As far as "assisted suicide", it's totally unnecessary. I was a Deputy Coroner for a few years and saw numerous cases of suicide by terminally ill. They didn't need a M.D. to help them. I specifically recall one case of a woman who took a large dose of pain killers and put a plastic bag over her head and went to sleep while her husband was tending the livestock. She also had a pistol on the nightstand,"just in case" I presumed. The husband understood why she did it, but that didn't stop it from being devastating to her husband of nearly 50 years.
I think it's unbelievably selfish of those who want to drag others into their act, as if to look for approval. Like the ad says "Just do it", if that's what you want.
That sounds fine for people who are ambulatory, but not everyone who might want to make this decision will be physically able to do so. In my field (emergency medical services) we sometimes encounter elderly, terminally ill patients who have DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders posted beside their beds. If they go into cardiac arrest, when we arrive with the ambulance we do not attempt to revive them. Like a DNR, why would it be so wrong for someone to decide that, should they become afflicted with conditions A, B, or C, they want an assisted suicide? Such a decision could be made while the patient is conscious and of sound mind, against the possibility that when the moment comes, they may not
be physically capable of doing the deed themselves. Your idea is not wrong, but the real world is messier than that. Many people don't think about these choices until it is too late - until they are incapacitated and cannot physically carry out what may well be their wish.
Undoubtedly. This decision was being anxiously watched in the more liberal states.
I am only glad that I don't live in one of them. Since I turn 50 soon, I really question how long it would be before I would be considered "obsolete" in Washington, Mass, etc. Liberals have no qualms offing babies that are not considered desirable, and now the old. How long will it be before there is some sort of merit-based system... Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode about the Librarian...
You are way off base here. You are interpreting a law which allows people to take responsibility for their own lives (surely a conservative and
a liberal value) as a law which allows some liberal star chamber to maliciously decide some sort of elderly eugenics program.
If we want to get partisan about this (though it is hard to imagine how, since we do not have 6 liberal Supreme Court justices), we might point out that Ashcroft was a prototypical Bush conservative: keep the government off my back when I am making money, but stick a camera and a biometric scanner in my bedroom to monitor my private moral choices. We can be trusted to be wise spenders, we just can't be trusted to make life decisions...
As far as I know, laws that allow
assisted suicide do not also require
doctors to carry them out. The moral choices here are two - the patient deciding what is best for themselves, and the practitioner deciding whether or not they wish to do it. Remember, just like with abortion, this isn't something all practitioners will do. It would require specialty training. Like a DNR, it cannot be something a family member decides - it has to come from the patients themselves. 1. Do you believe the case was correctly or incorrectly decided based on the majority opinion and the dissents? Please cite relevant sections.
I believe it was correctly decided. However, to be frank, I have trouble understanding all the legalese in this opinion, and base my answer more on my own opinion that assisted suicide laws make sense, just like DNRs make sense.2. Will this cause other states to pass laws allowing assisted suicide in their state?
Let's hope so!