More on California Forced Complicity in Assisted Suicide
Some doubts (and aspersions) have been cast about my interpretation of A.B. 374, which I detailed in a Secondhand Smoke post and over at First Things. One commenter called my interpretation "convoluted." Well, true--but only because of the way the legislation is written.
Here it is again in a nutshell: First: No health care worker or provider can be forced to actually participate in assisted suicide. At the same time, no health care provider or worker who does can be punished for it in any way. Meaning, that if a doctor who visits a nursing home assists the suicide of a resident, even if it is against the policy of that nursing home, he or she cannot have any sanction, nor could the patient be asked to vacate.
Second: Acute care hospitals are expressly permitted to opt out of having assisted suicides performed in their facilities. Since this is a specific category of health care provider, the effect is that no other providers can similarly opt out since they are not given that right in the legislation.
Third: There is a strict construction clause, meaning that the terms cannot be expanded. Hence, only acute care hospitals will be able to opt out of assisted suicides on their premises.
If the authors didn't want this consequence, all they had to do was permit any health care facility refuse to permit assisted suicides to be conducted on site. This is what H. 44, the Vermont assisted suicide legislation does, to wit: "5294. HEALTH CARE FACILITY EXCEPTION: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health care facility may prohibit an attending physician from writing a prescription for medication under this chapter for a patient who is a resident in its facility and intends to use the medication on the facility's premises, provided the facility has notified the attending physician in writing of its policy with regard to such prescriptions."
California's legislation contains no such blanket exemption. (I know, I know: There are potential loopholes in the Vermont wording, but let's leave that be for now.) Hence, if the California legislation passes as is, Catholic nursing homes, in-patient hospices, and other such health care providers would be powerless to prevent assisted suicides from taking place in their facilities.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:37 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
I don't get it. He says you're utterly wrong, then agrees with your point.
Thanks Eileen. I noticed that too.
Yikes. Does this mean the catholic church will be forced out of the nursing home business and other things because of laws like this. Same-sex adoption mandates forced them out of the Boston area adoption business because no exemption would be granted to them and they couldn't do it in good conscience. And so the law forced the adoption agency with the best track record of placing really hard to place kids out of business because of the demands of some insane proponents for moral evil.
Seems like we will see a repeat of that in california if the law passes. I doubt the RCC will be willing to allow assisted suicide on their premises and if they can't find a legal way to prevent it then they will feel obliged to shutdown such centres.
The irony is that in a quest to appease politcally correct notions real harm is done to the most needy.
Sheer insanity, but such is the nature of the proponents of moral evil. They would rather have harm done to people than have any reminder of the wrong they are doing because of legal dissenteres.
Jason. It could mean that, at least for some nursing homes and hospices. I think that the sponsors, if they did this on purpose which I believe they did, expect most to capitulate. They are right, probably. But at least a few would be forced to quit caring for the ill in order not to be complicit in assisted suicide.
First would come the lawsuit, of course. Don't know how it would fare.
"I think that the sponsors, if they did this on purpose which I believe they did, expect most to capitulate. They are right, probably. But at least a few would be forced to quit caring for the ill in order not to be complicit in assisted suicide."
The Catholic Church has already shown that it wont be complicit in evil in this way. It is unfortunate innocent people have to suffer so that death fanatics can have their way. Maybe this could be an approach to opposing the bill. Hilighting this aspect of it and then getting the Catholic Church and others to make a point of noting what it would require them to do. Then make noise about how much harm is going to happen as a result. You can point to the case in Boston as evidnece of the reality of these sorts of actions.
I noticed just what Eileen did. And it seemed especially irresponsible to me in a professor of law. He says right out that the paragraph Wesley cites has "on the face of it" the meaning Wesley gives it. Well, for goodness sake! What would this guy do if he were a judge and a lawsuit were brought to him on this point under the statute? And if he would rule according to what the law means on its face, what right does he have to say that Wesley is "alarmist" and that this "discredits the pro-life movement"? (He obviously isn't _part_ of that movement, since he says he doesn't take a position on an assisted suicide law. Maybe he's not exactly the most helpful legal advisor!)
Nor is the guy's suggestion of a religious exemption clause all that helpful, though it would be better than nothing. But a facility without religious affiliation should be able to have a policy against suicide too.
Jason: You wrote: "The Catholic Church has already shown that it wont be complicit in evil in this way."
True. But not all "Catholic" health institutions follow Catholic moral teaching. I recall during the attempt to dehydrate Robert Wendland to death that some Catholic hospitals filed a friend of the court brief in FAVOR of the dehydration. (For those who don't know, Wendland was a Schiavo-tpe case--only he was unquestionably conscious. It went all the way to the California Supreme Court.)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home