FLASHBACK: Necromania
Here's where we were in the Death Wars nine years ago. Seems pretty tame, doesn't it?
~ ~ ~
Dr. Jack Kevorkian recently escaped another legal noose when another Michigan jury handed down another acquittal of the 67-year-old retired pathologist for his 26th and 27th killings since 1990. Kevorkian was expectedly exultant. "I don't know if [the jurors] realize the magnitude of what they did. It's been a tremendous stroke in favor of rationality and human rights. You can't take this away. This is the essence of human existence that can never be taken away." It would seem that he values death more than life itself.
Geoffrey Fieger, Kevorkian's lawyer, was equally as effusive in standing rationality on its head. "Do you think there is ever a law that could be passed forcing people to suffer?" he told the jury. "This is all about your right to determine how much suffering you can and must endure." It seems not to have occurred to Mr. Fieger that he is helping to open the door to laws forcing people to die.
This was the prognosis of the American Medical Association, which released a statement after the verdict calling it "a serious blow to quality, compassionate patient care. It sends a message that the dignity and value of human life at its end stages is irrelevant."
The AMA makes a compelling case. And unlike Kevorkian's first trial, it wasn't all the jury's fault. Not only were the judge's instructions unclear, according to jury foreman Don Ott, but the now-expired anti-snuffing law itself included a gigantic loophole: if the intention of the person assisting in suicide was "to relieve pain or discomfort and not to cause death, even if the medication or procedure may hasten or increase the risk of death," the measure did not apply. Which, of course, is nonsensical; it cannot logically be asserted that actions the Kevorker knows will lead to the death of the other party are not being taken with the intent of causing that death, whatever justifying window dressing is draped over it. Whether the intent is malicious or "compassionate," it is still the premeditated taking of a human life.
In a sort of decedant conversion, the ultraliberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed medicinal murder two days earlier by affirming the striking down of a voter-approved Washington state law banning the practice. By an 8-3 vote, the San Francisco-based tribunal held that the statute was a denial of due process of law under the 14th Amendment. "There is a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in determining the time and manner of one's own death," Appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in his majority opinion. "If broad general state policies can be used to deprive a terminally-ill individual of the right to make that choice, it is hard to envision where the exercise of arbitrary and intrusive power by the state can be halted."
However, this decision doesn't halt the conscription into killing at just doctors. Others "whose services are essential to help the terminally-ill patient obtain and take" medication that will hasten death are covered by the decision and are to be immune from prosecution. They include "the pharmacist who fills the prescription; the health care worker who facilitates the process; the family member or loved one who opens the bottle, places the pills in the patient's hand, advises him how many pills to take, and provides the necessary tea, water, or other liquids; or the persons who help the patient to his death bed and provide the love and comfort so essential to a peaceful death." Judge Reinhardt left out braiding the noose, dousing with gasoline and striking the match, and pulling the trigger. After all, why should health care professionals get to have all the fun?
Notably, this ruling reversed an earlier decision affirming the law that was issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, which stressed that "in the 205 years of our existence no constitutional right to aid in killing oneself has ever been asserted and upheld by a court of final jurisdiction." And indeed, the 14th Amendment cited by Judge Reinhardt is silent about a "right to die."
The relevant portions of Section One forbid states from "making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The first clause implies constitutionally-bestowed "privileges or immunities," since it is states that are prohibited from "abridging" them; and there is no federal civil right to "death with dignity." The second clause can conceivably be construed as ALLOWING physician-assisted suicide, but it cannot reasonably be said to enumerate that "right." And the equal protection clause, which was the foundation of Judge Reinhardt's opinion, cannot be relied upon any more than the first in the absence of established federal "right-to-die" legislation.
Or, in other words, the liberal majority of the 9th Circuit has, once again, usurped both public debate and the democratic process and written their personal opinions into the law. And in the process, they have, in the words of Kathi Hamlon, spokeswoman for the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, "opened up a Pandora's box." And the most important reason above all others is that the decision is so broad and open-ended.
"No one should think that this ruling can be applied only to those who `voluntarily' say they seek death," predicted Burke Balch, director of the National Right to Life Committee's Department of Medical Ethics. "Court decisions in virtually every state have established that when a competent person is given a `right,' an incompetent person must have the same `right,' which may be chosen for him/her by a guardian or other third party." Such as the state, for instance.
Moreover, there is no limiting factor placed upon this new "right" to determine "the time and manner" of one's death. One does not have to be terminally ill to exercise it, or even sick at all. Anybody will be able to have themselves killed at any time for any reason, and physicians will be legally barred from saying no. "Death on demand" will take its place beside its older sibling, abortion on demand.
