What decision? Are you referring to who gets to decide to kill another person? Should the spouse decide whether or not to kill them? Should a municipal judge decide whether or not to kill them? Should the Congress decide whether or not to kill them?
You ask the question as though somebody MUST decide, and it's just a matter of who should decide.
Is this a decision that must only be made about disabled people, or are others in need of this decision as well? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Jewish neighbor? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Mexican neighbor? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Baptist neighbor?
Or maybe you would prefer to base it on an individual's circumstances that affect the quality of their lives. Who should decide whether or not to kill a recently widowed man? Who should decide whether or not to kill a woman whose baby just died? Who should decide whether or not to kill a homeless man? Obviously all those people are suffering. Killing them would no doubt end their suffering.
Are those all private family matters? Should we accept that as long as they're able to speak on a certain level, they can make that decision themselves, but if not, the next of kin should decide? At what level should a person be required to speak in order to get to decide whether or not they should be killed? College level? High school level? And do they have to speak English, or will just any language suffice?
Or maybe we shouldn't single out any particular group of people. Maybe every individual should be subject to this decision. We can eliminate the taboo in killing, as long everybody follows the rules. Each of us will have a Designated Decision Maker (DDM) to decide our fate. The DDM will get to choose the hour and manner of our deaths. If you want to kill somebody for whom you are not the DDM, you'll need to petition the DDM for permission, and pay whatever surcharge the DDM deems appropriate. Parents will automatically be the DDM for their children. Upon marriage, the title of DDM automatically transfers to the spouse. Every one of us will have one person somewhere who gets to decide the time and method of our death. You've already established that the person for whom the decision is being made should have no say in the matter. (Or does your opinion on that only apply to Terri Schiavo Schindler, Scott Thomas, and Jimmy Chambers?) So, resisting your DDM's attempts to kill you will be a crime, punishable by a more turturous death than originally intended.
Or do you reserve this sacred practice of "deciding" solely for disabled people's decision makers?
Kill, disconnect the tube, I really don't care what you call it. Your first statement shows you're going to keep up the hyperbole. It's an end of life decsion. My question, which apparently went over your head (as if that's hard), was who did Scalia say should make the decision? Scalia, suprisingly a bit, supported the rights of the states, per the Constitution, to make the decision. It was a glaring aspect of his ruling in the Cruzan decision. One would assume that a majority within a commmunity, or state if you will, are going to have the same views that may be different from those in other states. Be those views on the death penalty, taxes, end of life decisions, etc. Which is why Scalia and Madison both said the decision on any issue not specifically covered in the Constitution should be handled by the states. Scalia ruled this decision should still be a state decision
Is this a decision that must only be made about disabled people, or are others in need of this decision as well? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Jewish neighbor? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Mexican neighbor? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Baptist neighbor?
And we make the loopy jump from end of life decisions to genocide. Maybe you could put up a picture of a death camp to complete the hyperbole. Each separate and sovereign state has laws against murder. But you already knew that didn't you? Unfortunately this fact doesn't help your hyperbolic jump much does it?
All situations that deal with end of life decisions should be left up to the family, unless the state has made a law otherwise. Even if a law has been made there will always be certain exemptions. Who do you believe should make such decisions. I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt, my family and I have reaffirmed with each other in writing at what point any tubes should be disconnected. So you ghoulish freaks that would have us keep anything and everything hooked to a tube won't be able to make one decision for me or mine
Or maybe we shouldn't single out any particular group of people. Maybe every individual should be subject to this decision. We can eliminate the taboo in killing, as long everybody follows the rules. Each of us will have a Designated Decision Maker (DDM) to decide our fate. The DDM will get to choose the hour and manner of our deaths. If you want to kill somebody for whom you are not the DDM, you'll need to petition the DDM for permission, and pay whatever surcharge the DDM deems appropriate. Parents will automatically be the DDM for their children. Upon marriage, the title of DDM automatically transfers to the spouse. Every one of us will have one person somewhere who gets to decide the time and method of our death. You've already established that the person for whom the decision is being made should have no say in the matter. (Or does your opinion on that only apply to Terri Schiavo Schindler, Scott Thomas, and Jimmy Chambers?) So, resisting your DDM's attempts to kill you will be a crime, punishable by a more turturous death than originally intended.
Again, your stupidity astounds. I have made no statement that would support your idiotic statement. I have simply stated per the Constitution of these United States, the issue of end of life and ensuing decisions can only lie with one group of people. The citizens of a respective state if they choose to address their legislature or the family member who has power of attorney in said situation.
Now I have a Supreme Court Justice and the author of the Constitution standing with me. Who've you got? A crackpot on a crusade at all costs (Randall Terry), a 'Nobel Prize nominee' who gets sued by his patients, and a Redd Foxx look alike who can't get anybody to vote for him.