I sincerely hope that I am not too late in writing to express my disappointment with the misstatements of fact set forth in the Sept. 15 “Sound off” article entitled “Let us die with dignity” by Barbara Sheffield.

I am an attorney, and I live on Camano Island. Before voters go to the polls, it is important that they consider the flaws in the Assisted Suicide/Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, from a legal perspective. I have carefully read I-1000 and urge your readers to vote no.

With all due respect to Ms. Sheffield, she erroneously leads your readers to believe that the measure ensures that the patient’s choice is voluntary, i.e., not under duress, 2) prohibits third parties from administering lethal dosages, and 3) guarantees protection against foul play.

These statements are just not true.

I-1000 allows one of the two witnesses to a patient’s application for a lethal dose to be an heir. This provision undermines the concept of “voluntary” altogether. Under Washington State law, if the patient were signing a will, this would create a presumption of undue influence.

I-1000 also states that the patient may self-administer the lethal dose. Third parties may also administer the lethal dose.

Finally, the death does not need to be witnessed. In other words, this initiate would allow a third-party (heir) to exert undue influence over the patient to apply for a lethal dose of medication and then administer the lethal dose to the patient without any other witnesses.

I deal with family members in life altering crises every day. Ms. Sheffield may not want to believe it, but this initiative would be the ultimate tool for disgruntled relatives to exploit dying family members for financial gain. During marriage, most spouses think that if they were to go through a divorce, it would be amicable. That is just not the case. When parents are divorcing, it distorts their priorities. Parents who were once loving and protective of their children have difficulty recognizing that their own interests can be contrary to the best interests of their children.

Similarly, while we are young and healthy, we all want to believe that we would never be the victim of a self-serving relative or burned-out caregiver. But individuals faced with a terminal illness are often caught between the competing interests of adult children, spouses, and attorneys.

Under these circumstances, it would be easy to manipulate a vulnerable ill person into believing that I-1000 offers a solution, an perceived peaceful end to the conflict.

Our laws are supposed to protect us, especially in times of crisis. I-1000 is inhumane and irresponsible and will put our most vulnerable citizens at risk of foul play. Vote no.

Julie M. S. Herber