Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Right’ to be Dehydrated Key Right to Die Strategy
LifeSiteNews ^ | 9/21/06 | Hilary White

Posted on 09/21/2006 1:51:58 PM PDT by wagglebee

TORONTO, September 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – At last week’s Toronto conference of the international Right to Die movement, speakers laid out the course of the movement’s strategy for legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide around the world.

Of particular note is the emphasis on the “right” to be starved and dehydrated to death, especially for patients suffering from dementia or cognitive disabilities.

Seeing a “catch-22” in the dementia and euthanasia problem, the Right to Die movement says the problem is that some, while unwilling “to end life prematurely,” know that “it requires mental competence to take personal responsibility for choosing a peaceful death at the right time.” The difficulty is that when a patient is incapacitated by dementia and unable to make his wishes known, family members may intervene to stop dehydration deaths.

Removal of nutrition and hydration tubes has become a key issue in the Right to Die movement’s campaign. Dr. Stanley Terman warned conferees that the wishes of the family, often manipulated by the “religious right” is a threat to securing the right to be killed by dehydration for dementia patients.

Dr. Terman, a psychiatrist specializing in end-of-life family counselling, said the solution is a plan that “satisfies desires to avoid a life of dementia,” and yet protects family members from having to take steps to end the patient’s life.

Terman also pointed to the increasing costs of keeping dementia patients alive, echoing the running eugenic theme of the conference in favour of euthanasia as a cost-cutting measure. Terman is the author of a book, “The Best Way to Say Good-bye” that explains how patients can ensure they will be dehydrated to death if experiencing dementia.

Terman, with a number of other speakers, pointed to Wesley J. Smith, the lawyer and writer on bioethics issues, as a force to be reckoned with in the euthanasia debate. He stated that if a patient wishes ensure that he will have food and fluids withdrawn then he needs to read his (Terman’s) book. If he wishes to prevent the withdrawal or withholding of food and fluids then he needs to read Wesley Smith’s books.

Another major theme of the Right to Die strategy is the issue of autonomy as a criterion for deciding end of life questions. Robert Raben, a political organizer and advisor explained how the Right to Die movement was attempting to convince politicians that their position was politically positive.

Raben says he is convinced that their message must be: “Who Decides?” meaning that the decision to end or sustain life must be in the hands exclusively of the patient.

The “autonomy” issue, he said, will play well in the US culture of individualism and “choice.”

In modern bioethics thinking, autonomy is often given as a key indicator in the determination of “personhood”. Many bioethicists argued that because Terri Schiavo’s disability had reduced her autonomy that she was, in effect, already dead.

Another speaker, Steve Hopcraft, the political organizer for the recent California campaign to legalize assisted suicide, said that the movement must work to ban the word “suicide” from its lexicon.

Hopcraft explained the results of the polling data from the California campaign. He is convinced that even though they failed to get the bill passed into law, that in fact they were so successful it is inevitable they will pass a law.

Focus groups found that when the questions were framed as issues of “suicide” or “assisted suicide,” the public was less receptive. When they used terms such as “aid in dying” or “end of life choices” they gained 15% in their polling. Media, however, were not cooperative and refused to change the language.

Hopcraft said that at the next round, the movement would frame the debate on themes of “patients rights,” “senior citizens issues,” and the “right to choose.

Conference speakers included a who’s who of the euthanasia and right to die world, including George Felos, the lawyer who drove the court battles to kill Terri Schiavo; Derek Humphry, Chair of the Advisory Committee of the Final Exit Network USA; Lord Joel Joffe, a member of the British House of Lords, and sponsor of a bill allowing physician aid-in-dying which is currently before the UK Parliament; Dr. Rob Jonquière, a leader in the Right to Die Society of the Netherlands.

Also in attendance was Evelyn Martens, the British Columbia woman who was acquitted of two assisted suicides in 2004 and Lesley Martin, New Zealand's most notorious euthanasia advocate who was convicted of the attempted murder of her mother; and Dr. Philip Nitschke MD, founder and director of Exit International, Australia.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cultureofdeath; cultureofdisrespect; dehydration; emotewithmeagain; eugenics; euthanasia; letskill; moralabsolutes; prolife; terrischiavo
Another speaker, Steve Hopcraft, the political organizer for the recent California campaign to legalize assisted suicide, said that the movement must work to ban the word “suicide” from its lexicon.

