really didn't suffer that much? Come on, tell us cancerous geezers!"

A Siegel supporter was told he was "so tied up in the fact that you have a disability that you seem to separate yourself from us.

"There is very little difference between us," the Hemlock supporter went on. "Why is it that you feel that the life of a disabled person is held to be of any less value than that of a terminally ill person?"

People like Siegel, said yet another, did not trust their "own autonomy and the goodwill of others in society."

An air of nastiness pervaded the postings of those who continued to discuss what DeathNet website's John Hofsess snidely called the "Not Braindead Yet" issue. The "anti-RTD folks' dialog is so rhetoric-choked that it's hard to find a patch of level ground" wrote a Hemlocker. They continued to "litter the mailing list with pointless diatribes."

"Right-to-die folks" were "unable to accept that we feel insecure in a money and profit-driven society," wrote a Not Dead Yet supporter.

"We are sorry for these people, but inasmuch as they are totally immune to both evidence and logic, debating with them is a complete waste of precious time," countered another Hemlocker.

Faye Girsh, president of Hemlock, said that the Not Dead Yet folks ignored the words "voluntary" 'and "at their request." "We support this right of terminally ill people who make the request," she wrote in a Jan 29 message.

When the issue was "taken to the grass-roots level," Not Dead Yet's message would fail, said a Hemlocker in what was intended as a final put-down. "Try to convince the average American that his or her doctor may turn malevolent should they become disabled."

On Jan 30, a message appeared from Diane Coleman, head of Not Dead Yet. "What I'm mostly asking is that society stop assuming that we're better dead than disabled, try to figure out why an individual wants to die, and then help to solve the real problems the individual faces, instead of helping them die."

A lack of trust may be justified By Cal Montgomery People like Mark Siegel did not "trust their own autonomy and the goodwill of others in society": This was a common rejoinder on the Internet. Cal Montgomery posted this response: I do not trust my own autonomy in the current atmosphere because I am very aware of what it takes to push me to despair and of the likelihood that these things will happen. If I had access to adequate health care, I would undoubtedly not be so worried. By "adequate health care", I mean two things. First, health insurance, which I do not have but used to have. Second (and I've actually never had this), physicians who either had heard of and knew something about my disability or were willing to read something about it before passing out disability-related medical advice. When you've just had to spell the name of your disorder to a physician and suggest a reference book where it can be looked up, and that physician is now suggesting he call you an ambulance so you can go to the hospital and meet a "very good" surgeon who can undoubtedly "cure" you (when you know perfectly well that a cure is not currently available) rather than prescribe you the antibiotics which even he admits will do something for the infection that brought you in, it does not inspire confidence. . . . . If I had access to adequate educational opportunities, I would undoubtedly not be so worried. By "adequate educational opportunities" I basically mean a situation where my requests for classroom access are met with an attempt to determine how appropriate they are and then implement some sort of plan for getting me access. Being told, "The Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't apply to you" by my Disability Services Counselor does not meet my definition of "adequate educational opportunities". If I had access to adequate vocational opportunities, I would undoubtedly not be so worried. Half the agencies I've contacted say I'm too disabled to work, so they won't help me. The other half say I'm not disabled enough to qualify for services, so they won't help me. The job I do have doesn't pay enough to allow me to buy the things I need, nor does it provide health insurance. It does, however, make demands on me that leave me completely exhausted and in nearly unbearable pain by the end of every shift. Being tired, I expect that. Being in pain, that's a constant for me. But there is a level of pain and exhaustion that I would really rather not reach five days a week. In other words, I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to push me to complete despair, and these circumstances occur on a regular basis. And they don't need to. It is not my disability that is causing this despair; it is a combination of my disability and the environment I live in -- an environment which could be changed. And while I support having as wide a range of choices for people as are possible without harming other people, I do not think that setting it up so that large numbers of people with disabilities are likely to perceive their only choices as death or the financial ruin of their families, or death or uncontrolled (but not uncontrollable) pain, or death or incarceration in a nursing home or other institution, or death or the exhaustion of loved ones and the increasing straining of relations between them [is really giving them "choices"]. In theory it should never come down to options like these. In practice it does. And as society increasingly sees death as the dignified option in each of these pairs, the balance is tipped. There is pressure to die. There is already pressure to die. If we legalize PAS in the current situation, it can only increase. . . . As far as good will, there are two problems. First, I only need to encounter a small number of doctors without good will in order to be dead. . . . If I cannot communicate effectively with physicians now (and I cannot), I suspect that I would be unable to communicate effectively with them if they were permitted to assist me in suicide." If I want to commit suicide and try, and fail to die, I can try again. If I want to live but someone else thinks I would be better off dead, and therefore "helps" me to die, I cannot do anything to change the fact that I'm deceased. Nor can anyone else. It's over. It seems, therefore, that if you are going to err, you ought to err on the side of life (which is a fixable error) rather than on the side of death (which is not). . . . . I'm not afraid of dying and I am aware that I'm going to die one day; I'm also not afraid of physical pain, which always has and probably always will be a near-constant part of my life. I would, however, vastly prefer that my dying be done later rather than sooner -- I'm still in the midst of a very interesting life -- and that my physical pain be kept to levels I can function with . . . . I am afraid of being institutionalized, of being unemployed, and of becoming ill and having no recourse to medical treatment. I am afraid of losing the supports that are in place that allow me to have a decent home life (and to eat regularly, and so on) and of having those supports that allow me, at least to some extent, to participate in my community, removed. Disabled people often have to face these fears, and all too often the reality that they have come true. If these were not real and present fears threatening so many of us, I too might be embracing the right to have a physician kill me. For now, however, if I decide choose that route I am willing to settle for a messier, more painful way of doing it myself.