The 9th Circuit's ruling was, in fact, based largely on abortion law precedent. The lower court decision it affirmed quoted the 1992 Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which stated, in part, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, or meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life." Thus has the Judiciary sought to supercede its metaphysical judgement for that of the Almighty, and relativize the sacredness and intrinsic worth of human life, which the state has always been seen as having an overriding interest in protecting. The three dissenting judges -- Robert Beezer, Ferdinand Fernandez, and Andrew Kleinfeld -- made this their central point. They agreed that any "right to die" was outweighed by the state's interests in preserving life, preventing suicide, and protecting the integrity of the medical profession. "If physician-assisted suicide for mentally competent, terminally ill adults is made a constitutional right, voluntary euthanasia for weaker patients, unable to self-terminate, will soon follow," Beezer wrote. "After voluntary euthanasia, it is but a short step to a `substituted judgement' or `best interests' analysis for terminally ill patients who have not yet expressed their constitutionally sanctioned desire to be dispatched from this world."
Hemlockers were quick to dismiss as "unjustified" the slippery-slope fears raised by opponents of the Reinhardt decision. Incredibly, they compared such concerns to those who opposed Roe v. Wade: "The slippery slope of Roe's opponents has, of course, not materialized." This is sheer fantasy; by the end of the 1970s the annual abortion toll had doubled to over 1.5 million, and abortions could - and still can - be obtained for any reason, not just rape, incest, or life-threatening circumstances. And Roe was as carte-blanche an invitation to slaughter of the unborn as Reinhardt is to the rest of us.
For those with any lingering doubts, I cite the case of George Delury. An editor on Manhatten's Upper West side, Delury slew his wife, Myrna, last summer by giving her a lethal cocktail of an anti-depressant, water and honey. He claimed he was helping her commit suicide to relieve the suffering she was experiencing from chronic multiple sclerosis.
However, prosecutors later released transcripts of a diary Delury began three months before the killing suggesting that he had been motivated not by compassion for his wife, but by self-interest. "You are sucking my life out of me like a vampire and nobody cares. In fact, it would appear that I am about to be cast in the role of villian because I no longer believe in you." Charged with manslaughter, Delury pleaded guilty to attempted manslaughter, and has been sent to prison.
Right-to-die activists fled from the Delury case by raising questions about whether Mrs. Delury had really wanted to die. But found at the scene was a note, signed by her and dated the day before her death, saying that she had asked her husband to "help her die," clearly indicating that he had talked her into the decision.
There's a limit to how far the Law of Unintended Consequences will stretch. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will again slap down the Ninth Circuit and restore true rationality - and sanity as well.
~ ~ ~
No such luck.
If anybody can dredge up an ounce of sanity in the enforced shriveling of Terri Schiavo that isn't pure, undiluted, Orwellian bull[BLEEP], please, do leave a comment.
If that isn't a daunting challenge, nothing is.
Except perhaps to get that damned feeding tube reattached, where it belongs.
~ ~ ~
Dr. Jack Kevorkian recently escaped another legal noose when another Michigan jury handed down another acquittal of the 67-year-old retired pathologist for his 26th and 27th killings since 1990. Kevorkian was expectedly exultant. "I don't know if [the jurors] realize the magnitude of what they did. It's been a tremendous stroke in favor of rationality and human rights. You can't take this away. This is the essence of human existence that can never be taken away." It would seem that he values death more than life itself.
Geoffrey Fieger, Kevorkian's lawyer, was equally as effusive in standing rationality on its head. "Do you think there is ever a law that could be passed forcing people to suffer?" he told the jury. "This is all about your right to determine how much suffering you can and must endure." It seems not to have occurred to Mr. Fieger that he is helping to open the door to laws forcing people to die.
This was the prognosis of the American Medical Association, which released a statement after the verdict calling it "a serious blow to quality, compassionate patient care. It sends a message that the dignity and value of human life at its end stages is irrelevant."
The AMA makes a compelling case. And unlike Kevorkian's first trial, it wasn't all the jury's fault. Not only were the judge's instructions unclear, according to jury foreman Don Ott, but the now-expired anti-snuffing law itself included a gigantic loophole: if the intention of the person assisting in suicide was "to relieve pain or discomfort and not to cause death, even if the medication or procedure may hasten or increase the risk of death," the measure did not apply. Which, of course, is nonsensical; it cannot logically be asserted that actions the Kevorker knows will lead to the death of the other party are not being taken with the intent of causing that death, whatever justifying window dressing is draped over it. Whether the intent is malicious or "compassionate," it is still the premeditated taking of a human life.
In a sort of decedant conversion, the ultraliberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed medicinal murder two days earlier by affirming the striking down of a voter-approved Washington state law banning the practice. By an 8-3 vote, the San Francisco-based tribunal held that the statute was a denial of due process of law under the 14th Amendment. "There is a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in determining the time and manner of one's own death," Appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in his majority opinion. "If broad general state policies can be used to deprive a terminally-ill individual of the right to make that choice, it is hard to envision where the exercise of arbitrary and intrusive power by the state can be halted."
However, this decision doesn't halt the conscription into killing at just doctors. Others "whose services are essential to help the terminally-ill patient obtain and take" medication that will hasten death are covered by the decision and are to be immune from prosecution. They include "the pharmacist who fills the prescription; the health care worker who facilitates the process; the family member or loved one who opens the bottle, places the pills in the patient's hand, advises him how many pills to take, and provides the necessary tea, water, or other liquids; or the persons who help the patient to his death bed and provide the love and comfort so essential to a peaceful death." Judge Reinhardt left out braiding the noose, dousing with gasoline and striking the match, and pulling the trigger. After all, why should health care professionals get to have all the fun?
