Having recently been critical of Cal Thomas, I recently found myself at least partially in agreement with him, “The state is not God,” (July 13). Charlie's parents have reportedly raised enough money to finance his transfer to the U.S. for an “experimental" treatment for his rare and lethal disease. As a physician, I certainly understand their anguish in the face of an illness whose prognosis is bleak. I fail to see the British government's interest in preventing this trip, as long as American doctors are willing to accept his transfer, and the National Health Service is not asked to fund a procedure it deems futile.

However, the principle of freedom from government intervention into private medical decisions cuts both ways. If "Official Britain" is wrong here, were not the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, and Congressional Republicans also wrong to try to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case?

Should the state prevent a terminally ill, suffering patient from ending such suffering in a tightly regulated environment in conjunction with physicians, as is now the case in several states with "Aid in Dying" laws?

Thomas presented the issue in the framework of his Right to Life orientation, masking it as an issue of patient-physician autonomy. How about letting a little sunshine in?

Dr. Herbert Ross

Lyme