Delury's debates " . . . . I doubt [that] you could observe the agony of the long-term, hopelessly and progressively disabled person and [then] deny that person a right to give up the struggle merely to save your own skin from a hypothetical danger. Congratulations on your courage and determination." The online note to Mark Siegel ending with the cliche was unsigned. A message's ID tag may or may not make the identity clear; this one bore the tag "Geedel." By the end of January, George E Delury, whose case became a cause celebre in right-to-die circles when he was prosecuted in New York for assisting wife Myrna Lebov's suicide, was signing his full name to his messages. Not Dead Yet supporters' "demand for 'ironclad' certainty" was based on "a fear of death at best, a religiously-motivated red herring at worst." "If the energy [fighting the "right to die"] were put into development and advocacy of specific and broad protections of the disabled, I suspect their general lot would see great improvement." What he called their "lack of focus" made Delury "mistrust the real aims, origins, and financing of the Not Dead Yet." And: "I find it interesting that the able disabled--that is, those who can get around, manage for themselves more or less, make choices--want to deprive the unable disabled--the bedridden and extremely feeble--of assistance to do what every other living human is free to do. I find it interesting that they are apparently so afraid for their own lives that they are willing to see people much worse off suffer for their sakes. Much of the opposition to PAS is tinged with this readiness to see others suffer as living human sacrifices to anxiety about death. Another message: "My wife was not in pain. She refused medication that might have improved her outlook, saying 'It can change how I feel, but not the facts.' She had excellent and loving care from a home health aide and from me in a comfortable home. Also she was not terminal. Nor was she one who would give up easily. She had fought her disease (MS) with everything she and medicine and alternatives could come up with for over 15 years. But in the end, she couldn't see the point in going on and facing worse to come at no benefit to herself and at considerable loss to others. Her decision to leave was made despite a full menu of alternatives. She was just tired of being heroic and brave and decided to do something for herself. If the energy put into anti-PAS advocacy were put into development and advocacy of specific and broad protections of the disabled, I suspect their general lot would see great improvement ... -- George Delury in a Jan. 30 online message Not Dead Yet supporter Carol Cleigh had finally had enough: "What makes you assume that we haven't? The fact is that the disability rights movement is over 50 years old and has had numerous legislative successes. . . . "Don't think the movement doesn't exist because you aren't aware of it. That is your ableism -- and the fact that you don't have to be aware (as all oppressors don't). ..." If we didn't spend so much money trying to do the impossible with the terminally ill and the unviable newborn, we would have the resources to enable the disabled not only to live without fear of PAS, but to vastly improve their lives." -- George Delury in an online message Someone who elsewhere identified herself as a psychiatrist responded, "The right to refuse medical treatment already exists. Are you suggesting that medical treatment should be withheld whether the patient agrees to it or not? Isn't that a very different issue from PAS which is supposed to be voluntary?" Delury came back with this: "But the fact is that doctors do decide that now in many cases, and in too many cases the doctors recommends and exerts a subtle pressure to accept treatments that will be of questionable effectiveness at best, and all too often painful and expensive to boot. . . . ""