Excellent idea, because what they are now talking about is clearly MURDER!

1 posted on 09/21/2006 1:51:59 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback; narses; 8mmMauser

Pro-Life Ping.


2 posted on 09/21/2006 1:52:33 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; BIRDS; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

More proof that the Culture of Death was using Terri Schaivo as a "test run" for their macabre agenda.

3 posted on 09/21/2006 1:53:42 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Just like they did to Terri Schiavo. No wonder it sounded familiar - if only because the precedent has already been set.
.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

4 posted on 09/21/2006 1:54:24 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Right to Die? Let's start with those who attended the conference and see if anyone changes their mind.


5 posted on 09/21/2006 1:55:32 PM PDT by teacherwoes (To a liberal diversity is finding different people who agree with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Terman also pointed to the increasing costs of keeping dementia patients alive,..."

That's what it's all about -- balancing the books for the socialist medical "care" system.
6 posted on 09/21/2006 1:55:40 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I think Terri was the stolen election to establish a precident.
Condemned inmates have three drugs administered to calm, relax, eliminate pain and conciousness and then die ... the inconvenient are forced to be aware of their state and, perhaps unable to raise any objection .. painfully dehydrated.

Just try to go two days with no water, coffee, pop, juice, tea .. whatever ... your mind screams to be watered.

7 posted on 09/21/2006 2:00:06 PM PDT by knarf (Muslims kill each other ... News wall-to-wall, 24/7 .. don't touch that dial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I cannot even begin to express just how evil this agenda is.


8 posted on 09/21/2006 2:00:08 PM PDT by scory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teacherwoes
Right to Die? Let's start with those who attended the conference and see if anyone changes their mind.


TORONTO, March 24, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The World Federation of Right to Die Societies is having its 16th biennial conference in Toronto and is featuring George Felos as a keynote speaker. Felos was the "right to die" activist lawyer that propelled Michael Schiavo's case through the courts to have his disabled wife Terri starved and dehydrated to death.
Calling him "a nationally recognized expert in right-to die cases, and lawyer for Terri Schiavo, the Canadian euthanasia and assisted suicide group, Dying with Dignity, has booked Felos to speak at the conference opening in Toronto September 7. Speaker topics will include, "Nudging the Law - How to Move Legalized Aid-in-Dying Forward."

Felos is a major shaker in the effort to make euthanasia legal in the US. His years as the lawyer who fought off the Schindler family's attempts to save Terri's life made him an international star in the "right to die" movement.

But Felos is more than just a lawyer with a cause. He has been described as a New Age guru and has authored a book titled, "Litigation as Spiritual Practice" and his autobiography describes his bizarre spiritualist beliefs including in reincarnation. He claimed to have received mystical locutions from Terri before her court-ordered dehydration death.

He told the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times, in 2001, "I believe that Christ was God incarnate and was resurrected. But, by the same token, I believe that there were other incarnations of God as well."


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06032403.html
9 posted on 09/21/2006 2:03:09 PM PDT by Deo volente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

10 posted on 09/21/2006 2:03:47 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

But it's euphoric, don'cha know?


11 posted on 09/21/2006 2:04:23 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If this is too inhumane to do on terrorists, then why is it okay for everyone else. Dehydration is not a pleasant way to go.


12 posted on 09/21/2006 2:04:41 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Funny, I clearly remember being told how "euphoric" it was and how "beautiful" it made the person look./sarcasm off


13 posted on 09/21/2006 2:09:13 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
Felos wrote that God told him, "You are more powerful than you realize."
pg 182, George Felos's book, "Litigation as Spiritual Practice" (Blue Dolphin Publishing, 2002)
14 posted on 09/21/2006 2:11:27 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The distinctive stench of evil.


15 posted on 09/21/2006 2:21:28 PM PDT by Graymatter (TV-free and clean for 3 years, 4 months.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
if only because the precedent has already been set.

No coincidence there. The precedent was set, and is now being aggressively invoked.

