Montana Assisted Suicide Decision Reads Very Much Like Right to Death on Demand
I will admit I didn't get much sleep last night because of the Montana case imposing a constitutional right to assisted suicide there. I haven't been able to find a copy of the decision yet, but from the few quotes I have seen it appears a radically broad and hubristic ruling, that if followed, logically couldn't be limited to physician assisted suicide or the terminally ill. These two quotes stand out, as cited in the Hemlock Society, er Compassion and Choices Web page crowing about the ruling:
"The Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally (ill) patient to die with dignity," McCarter said in the ruling. "The patient's right to die with dignity includes protection of the patient's physician from liability under the state's homicide statutes," the judge wrote.And:
“We have chosen not to ‘march lock-step’ with the United States Supreme Court…we have held that Montana’s unique constitutional language affords citizens (of Montana) a greater right to privacy.” District Court Judge Jeffrey M. Sherlock wrote [in another case], “Montanans generally mind their own business and do not wish to restrict other people in their freedoms unless the exercise of those freedoms interferes with other members of society.”This is the old, "I can do anything I want until the point that my fist hits your nose," concept. Leaving aside for the moment that assisted suicide hits everyone in the nose and harms society, think about the logical implications of the judge's ruling:
First, why limit the right to people diagnosed with a terminal illness? If I want to die because John McCain lost the election and I can't stand the idea of an Obama Presidency, that's my business and nobody has a right to interfere.
Second, the judge went further than somebody's right to commit suicide, which is an individual action. She declared that the person who wants to die has the right to help. The example here is of a physician writing a prescription. But her ruling went even farther than that--it shielded assisting doctors from homicide laws. It seems to me that language has to open the door to active euthanasia.
-- Third, why limit the assister to a physician? If privacy ("choice") and the right to dignity--which has to be what each individual decides it is since the state cannot logically determine what is dignity from what I have seen, why can't I have anyone I want kill me? Recall that in Switzerland, assisted suicides are done by lay groups, not physicians--which is logical since killing is not a medical act.
-- Fourth: If dignity (as I see it) and privacy are so absolute, why limit the license to assisted suicide? Why not amputate the limb on request of a person suffering from BIID, whose idea of dignity is to have one leg instead of two? That was certainly the implication of the original Montana Supreme Court ruling that unleashed this.
I plan to write more about this when I have read the whole ruling. It will be appealed, no doubt. But I have one more thought to add, which I will do in the next post.
Labels: Montana. Court Imposed Assisted Suicide Legalization. Implications.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:23 AM
17 Comments
17 Comments:
Sick, seriously. I'd write more but right now I'm dealing with a brand new computer, so I don't have the ability to expound. Blah. Sorry, Wesley. But, I don't have to like this ruling, and I'm free to say as much.
On top of everything else, did anyone see the AP story about the new article in Nature in which six "bioethicists" endorsed the use of "brain-function-enhancing" pharmaceuticals by people who are perfectly healthy? Another step toward getting EVERYONE on drugs, and more susceptible to being controlled.
Sure, why should any court be "in lock step" with the Supreme Court, or any state be "in lock step" with the U.S. Constitution? If a state gets away with "seceding" in this manner, the whole country's Constitution, and the freedoms it ensures, are undermined. In the name of Montanian "freedom," no less. It also occurs to me that first the U.S. had foot baths and Europe and the U.K were bending over backwards to accommodate Muslimism, and now we've got yet another element of the "72 virgins," "death is better" philosophy going on in the West. All this stuff happening at the same time is no coincidence. The death culture is not only insidious; it takes many forms and attacks on many fronts.
And enough with this "dignity" stuff!
I am amazed at the many forms of murder that we are removing from the public sphere and thus allowing under the banner of privacy. I am glad I don't live there anymore.
Maybe this opens the door to active euthanasia-I don't know. But it definitely opens the door wide open to "rational suicide." If we allow PAS for any class of people at all, whether it is terminally ill people or whatever condition, how can the court stop anyone who wants to die for any reason with the assistance of an MD for any reason at all? I bet the court has no idea how badly they screwed this up. I hope SCOTUS tells them to get lost.
