Sunday, January 25, 2009

Here Come the Assisted Suicide Bills






















Two states have had assisted suicide bills introduced; Hawaii and New Hampshire. Hawaii's law requires a suicide "monitor" to be present at the death--which in practice would often be an assisted suicide ideologue, such as the "counselors" who work with Compassion and Choices:

Monitor required; form. (a) A qualified patient shall designate a competent adult to act as a monitor and who shall be present at the time of actual administration of the medication to the qualified patient and shall witness the event. The monitor shall have the power to act on behalf of the qualified patient to:
(1) Stop the administration of the medication if it has not yet been carried out; or (2) Enlist medical assistance to attempt to reverse the effect of the medication if the medication has already been delivered,if the monitor has reason to believe that the qualified patient has had a change of mind and is not able to effectively express or communicate the wish not to proceed taking the medication.
The New Hampshire bill seeks to expand the law as it exists in Oregon. For example, rather than define terminal illness as a patient reasonably expected to have six months or less to live, the New Hampshire bill uses an expansive definition of "terminal illness" that is wide enough through which to drive a hearse: From the NH bill:


XIII. "Terminal condition" means an incurable and irreversible condition, for the end stage of which there is no known treatment which will alter its course to death, and which, in the opinion of the attending physician and consulting physician competent in that disease category, will result in premature death.
What is a "premature death" anyway? It could be just about anything. Indeed, Jack Kevorkian once infamously said that a terminal illness is one that shortens a life by a single day.

Moreover, read the definition carefully: It this definition of terminal condition could include a broad host of diseases and conditions that are not thought to be terminal illnesses as generally defined in the immediate sense. For example, asymptomatic HIV infection would qualify as a terminal condition since there is now no known treatment that alters its course to death. (It might slow it down, but not alter it.) So would early Alzheimer's disease. Perhaps also cancers not expected to be cured and kidney disease. Indeed, under this definition a disease that could take years to kill the patient could technically qualify as a terminal condition under this definition making the patient qualified for assisted suicide.

But you see, that is the plan. Advocates for mercy killing constantly push the boundaries here, and blur normal definitions there--with the ultimate goal of enacting a very broad license to mercy kill that reaches far beyond terminal illness to the anarchy of death on demand.

Labels:

11 Comments:

At January 26, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

There are certain places I've thought of moving to. Texas and New Hampshire were at the top of the list. Until now.

Oh, those provisions for reversing it if the monitor thinks the person has changed their mind are just dandy. Right, that'll work.

What is WRONG with people?

 
At January 26, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

Those provisions for reversing are reason enough for this bill not to pass.

 
At January 26, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

Wesley: Is suicide illegal? Are the laws on it the same in all states? Are other than state jurisdictions involved? Anything federal? I'm asking because there can't be any penalty for it; unless the person's estate is penalized; it's just not something I ever thought or remember learning about.

 
At January 26, 2009 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Suicide pre se is no longer illegal. But that doesn't mean there is a right to suicide. People can be involuntarily hospitalized and treated for being suicidal under certain circumstances.

 
At January 26, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

Wesley: Thank you for telling me. When did it stop being illegal? Was it always illegal from the time the country was founded until then? Is there anything on the federal level? Is it the same in all states?

 
At January 27, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

When and why it stopped being illegal helps tell the story of how the COD started and took hold, I'd think.

 
At January 27, 2009 , Blogger padraig said...

Ianthe, we've discussed this before, but just to summarize: Suicide was illegal mostly to give law authorities grounds to confine suicidal people for their own protection. Those laws have largely been replaced by the "danger to themselves or others" statutes that allow suicidal folks to be taken to psychiatric facilities rather than jail.

So, I'd consider that to be an improvement.

 
At January 28, 2009 , Blogger SAFEpres said...

This is very frightening, since I live right next to New Hampshire. There is no love anymore.

 
At January 28, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

If suicide isn't illegal, and if it was illegal before just for the reason Padraig just said, no wonder we've got this mess. Sure there can't be sanction but if the law doesn't reflect sanctity of life even if it can't be enforced against the person after the fact, the door is open to what we've got now. I don't think it was an improvement to change it to "danger to self and others" statutes; it was the opposite.

SAFEpres: Well look where Wyoming is and what they're doing now.

 
At January 29, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

Also New Hampshire is very big on independence and self-reliance and self-determination; people like it there because of the no-tax situation, not being required to carry insurance, etc. In such an atmosphere, and the same may be true with Montana, the enthusiasm is for "I'll do as I want and no one has a right to tell me not to; no one has a right to tell me how to live or how to die" etc. That could be the ethos/issue, and the wide-open-spaces freedom ethos could be behind the Montana decision, faulty though that decision is in terms of the statute. It's like everyone feeling free to carry a gun in Texas; we wouldn't do that in New York. It's concerning in Washington and Oregon because of the yuppie culture there, and in Hawaii because look what that state produced as the new President, and likewise I would be even more concerned if it passed in New York or Massachusetts or Connecticut, or in a wholesome, conservative state where such a rationale in terms of the ethos of the place doesn't even exist. That doesn't mean that its being passed in any state isn't deeply concerning and doesn't encourage the notion and syndrome to spread, though.

 
At March 02, 2009 , Blogger trainman said...

This is a step in the right direction in many ways. If you look at Oregon, in the time it has been available, not many have gone through with it.

Allowing a broader definition may help those who seek this treatment, but not be allowed to under Oregon's definition. Yes, many safeguards need to be put in place, but this provides options for those that may just do any number of things to end themselves instead.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home