Nothing that happened in Largo, Florida, last year happened by accident. It was too purposeful, too orchestrated, too relentless and steamrolled with too much momentum over every good (and constitutional) principal to be by accident.

I can't say why, but somebody, somewhere, wanted that precedent set. Since there is no reasonable purpose for doing so, exactly what sort of mind(s) are are we dealing with?

16 posted on 09/21/2006 2:24:10 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand ("...peace is the result of victory...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Call it what you like. but I've never heard of a person whose actual preference was to be dehydrated to death slowly. Those who wish to be dispatched when their physical and/or mental condition reaches a certain point, want a lethal injection or other quick and guaranteed-painless means. It's appalling to me that legislators and courts are willing to authorize death-by-dehydration, but will not authorize death-by-injection. They're willing to say that in some cases it's appropriate to make a decision to stop keeping someone alive (which I happen to agree with), but then don't have the decency to see to it that it's done in a way which eliminates the possibility of any suffering on the part of the dying person, and minimizes the anguish of relatives of friends. Death is guaranteed either way -- why pretend that there's some ethical superiority to standing by passively and ensuring that it happens slowly?

If you take a terminally ill and apparently unconscious pet to the vet, having made the decision that it's life is no longer worth living, the vet does not have the legal option to just leave the animal lying in a cage without IV hydration/nutrition and just wait a few days until it dries up and dies. So why does anyone think it's okay to do that with people?


17 posted on 09/21/2006 2:28:18 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
If you take a terminally ill and apparently unconscious pet to the vet, having made the decision that it's life is no longer worth living, the vet does not have the legal option to just leave the animal lying in a cage without IV hydration/nutrition and just wait a few days until it dries up and dies. So why does anyone think it's okay to do that with people?

That's a very good question, and an excellent thing to remember if discussing this issue with liberals - especially the vegetarian/animal rights types. I will never understand how people think it's OK to starve or dehydrate someone to death - absolutely, inhumanely cruel...
18 posted on 09/21/2006 2:42:40 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (Liberty Rocks Blog: http://libertyrocks.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
My Grandma (step actually, my Grandpa was a widower) died of Alzheimer's. She went to a nursing home when Grandpa could no longer take care of her. Grandpa drove to town every day for years to spend the day with her, until he could no longer take care of himself and had to go into the nursing home himself.

Grandpa was not a talkative man, and did not show emotion. But he showed me by standing by the only Grandma I ever knew what love was when so many would have just left her to die. When I hear so many talk of "death with dignity" and killing of those who can not contribute to society, it angers me beyond what I can say.

Life is sacred. If you make the measure of what a life is worth how "productive" someone is, then we as a society will soon face a horror that will make the genocides of the 20th century look like a schoolyard scuffle.
19 posted on 09/21/2006 3:08:28 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Nutrition/food and hydration/water should continue to be viewed as compassionate and ordinary medical care and humane treatment. Anytime “personhood” is withdrawn from a human being their legal protections are eroded and other members of society who may, themselves, be deemed inconvenient, unwanted or imperfect, will lose the right to life and religious expression. Because a person in a unconscious condition may not want to commit a sin of the gravest proportions by foregoing treatment to effect their own death in defiance of their religious faith. Everyone is entitled to right of religion and faith and the "voice of conscience" even if the they are incapacitated by dementia, or unconscious or unable to make their wishes known, their right to life and Faith should be absolute and to assume different is a violation of universal rights.
20 posted on 09/21/2006 3:51:29 PM PDT by FreeRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; All
Dear, dear God. I'm speechless. But not linkless:

To me, these are the defining issues of our times:

-Useless Eaters vs The Death Cult--

-Men(ace) in Black? SCOTUS goes Rogue...--

-Thunder on the Border-- (Minuteman Project)--

1- whose life is it, anyway? Yours, or someone else's?
2- an unaccountable Judiciary.
3- whose Country is it?

There are other vital issues, of course- but these three will determine just who we really are as a nation.

21 posted on 09/21/2006 3:55:05 PM PDT by backhoe (Just an Old Keyboard Cowboy, Ridin' the Trakball into the Dawn of Information)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

And Hitler was a dog owner!