We've already got assisted suicide and active euthanasia, courtesy of "living wills" that are "honored" whether the person wants what the piece of paper says when the actual situation arises or not.
We've already got assisted suicide and active euthanasia, courtesy of "living wills" that are "honored" whether the person wants what the piece of paper says when the actual situation arises or not.
Wesley: Is classical logic no longer part of the curriculum in law schools? If so this judge must have flunked to be guilty of such flawed reasoning. Does anyone think beyond the moment and consider the long-term consequences of their actions, or should I say choices?
HHH
I had my medical directive paperwork rewritten to remove all reference to "quality of life". I also had to rewrite the entire part about what care could be discontinued. In the end we had a document that didn't resemble the original "standard living will" at all. The attorney was puzzled, even after I explained that I was not trying to define the circumstances of when I would want to die (because I can not possibly predict them), but rather give the person entrusted with making decisions on my behalf guidance on the methods of how/when I was to be kept alive. Under no circumstances should food/water be withheld. She seemed to think that all I had to do was to "make my wishes known", but I seem to recall on SHS a case where the living will had the standard "quality of life" wording and the hospital sought to end the life against the wishes of the family. Its sad that we have to worry about being killed against our wishes.
It wasn't part of the law school curriculum in my experience, as far as I know it isn't in general these days, and the only thinking beyond the moment people seemed to be doing there was about how much money they would make after graduating and passing the bar exam; likewise for most of those who become doctors, who were raised to have similar aspirations. Utilitarianism permeates this entire society, and enough of those in the professions think in utilitarian terms and are not even aware of values beyond utilitarianism so that the entire society has long since been in peril.
Logic wasn't taught when I was in law school. And raising larger philosophical issues didn't win you any friends either. When I was a student, the dean actually distributed a memo saying that it was wrong to be critical of state supreme court decisions. I only hope he felt a slight discomfort when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas later spoke on campus and urged us to be critical because they (the justices) could, in his words, "take it".
The legal community doesn't really want to face up to their responsibility in creating the current legal/ cultural environment that takes ever more power away from the people (legislature) and gives it to a legal/cultural elite by judicial fiat.
Too many people in positions of power and influence think that the vast majority of "other people" out there are stupid and thus need someone else (the elite) to take care of them. And in a Monty Pythonesque way, the protestations of those poor ignorant slobs that they really don't want X,Y, or Z is ignored in a self satisfyingly patronizing way.
I became disillusioned with law because it is about process, not justice. But I think it is increasingly also about politics. Again and again we see courts instituting policy issues as if tey were constitutional issues, alwasy from the Left. This is such a case in my view, and it either leads to a country of drones willing to live as the courts tell us, or bitter and disenchanted people who believe they have no stake in law and government. Both results are dangerous.
Jessie: You hit the nail on the head. I think that they want and need the "other people" to be stupid, and that the regard and treat them as if they are, so that they can retain their positions, salaries, and dishonest self-images, and I think that they ignore their protestations just as you said, and because only by ignoring them can they remain insulated and stay on their perches, intending deliberately to break the spirit of those protesting, who have sense, logic, and reason on their side, because they themselves lack the same qualities and couldn't stand up to them if they did other than ignore them, and they've grabbed good gigs for themselves and don't want to have to do, you know, actual work. They're tyrants, and thus cowards, intellectually and morally incapable of doing the jobs they are supposed to be doing, of the benefits of which to themselves they are hardly willing to let go, and thus on the defensive against those they can't trample on unless they ignore them.
Jessie: I'm glad you did what you did with your directives. I can just see the attorney as if she were before my eyes right now, being "puzzled" and saying they were just "to make your wishes known." I don't believe in them, and would like to see them eradicated, along with what's behind their having become mainstream. From what I've read about them, it seems that the idea got started in the 1960s, and state legislatures and courts refused to ratify them for decades. In New York State, no sooner did they they become "established," after the death culture got going, than we got the insane "guardianship" law we've got, which has been much criticized, including in the report of a special Inspector General's office established by the NYS Office of Court Administration. I don't know if the situation about which you read on SHS was that of my mother, who was murdered as a result of a hospital's taking advantage of the availability of these mechanism, or of yet another such victim (there are many), but you're right that it's sad. In fact, it's real, it's horrible, and it's terrifying because it can happen to anyone. I fought as hard as I could, and couldn't win. I understand that that hospital has been doing this since the 1960s and perhaps before; how they accomplished it before these mechanisms were available I don't know, but the purpose behind them is obvious, regardless of the rhetoric about them.
