The nice Ms. Berg would have us believe that her bill will simply allow terminally ill persons to choose death early. But AB651 has no safeguards against incorrect six-month terminal prognoses or against depression-driven requests by patients. The bill lists paragraphs of detailed requirements that must be met before killing a patient, but then it renders any safeguards void because anyone involved who acts in “good faith� is absolved from civil and criminal liability.

It is virtually impossible to disprove acting in good faith. This _puts the elderly, disabled and uninsured at risk of coercion to commit suicide instead of providing the compassionate care they need. Once legalized, suicide could be encouraged to preserve an inheritance, hide medical malpractice, or assure health maintenance organization profitability.

The possible abuses are staggering. That is why groups representing the disabled, the elderly and minorities are opposing this bill so strongly. The League of United Latin American Citizens says that state-sanctioned assisted suicide is a frightening proposition, as well as morally wrong.

Why is death the solution Berg seeks? There are so many problems with health care, and so many other ways to improve the lot of seriously ill patients - such as improving hospice care and pain management. It would really be nice if Berg concentrated on a positive goal.

- Mary Rollino, Ventura