For today’s Stop the ACLU blogburst, Jay has picked the topic of assisted suicide, since it is in the Court currently, in the case of Gonzales v Oregon, 04-623. Now, the ACLU is all for assisted suicide. Jay writes:
"The ACLU recognizes the right of a patient to euthanasia…"–ACLU Policy Guide of 1986. They have also went to the defense of many in assisted suicide cases, and other "right to die" cases See here. In 1988 the ACLU supported a proposal in Michigan that would allow a panel of physicians to determine whether a person is terminally ill and mentally competent to choose to have a physician-assisted death.
These were all voluntary cases involving terminally ill people, so what is the problem? The problem is a moral one, and another case for the slippery slope argument. It is based on the intentions of our founders.
The ACLU attempts to promote euthanasia and assisted suicide in the guise of "the right to privacy". Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not private acts. Instead, they involve one person participating directly in the death of another. This is a matter of public concern since it can lead to significant abuse, exploitation and degradation of care for some of the most vulnerable people among us.
Currently, the ACLU’s quick blurb on the case whines about past Attorney General Ashcroft over ruling past Attorney General "Elian/Wacko" Reno, which seems to be what a large part of their issue is with this case. They kinda miss the point, in that a federally controlled substance is being used for the assisted suicides. THAT is what this case really hinges on.
Now, I am going to disagree a bit with Jay, and certainly other Conservatives. Assisted suicide should be allowed, under extremely exacting laws and guidelines. Why? Because there is nothing in the US Constitution that says we cannot choose to end our lives if we so wish. If I was in an accident, and was going to be in a position where what I consider to be a severe diminishing of my quality of life, such as a persistant vegatative state, or quadrapalegic, then it should be my Right to choose. It is not the Governments. It is mine.
However, the ACLU is wrong. It is not about the "right to privacy." This is a public issue. The ACLU likes to missapply the 4th Amendment. This is about the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Those are my Rights. The ACLU has the right idea, but for the wrong reasons. Which is disturbing, because they are attempting to re-write the Constitution.
But, this case hinges on using a Federally controlled substance. The State has a Right to allow assisted suicide, but not with the drug in question. It shall be interesting to see which way John Roberts rules.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal. You will be added to our maling list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.
ACLU and Suicide
The ACLU wants more people dead. Wait, that’s not news.
Tricky topic to tackle…glad you did..great job.
Thanks, Jay. It is a toughy. So much of it is based on feeling.
I won’t hide that I’m against this, but I do have a logistical question. If you are in a PVS, you would have had to make the decision beforehand that you did not want to live like that. And then obviously, someone else would have to assist with or at least allow your demise. I don’t deny that everyone has a right to do what they want with their own lives, but I think it gets sticky when you bring other people in. I recall a case where someone who was not ill said he wanted to die, albeit in a certain way; another man obliged, essemtially sacrificing him. They prosecuted him for murder. What do you see as the difference between the two?
In the second case, I would say it is murder. The law in Oregon allows for assisted suicide only under very specific terms.