Assisted Suicide - Is it our right?
Do you think we have a constitutional right to assisted suicide?
This case is before the Supreme Court now, and no surprise, today, Chief Justice Roberts sharply questioned the lawyer arguing for Oregon's law that allows physician assisted suicide. The opponents are arguing that it violates drug laws, which I really don't understand. If its administered by a physician, how can it violate drug laws? The Oregon law strictly states how and when it should be administered. Are we really worried about whether terminally ill patients will become addicts?
Anyway, Justice O'Connor is currently leaning toward upholding the Oregon law, however, she will probably not be on the bench when the decision is rendered. So, with an expected 4-4 tie, the new Justice will be the tie-breaker. Since the Bush administration has been solidly against the issue of physician-assisted suicide, we can imagine how she would vote. And, keep in mind, this is a Republican president who is opposed to a state law that has twice been endorsed by the voters. Isn't that against the Republican ideology?
My opinion, in case its not obvious by now, is that the right to die is the ultimate constitutional right. If I am terminally ill, and suffering, why should the government tell me I must continue to suffer? Its a decision between a patient and a doctor, with no politicians involved.
posted by Carolyn P @ 10/05/2005 12:34:00 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Cue the marching band, Carolyn and I have found some common ground!
Though I believe it is wrong to end one’s own life, I profess that the right to die is one of those inalienable rights.
I find “right to die” issues in the tricky arena of morality actions that should not be judged by other people, ultimately meaning that it is none of the government’s business if one should take that course. If a person is competent to make that decision, it is entirely his or her own independent event.
It gets trickier when one can’t commit the action without assistance. A physician assumes a tremendous burden when s/he decides to fulfill the wishes of a terminally ill patient. The community (read: state) has an interest in determining that the patient can consent and that the physician performs in an ethical way. For instance, we would want to stop a physician who was marketing “suicide pills” to the mentally disabled.
However, not being a Justice, Attorney General, legislator, or even a lawyer, and not having read the details, I can only imagine that the intricate legal minutiae of what is before the Court hardly resembles our straightforward right to die arguments here.
I'm a libertarian. 'Nuff said.
Some religio-historical perspective: in Catholicism, suicide is considered a grave and mortal sin. The chief Catholic argument is that one's life is the property of God's, and to destroy that life is to wrongly assert dominion over what is His. This argument runs into a famous counter-argument by David Hume, who held that if it is wrong to take life when a person would naturally live, it must be wrong to save life when a person would naturally die, as this too seems to be contravening God's will. Interestingly, in the Catholic doctrine of extraordinary means, the Church teaches that there is no moral obligation for a person to choose extraordinary methods of saving one's life in the face of possible death.
The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that suicide may not always be fully conscious – and thus its committer is not completely morally culpable: "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide."
@Carolyn P: The modern [right-wing religious fundamentalist nut-job] Republican Party only supports states' rights and small central government when it is rhetorically advantageous to do so. Haven't you learned anything from Karl Rove!? ;)
Hey Josh - try to keep the name calling to a minimum.
Randy - I knew we would find something!
Here is some background on some of the criteria in place in Oregon: "The Death With Dignity Act was approved twice by Oregon's voters and took effect in 1997. It requires patients who want to end their lives, and doctors who want to help them, to follow particular procedures. Patients must have a life expectancy of less than six months, as determined by two doctors; must be mentally competent and not suffering from impaired judgment due to depression or another psychiatric disorder; must make an initial request to the doctor and then wait 15 days before making a written request that is witnessed by two people; and must be advised of all alternatives, like hospice care and pain management. The doctor prescribes the drugs but may not administer them."
I think Sean's comment sums up the whole problem here. Although an interesting factoid, it shouldn't be relevant to our courts. Unfortunately, I fear it is (Well, not the Catholic view of suicide, specifically, but the Christian view). As with so many individual rights that are currently in peril, this is a religious/moral issue, not something to be controlled by the federal government. Not to say regulations aren't necessary. Assisted suicide should not be taken lightly, and should be tightly controlled. But, to deny a state the right to make such a decision with no valid argument worries me.
Not to be a Chicken Little, but the reason I think this issue is so important is because I fear this is just the beginning of a cultural shift, where individual rights are trampled by the views of a loud and powerful minority.
@Randy: Sorry, that was a bit offsides. The reason why I am so pissed about the Republican Party, however, is that I feel betrayed by it. You see, I was raised Republican. My dad is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate to liberal, and he supported limited federal government. This is what the Republican Party was like when he was growing up. This is why his father voted Republican.
I feel like Dubya has finished what Ray-Gun began: the transformation of the Republican Party from the party of Jefferson to the party of Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reilly. In other words, a self-righteous, invective-spewing, hypocritical institution that seems to serve only a narrow slice of conservatives.
Libertarians used to be able to vote Republican for the fiscal conservatism and limitation of government, but we can no longer do so in good conscience.
This is why I am The Angry Rapper: a party that claims to represent principle that I approve of has totally abandoned said principles, except for lip-service to them at election time, in favour of fundamentalist Christianity, which I consider as dangerous as its Muslim cousin.
So sorry for getting worked up, Randy. Please feel free to ignore any bracketed remarks I make. ;) I will try to keep my name-calling to private emails from now on. Like Sean says, maybe it is time to switch me to decaf.
I hear it tastes more like regular coffee, Josh.
Decaf coffee is people!
Post a Comment
<< Home