SCOTUS Upholds Oregon Assisted Suicide Law
The United States Supreme Court has ruled to uphold an Oregon assisted-suicide law, slapping down an attempt by former Attorney General John Ashcroft to end the practice. Ashcroft claimed the practice did not constitute a “legitimate medical purpose.”
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS didn't see it that way, at least the majority did not. They claimed that the Attorney General was outside of his area of expertise, thus leaving him unqualified to not only make such a claim in the first place, but to effectively shift the balance of power away from the rights of states to the federal government.
Newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts stood with justices Scalia and Thomas in opposition to the ruling.
Regardless of the rationale, the ruling is troubling at best. It leaves the door open for more states to pass their own assisted suicide legislation, making it almost certain the practice will become more widely acceptable.
The bigger issue here is how it brings the United States closer to the acceptable practice of outright euthanasia. Assisting in suicide is just one step away from making the "professional" determination for patients of when the time is right for their life to end. Some would argue that this country would never take that next step. I would counter by saying that there was a time not long ago when most would say the same thing about doctor-assisted suicide. Remember Kavorkian?
It seems any time the term "slippery slope" is used these days, it is met with a rolling of the eyes as though it is nothing more than a tired and baseless argument which carries no merit. However, just because a society grows tired of hearing it does not make it any less a reality. It is a principle of human existence that the more a practice is allowed to occur, the more desensitized that society becomes, making the next step down the path appear less extreme. This results in a loosening of moral and ethical standards and an eventual breakdown and all-out adoption of the practice in question. Ever heard of the old frog in the kettle analogy? Put a frog in hot water, he jumps out. Put him in cool water and gradually turn up the heat and he boils to death. Just one degree at a time. We're seeing what is happening in other countries. How many degrees will it take for us?
When a society enters the business of ending the lives of innocent people, that society moves one step closer to the place so many others are already going: killing out of convenience. It is a short walk from assisting the terminally ill to die, to "assisting" in the deaths of the elderly and the physically defective. It is only a short step from there in defining "defective" more loosely, including more subjective definitions of the term. The worth of human beings is quickly becoming defined by either their usefullness to society or whether or not they meet the standards of those in a position to make life or death decisions.
"One man's trash is another man's treasure."
In a world where euthanasia is becoming more widespread and acceptable, who would have ever thought that old cliché would someday come to be applied to human beings?
Related E.R. post here.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS didn't see it that way, at least the majority did not. They claimed that the Attorney General was outside of his area of expertise, thus leaving him unqualified to not only make such a claim in the first place, but to effectively shift the balance of power away from the rights of states to the federal government.
Newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts stood with justices Scalia and Thomas in opposition to the ruling.
Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.“If the term ‘legitimate medical purpose’ has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death,” he wrote.
Scalia went on to clarify the probable cause for the other justices ruling in the manner they did:
Scalia said the court’s ruling “is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government’s business. It is easy to sympathize with that position.”I go one step further and ask exactly whose business is it? Who is qualified to make such a judgement on life? I, like Justice Thomas, found the ruling "puzzling."
Regardless of the rationale, the ruling is troubling at best. It leaves the door open for more states to pass their own assisted suicide legislation, making it almost certain the practice will become more widely acceptable.
The bigger issue here is how it brings the United States closer to the acceptable practice of outright euthanasia. Assisting in suicide is just one step away from making the "professional" determination for patients of when the time is right for their life to end. Some would argue that this country would never take that next step. I would counter by saying that there was a time not long ago when most would say the same thing about doctor-assisted suicide. Remember Kavorkian?
It seems any time the term "slippery slope" is used these days, it is met with a rolling of the eyes as though it is nothing more than a tired and baseless argument which carries no merit. However, just because a society grows tired of hearing it does not make it any less a reality. It is a principle of human existence that the more a practice is allowed to occur, the more desensitized that society becomes, making the next step down the path appear less extreme. This results in a loosening of moral and ethical standards and an eventual breakdown and all-out adoption of the practice in question. Ever heard of the old frog in the kettle analogy? Put a frog in hot water, he jumps out. Put him in cool water and gradually turn up the heat and he boils to death. Just one degree at a time. We're seeing what is happening in other countries. How many degrees will it take for us?
When a society enters the business of ending the lives of innocent people, that society moves one step closer to the place so many others are already going: killing out of convenience. It is a short walk from assisting the terminally ill to die, to "assisting" in the deaths of the elderly and the physically defective. It is only a short step from there in defining "defective" more loosely, including more subjective definitions of the term. The worth of human beings is quickly becoming defined by either their usefullness to society or whether or not they meet the standards of those in a position to make life or death decisions.
"One man's trash is another man's treasure."
In a world where euthanasia is becoming more widespread and acceptable, who would have ever thought that old cliché would someday come to be applied to human beings?
Related E.R. post here.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 1/17/2006 11:00:00 PM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home