New Attempt to Impose Assisted Suicide by Court Fiat in Montana
A lawsuit to help terminally ill patients with the right to assisted death will go before a Montana judge next month. The suit was filed in October 2007 on behalf of two terminally ill patients, one from Billings and another from Livingston. Both want the right to die with dignity... The complaint is based on rights guaranteed in the Montana Constitution, the right of privacy, individual dignity, due process, equal protection of the law and the right to seek safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. Attorney Mark Connell of Missoula said it is the patient's right to choose how and when they die, not the government's right to forbid it.
Assisted suicide advocates are very directed. Kathryn Tucker, attorney for Compassion and Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society) tried and failed to obtain a U.S Supreme Court ruling creating a constitutional right to assisted suicide. That failed 9-0. Then, she tried in Florida, having a state constitutional right declared in the courts. That failed. Then, she tried in Alaska. That failed. Now, it is Montana with a court case coming next month. From the story:
That "news" story reads like it came off the Compassion and Choices press release, including the use of the euphemistic term "assisted death." Par for the course.
I wrote a more detailed analysis of this suit when it was filed, including a prediction that this case would be forthcoming in the Weekly Standard, accessed here.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:58 PM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
I wonder if there isn't some inconsistency reflected here. From what I've read on this blog, you appear to believe that if a patient requests life-sustaining medical treatment, then the patient should have it. On the other hand, you appear to believe that, if a patient requests life-terminating medical treatment, and a physician is willing to supply it, then the courts and the legislature should prevent it.
In both of these cases (LSMT and LTMT), it seems that the autonomy of both the patient and the physician is being respected, and nobody's rights are being violated; so what is the relevant distinction?
Killing is not a medical treatment, to put it simply and bluntly.
The issue appears, then, to be a matter of definition. You believe that killing ought not to be a medical treatment--for humans, at any rate. Others might have different views.
Let's take the example of a patient who is suffering intractible pain, and who has a prognosis of two weeks. If he believes that he would be better off dead than suffering for the two weeks that he has left, and if his physician agrees and supplies a lethal injection, that has at least the look and feel of medical treatment (a drug being administered for the patient's benefit).
Quite the phrase in the news story: "Both want the right to die with dignity."
Implication: If they don't kill themselves, they don't die with dignity.
Scary thought, but there really are people who think that way. All non-chosen death is death without dignity.
When you assist someone to die you become their killer no matter how we sugar coat the nuances of the goal posts and end zone. Will we be offering a bolt gun beside the beds of the terminally ill anytime soon or will we pretend that the patient was best served without the bolt gun because we killed them by another more aesthetic bloodless means? I wouldn't want to play god in either case.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home