22 posted on 09/21/2006 6:26:12 PM PDT by Gondring (If "Conservatives" now want to "conserve" our Constitution away, then I must be a Preservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: teacherwoes
Right to Die? Let's start with those who attended the conference and see if anyone changes their mind.

I think the reporter might be the only person who'd like to have that right denied.

23 posted on 09/21/2006 6:27:27 PM PDT by Gondring (If "Conservatives" now want to "conserve" our Constitution away, then I must be a Preservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreeRep

You're saying that my father had no right to make the decision to not eat or drink anything until he died?

Screw you, it was his decision and his right.


24 posted on 09/21/2006 6:34:17 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The “autonomy” issue, he said, will play well in the US culture of individualism and “choice.”

Oh my! Heaven forbid we don't extinguish those outdated ideas of individualism and self-determination! Don't they all know that they are to serve the hive and their life isn't their own?!?

</sarc>

25 posted on 09/21/2006 6:38:42 PM PDT by Gondring (If "Conservatives" now want to "conserve" our Constitution away, then I must be a Preservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Life is sacred. If you make the measure of what a life is worth how "productive" someone is, then we as a society will soon face a horror that will make the genocides of the 20th century look like a schoolyard scuffle.

According to the Founding Fathers, Rights were also sacred. If you make society the judge of what a Right is worth to an individual, what an individual should do or not do with his life, then you might as well start posting with the other Right-Grabbers on DU.

I'm curious what other compulsory behaviors you favor, besides living in agony. Perhaps you'd like to force people to join a church?

Love is also respecting a person's wishes, IMHO, and not reversing their life-end preferences based on one's own preferences just because they have become delusional and unable to stop you. In fact, I think such behavior is selfish and immoral.

26 posted on 09/21/2006 6:41:18 PM PDT by Gondring (If "Conservatives" now want to "conserve" our Constitution away, then I must be a Preservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Agreed.


27 posted on 09/21/2006 6:46:30 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (The Internet is the samizdat of liberty..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
1- whose life is it, anyway? Yours, or someone else's?

BINGO! Many of these people who claim to know better how to run peoples' lives than the individuals themselves are not just arrogant, but they are very disrespectful of people being individuals and not just faceless "lives"... The Culture of DisrespectTM is loving to break down our personal rights and tell us we all must live (or keep our bodies going even after we're dead) for as long as medical technology can do so, because we are enslaved to "the good of society."

The claim that "euthanasia leads to disrespect for life" is a strawman created by lumping involuntary euthanasia with voluntary euthanasia/self-determination. Since when does self-determination and personal rights lead to a disrespect for life?

28 posted on 09/21/2006 6:48:08 PM PDT by Gondring (If "Conservatives" now want to "conserve" our Constitution away, then I must be a Preservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

" Terman is the author of a book, “The Best Way to Say Good-bye” that explains how patients can ensure they will be dehydrated to death if experiencing dementia."

This is so convoluted it's like mental torture just reading it.

To ENSURE that you will have the great good fortune to be dehydrated to death....???? These people are crazy and evil.


29 posted on 09/21/2006 8:35:51 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

There is an agenda to push euthanasia in the courts and through the legislature just as with other issues the left pushes ie.divorce, homosexual marriage and abortion. Anyone who doesn't understand this reality is in complete denial.


30 posted on 09/21/2006 10:18:13 PM PDT by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
"The Culture of DisrespectTM is loving to break down our personal rights"

There is and never has been "a right to die." This is completely a modern day phenomenon. People believing in furthering Euthanasia, have exploited the reality of technological advancements to promote their cause. Of those opposing the euthanasia movement, few if any would argue that people should be kept alive indefinitely by extraordinary means like heart and lung machines.

However, those pushing the death agenda, would prematurely and actively end the lives of certain people, who are not using extraordinary means, thus interfering with the natural death process. At NO time in the history of our country was this ever perceived as a "right." Such people place themselves above God. It doesn't get more ARROGANT than that.

31 posted on 09/21/2006 10:33:51 PM PDT by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
There is and never has been "a right to die." This is completely a modern day phenomenon.

