Threads by Man50D and me.
Physicians in Montana could be facing "kill-on-demand" orders from patients who want to commit suicide if a district court judge's opinion pending before the state Supreme Court is affirmed.
The case has attracted nominal attention nationwide, but lawyers with the Christian Legal Service have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the pending case because of what it would mean to doctors within the state, as well as the precedent it would set.
The concern is over the attack on doctors' ethics and religious beliefs – as well as the Hippocratic oath – that may be violated by a demand that they prescribe deadly chemicals or in some other way assist in a person's death. . .
_____________________________________________________________
Helena, MT (LifeNews.com) -- The Montana Supreme Court has received more legal briefs from pro-life groups asking it not to affirm a lower court decision making the state the third to allow assisted suicides. The Christian Legal Society and Christian Medical Association, along with Americans United for Life, weighed in this week.
AUL filed a brief on of a bipartisan group of 28 Montana state senators and representatives arguing there is no right to assisted suicide under the state’s constitution.
Mailee Smith, staff counsel with the group, told LifeNews.com that the "district court held that a person’s constitutional rights are ‘defeated’ if she does not receive assistance in dying. This means that anyone—even a patient who cannot administer lethal drugs herself—is entitled to have a physician kill them."
Smith says the Montana ruling would allow the state to go beyond assisted suicide and allow euthanasia. . .
Thread by me.
An organization that has been battling Minnesota state procedures in which DNA from every newborn is collected and warehoused says virtually all states do the same thing, and the alarming trend eventually could lead the United States back into eugenics.
The report from Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care, says, "Throughout history, proponents of eugenics have focused on the reproduction of children, either through encouraging the 'healthy' to reproduce or discouraging the 'unhealthy' from procreation. This focus has been evidenced in history by 29 state sterilization laws … and the horrific Nazi campaign aimed at ridding Germany of the 'unfit' – the Jews, the physically deformed, the mentally retarded, the 'feebleminded,' the inferior, the epileptic, the deaf, the blind, 'those suffering from hereditary conditions,' the deviant 'asocial' and the politically dissident."
The report then continued, "That the focus on reproduction still exists today is more than troubling.
"The authors of a 2001 study 'were struck' by the large number of state government officials who agreed with a specific statement regarding assessment of a child's suitability for future reproduction," the report said. "Nineteen (54 percent) of 35 … respondents who routinely provide counseling – mostly newborn genetic screening follow-up staff at state health departments across the country – thought it important when giving advice to parents to 'identify children who might be, for genetic reasons, unsuitable choices for future reproduction,'" the report said. . .