by I’ve been mostly posting personal notes and whatnot lately because it’s easier (!) and probably more interesting to my few readers. But a good thing happened today and though it’s undoubtedly all over the news, I thought I’d discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling on assisted suicide.
The question that big-government advocates like to ask is whether a situation is “right”, meaning whether the federal government ought to take control of the matter and address it through a funded program. In this case, the court ruled that the feds didn’t have a properly defined law allowing them to dictate to states the terms of medical service.
A better response would have been to acknowledge the intent of the Constitution, which was to leave all decisions not mandated by that document and its amendments to the states, “all” beting the key word. But I suppose that in these ambivalent times one has to be content with any victory of common sense over the D.C.-er’s need to dictate how people should live and, in this case, when they can decide to die.
I have always said that if a person is in great pain or not able to express him, he or she should be allowed to die peacefully. I know there are cases of miraculous awakening after a couple of years of being a vegetable into a hospital, but those are some exceptions and if he can utter a will to die, he should be taken seriously into consideration by any medical or clerical staff.
I agree completely. More than completely, actually. If I want to end my life – for whatever reason – society does not have the right or the mandate to keep me alive.
Cases like Terri Schiavo’s are more complex. For now I’ll just say that a living will is something everyone ought to have and that the government ought to respect them, regardless of “the law”.
Only when a person’s desires are unknown should a court’s judgment enter into the discussion.