Notably, this ruling reversed an earlier decision affirming the law that was issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, which stressed that "in the 205 years of our existence no constitutional right to aid in killing oneself has ever been asserted and upheld by a court of final jurisdiction." And indeed, the 14th Amendment cited by Judge Reinhardt is silent about a "right to die."
The relevant portions of Section One forbid states from "making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The first clause implies constitutionally-bestowed "privileges or immunities," since it is states that are prohibited from "abridging" them; and there is no federal civil right to "death with dignity." The second clause can conceivably be construed as ALLOWING physician-assisted suicide, but it cannot reasonably be said to enumerate that "right." And the equal protection clause, which was the foundation of Judge Reinhardt's opinion, cannot be relied upon any more than the first in the absence of established federal "right-to-die" legislation.
Or, in other words, the liberal majority of the 9th Circuit has, once again, usurped both public debate and the democratic process and written their personal opinions into the law. And in the process, they have, in the words of Kathi Hamlon, spokeswoman for the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, "opened up a Pandora's box." And the most important reason above all others is that the decision is so broad and open-ended.
"No one should think that this ruling can be applied only to those who `voluntarily' say they seek death," predicted Burke Balch, director of the National Right to Life Committee's Department of Medical Ethics. "Court decisions in virtually every state have established that when a competent person is given a `right,' an incompetent person must have the same `right,' which may be chosen for him/her by a guardian or other third party." Such as the state, for instance.
Moreover, there is no limiting factor placed upon this new "right" to determine "the time and manner" of one's death. One does not have to be terminally ill to exercise it, or even sick at all. Anybody will be able to have themselves killed at any time for any reason, and physicians will be legally barred from saying no. "Death on demand" will take its place beside its older sibling, abortion on demand.
The 9th Circuit's ruling was, in fact, based largely on abortion law precedent. The lower court decision it affirmed quoted the 1992 Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which stated, in part, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, or meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life." Thus has the Judiciary sought to supercede its metaphysical judgement for that of the Almighty, and relativize the sacredness and intrinsic worth of human life, which the state has always been seen as having an overriding interest in protecting. The three dissenting judges -- Robert Beezer, Ferdinand Fernandez, and Andrew Kleinfeld -- made this their central point. They agreed that any "right to die" was outweighed by the state's interests in preserving life, preventing suicide, and protecting the integrity of the medical profession. "If physician-assisted suicide for mentally competent, terminally ill adults is made a constitutional right, voluntary euthanasia for weaker patients, unable to self-terminate, will soon follow," Beezer wrote. "After voluntary euthanasia, it is but a short step to a `substituted judgement' or `best interests' analysis for terminally ill patients who have not yet expressed their constitutionally sanctioned desire to be dispatched from this world."
Hemlockers were quick to dismiss as "unjustified" the slippery-slope fears raised by opponents of the Reinhardt decision. Incredibly, they compared such concerns to those who opposed Roe v. Wade: "The slippery slope of Roe's opponents has, of course, not materialized." This is sheer fantasy; by the end of the 1970s the annual abortion toll had doubled to over 1.5 million, and abortions could - and still can - be obtained for any reason, not just rape, incest, or life-threatening circumstances. And Roe was as carte-blanche an invitation to slaughter of the unborn as Reinhardt is to the rest of us.
For those with any lingering doubts, I cite the case of George Delury. An editor on Manhatten's Upper West side, Delury slew his wife, Myrna, last summer by giving her a lethal cocktail of an anti-depressant, water and honey. He claimed he was helping her commit suicide to relieve the suffering she was experiencing from chronic multiple sclerosis.
However, prosecutors later released transcripts of a diary Delury began three months before the killing suggesting that he had been motivated not by compassion for his wife, but by self-interest. "You are sucking my life out of me like a vampire and nobody cares. In fact, it would appear that I am about to be cast in the role of villian because I no longer believe in you." Charged with manslaughter, Delury pleaded guilty to attempted manslaughter, and has been sent to prison.
Right-to-die activists fled from the Delury case by raising questions about whether Mrs. Delury had really wanted to die. But found at the scene was a note, signed by her and dated the day before her death, saying that she had asked her husband to "help her die," clearly indicating that he had talked her into the decision.
There's a limit to how far the Law of Unintended Consequences will stretch. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will again slap down the Ninth Circuit and restore true rationality - and sanity as well.
~ ~ ~
No such luck.
If anybody can dredge up an ounce of sanity in the enforced shriveling of Terri Schiavo that isn't pure, undiluted, Orwellian bull[BLEEP], please, do leave a comment.
If that isn't a daunting challenge, nothing is.
Except perhaps to get that damned feeding tube reattached, where it belongs.
posted by JASmius at 10:51 AM
<<< Home