I am a paralegal who lives in the State of Ohio. Ever since the Terri Schiavo case I who am a duly appointed notary public have refused to notarize my state's living will or durable power of attorney for health care prepared for anyone because I believe the loose wording of those documents can be used by doctors, nurses or hospice care workers as an excuse for active euthanasia. I also refuse to witness them.
Currently I do draft them for my supervising attorney who is also my employer. Since it's the notary's signature or the signature of two witnesses that makes the documents effective I figure it's his product not mine and so I have no moral culpability here. He's not happy about my refusal notarize or witness these documents, but to date he hasn't pressed me or demanded that I do so.
So, I am greatly troubled by this decision in Montana as it looks like the practice of euthanasia is marching generally eastward toward my state.
I have vowed to myself and to God that should euthanasia be permitted in Ohio that that will be the last day I'll even draft the documents.
I prefer to use and have as my own a document known as a "Will to Live" - which is a very restrictive power of attorney for health care. It is prepared by the National Right to Society and attorneys for the non-profit have crafted the document for every state in the Union. I would suggest that those people who do not want to put to death by their relatives or health care professionals for whatever reason, get one.
Finally, I know the position I've taken puts me on a collision course with the others in my profession, especially attorneys, but my conscience comes before the job. I'll risk it. I won't quit. Instead I'll refuse to cooperate and let the chips fall where they may.
Mike: The whole country, and the whole world, need to hear what you have said here. I wish you didn't have to draft them, and that you could stop even drafting them; the day euthanasia comes to Ohio will be too late. My mother, who was murdered just as you said can happen as the result of these documents, and who was one of many, most of whom did not even have "living wills," to whom the same has happened, was never presented with and offered the opportunity to sign a "Will to Live," and I wish I'd known of their existence. Other than the Illinois Right to Life Committee and what you've said, I have seen no opposition to the "living will" shibboleth; a massive publicity campaign that addresses the "living will" subject must occur.
Now, why would paralegals and attorneys oppose your point of view? Why isn't the "Will to Live" presented to clients as routinely as the "Living Will" is, so that they can truly have a chance to consider and express their "choice"? Why aren't attorneys required, both by the statutes currently ratifying "living wills" and by the rules of professional ethics, to explain to the client upon whom they are foising the "living will" all its possible ramifications, and to offer a document such as the "Will to Live"? In fact, why are they allowed to foist the "Living Will" on clients, to present any document as loosely worded as these ones are to any client, ever, not to explain all the possible ramifications, not to offer a document such as a "Will to Live," etc.? It's a sheer and absolute disgrace, any lawyer who's ever done these things belongs up on ethics charges, legislatures and judges that have ratified "living wills" in the absence of an alternative document having been made available similarly are guilty of unethical behavior, and the public has let itself down by putting up with what's come to pass. It's been insidious, though, just as SHS constantly (and lucky the world is that it does) points out that the death culture is. I wish you were able to speak out in media ads, public service announcements, etc.
Jessie and Mike: p.s. -- The "right to life" official at the local Catholic diocese, who has endorsed "living wills" in the media, and who lives and breathes the "end of life" culture, told me that the real purpose of and reason for "living wills" is "to get rid of the elderly and the disabled to save costs." She also alerted me to the Hastings Institute report (which can be found online by googling the Hastings Institute, which is in Garrison, New York) which concluded several years ago that "living" wills are a bad idea, especially since technology keeps changing very quickly. Then she tells, at length, the newspaper that shills for the local diocese, under whose auspices the "guardians" the hospital wanted in place so that they would pull the plug on my mother, which they did, are, that "living wills" are legitimate.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home