Skip to comments.Judge: Docs can prescribe meds for aid in dying (Rules self-euthanizing a fundamental right)
Posted on 01/13/2014 2:17:35 PM PST by xzins
State law provides a fundamental right to a terminally ill, competent patient to choose a physicians aid in getting prescription medications that will allow a peaceful death, a state judge ruled Monday in a seminal case.
Second Judicial District Judge Nan Nash said Drs. Katherine Morris and Aroop Mangalik, both oncologists at the University of New Mexico Hospital, could not be prosecuted under the states Assisted Suicide Statute, which is defined as the act of deliberately aiding another in the taking of his own life.
The practice recognizes that the patient is dying from his or her underlying disease and allows the patient to have medication, usually sedatives, that may be taken at a time of the patients choosing to achieve a peaceful death. Patients who most often choose the option are those dying of cancer.
Nash found that the right exists under the New Mexico Constitution, which prohibits the state from depriving a person of life, liberty or property without due process.
This court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying, Nash wrote in the opinion. If decisions made the shadow of ones imminent death regarding how they and their loved ones will face that death are not fundamental and at the core of these constitutional guarantees, then what decisions are?
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Define "terminally ill"
Let the “slippery slope/fundamental and personal right” arguments begin!
A large enough dose intentionally to kill you...no.
“Define “terminally ill””
Under Obamacare its when you are no longer a contributing member of society, aka not paying taxes.
And 10 years from now “terminally ill” will be defined as: “All of us will die some day.”
Turning doctors into killers.
I agree. For some. It will depend on your class, politics, and wealth.
Since we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we get to make end of life choices is (I think) the judge's reasoning.
That really is an open door without even the need to be terminally ill.
Technically, we're ALL terminally ill - nobody gets out alive.
...not paying taxes.”
That 47%+ of the country, isn’t it? The Weather Underground/commie/fascist/nazi/dirtbag filth will be happy:
No physician has ever been convicted of a crime for medicating a dying patient with morphine.
That said, direct killing should remain illegal, for all the slippery slope reasons.
Is it ever necessary? Is it ever licit?
Those who know don’t say, and those who say, don’t know.
“Nash found that the right exists under the New Mexico Constitution, which prohibits the state from depriving a person of life, liberty or property without due process.”
What an irrational decision. How can preventing homicide be in any way construed as depriving someone of life, liberty or property without due process?
Of course, he (RAH) was writing about a future time in which the lifespan of humans could be extended almost infinitely; the character in question (Lazarus Long) had by that time been alive well over two hundred years, and was tired of living.
I don’t care if you kill yourself, you have zero right to get others to help kill you
“These doctors”—more like LAWYERS. This is not being pushed by doctors.
And so we go from permitting it to requiring it.
So how does this work. If a patient takes two or three days worth of pain meds they will die. Following you line of thought a doctor could only give a patient a day or day and a half worth of pain meds at a time? Ya, right. You are going to make a terminally ill patient run back and forth to the pharmacy every day? Or are you counting on them to always have others there to do it for them? If they can't find others to do this then they do without their pain meds and die in agony. How about if they hoard half of their meds for 4 days? How are you going to stop that?
Sure, this works perfectly.
How about if the do-gooders get their nose out of others lives and let them make their own decisions. If they have to deal with God so be it but in the mean it is not your place to play god and make that decision.
I've always laughed about the laws against suicide. What are you really going to do with those laws? Are you going to arrest someone who successfully commits suicide?
Good for him, my father did it the hard way by refusing to eat ot drink anything until he died after 2 weeks.
His knees had gone bad and he wanted out and who in the family has any right to stop him, he was 92.
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.