So you are saying that the early Christians who hurled themselves off cliffs to join their Lord were time-travelers who got that idea from modern-day times? Oh-Kay...

Silly me....I had just thought they were doing that centuries before the Church changed positions and banned suicide! I suppose the saints who committed suicide (e.g., Saint Pelagia of Antioch) were also time-travelers? If so, then why did Augustine of Hippo go to such tortuous lengths to justify the saints' suicides?

However, those pushing the death agenda[...]

You bring up the "death agenda" as a strawman but don't address those who follow the "Rights Agenda."

32 posted on 09/21/2006 11:29:19 PM PDT by Gondring (Hindus think it's abominable to use cattle for terrorism; when they detonate, Muslims call it noble.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

"According to the Founding Fathers, Rights were also sacred."

Check out what the rights are, as stated by the Founding Fathers. The rights come from God, not man. The so called "right to die" is not one of them.

Unfortunately, the current fad these days is to label any licentious desire as a "right." We've got people playing god these days, demanding all kinds of counterfeit rights.


33 posted on 09/22/2006 3:04:42 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Pinged from Terri SEPTEMBER Dailies

8mm

34 posted on 09/22/2006 4:23:54 AM PDT by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam Tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

Yes, the right to die is one of the implied rights from the delineated right to life. Similarly, the right to NOT vote is implied from the right to vote. The right to NOT practice a religion is implied from the right to practice religion. The right to stay single is implied from the right to marry. The right to stay home from rallies is implied from the right to assemble. Or do you believe that people should be compelled to gather for rallies? to marry, to attend religious services, to vote? That's not my America.

That is, the right of self-determination is given by our Creator ("divine" in Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the DoI) and is not to be taken from us, no matter how much you want the government to rule our lives.


35 posted on 09/22/2006 5:13:09 AM PDT by Gondring (Hindus think it's abominable to use cattle for terrorism; when they detonate, Muslims call it noble.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

However, what is the "right" to die? Was Terri Schiavo allowed to exercise her rights? Why have anti-suicide laws never been ruled unconstitutional?


36 posted on 09/22/2006 5:29:55 AM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Of all the people who have the legal right to assisted suicide, how many actually exercise that right? Of the few who do exercise that right, how many choose starvation and dehydration as the method? Why is this right to be starved and dehydrated to death only exercised on behalf of individuals who can't fight back? The answer to that last one is in the question itself. Because they can't fight back.
37 posted on 09/22/2006 7:50:11 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. Ž)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; wagglebee
Love is also respecting a person's wishes, IMHO, and not reversing their life-end preferences based on one's own preferences just because they have become delusional and unable to stop you. In fact, I think such behavior is selfish and immoral.

Love is not "respecting a person's wishes" when those wishes are harmful to them. It would be like telling a drug addict "Don't try to get off of heroin, I love you and respect your wishes".

If your spouse was trying to kill themselves, slowly or quickly, would you just sit by and watch them do it?

38 posted on 09/22/2006 8:03:12 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
However, what is the "right" to die?

It is the implied right, given to us by our Creator, to choose not to exercise our delineated right (given to us by our Creator) of the right to live.

Was Terri Schiavo allowed to exercise her rights?

She was allowed to marry her husband, and by doing so, she transferred much of her parents' role to Mr. Schiavo, her spouse. I don't think that was done involuntarily.

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot comment on the legal aspects of what was done (though I have heard that some decisions were done on an ex post facto basis and that upsets me if true). But from a moral standpoint, "her husband, guardian, and the courts" seem to be the best way society could decide what she would have wanted.

There was an assault on the sanctity of marriage conducted during her life, and that's sad. That doesn't mean I believe a husband has a right to kill his wife, as some might twist my words...but it means that we really have no better way to tell what she would have wanted than the way it was done, in the absence of written documentation.

Why have anti-suicide laws never been ruled unconstitutional?

Are you serious?

What test case would there be? I think that many of those who feel most passionately about this subject are no longer with us. Many find the topic important only after they are in need of relief, and the courts are so slow, many are gone before it does any good. MLK's words are especially relevant, in an odd twist: "A right delayed is a right denied." :-(

39 posted on 09/22/2006 6:27:53 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson