To some degree that is the key question -- is it your own decision whether to keep living or is that a decision that must be decided by the community? If the latter why?
Opponents of euthanasia suggest that legalizing euthanasia will lead to abuses. For example, some will accept death, say, to avoid being a burden on their family. Others note, from a religious view, that it is God only who should decide when life ends. Whether the slippery slope argument holds water is a factual point -- can safeguards be put on legal euthanasia? The religious point, of course, is untestable.
Proponents of euthanasia have presented two main arguments for legalization:
a) that people should be allowed to choose their own fate and
b) allowing someone the choice of dying is more humane than requiring that they continue to suffer.
As a practical matter euthanasia in the passive form -- withholding treatment -- is common. Some suggest a more active form, the giving of drugs specifically to hasten death, is also common but hidden.
Certainly it is horrible to contemplate the suffering of an ALS victim. It is impossible not to sympathize with her plight.
VANCOUVER — Right-to-die advocates will square off against euthanasia opponents this week in a closely watched court case that could change British Columbia's laws governing suicide.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is leading the charge against laws that it says make it a crime for physicians to assist seriously and incurably ill people to die with dignity.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of B.C. will begin hearing expert evidence in a constitutional challenge filed in April by the BCCLA to force B.C. to allow doctors to legally help terminally ill people commit suicide.
Medical ethicists and philosophers will join psychiatrists and palliative care physicians for cross-examination beginning Nov. 14. The broader hearing of the case begins Nov. 28.
Among the plaintiffs is Gloria Taylor, 63, who suffers from ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The fatal neurodegenerative disease slowly robs victims of their motor skills. Most die within three to five years.
Judge Lynn Smith fast-tracked the hearings earlier this year so Taylor, who signed on in June, could participate.
2 comments:
The "God" arguement is moot. When it comes to "a woman's right to choose" it is hands off.
Should a woman have real control over her body or only when seeking an abortion?
This is likely a slam dunk. In an increasingly "progressive" society where people are being provided methods to inject dangerous street drugs "safely", SSM, and abortion on demand etc. the courts will allow, in some form anyways euthanasia.
Don't imply that I am against all of the above. My point is that the courts are increasingly being asked/allowed to make public policy. Our politicians for a couple of decades now have been unwilling to do their jobs for a whole host of reasons.
The courts have always taken the progressive view. Why would you predict a different result now?
Attorney and Law Firm Information and Directory. Find Legal Information, Laws and local Attorneys.
Post a Comment