Posted on 06/10/2015 9:42:42 AM PDT by Morgana
[JURIST] The California Senate [official website] on Thursday voted 23-14 to approve a controversial right to die bill [SB 128 materials]. The bill would protect doctors who aide individuals with terminal conditions in dying. The bill's impact is limited to patients who pass a mental competency test are have less than six months to live. The patients would also be given the option to self administer. The California bill is modeled after Oregon's law, which more than 750 people have used to assist in death since it was passed. Sen. Jeff Stone, R-Temecula stated he is worried that California will be known for death tourism [AP report] if the law passes. The bill now goes before the state Assembly.
(Excerpt) Read more at jurist.org ...
You take this one please.
If you are a republican they will kill you in the hospital.
We are on the “Slippery Slope.” No telling what is next but it could lead to mass murder by our government.
Oregon and California? No surprise there.
On the positive side, CA will be losing some reps and Electoral College votes. HA HA!
It benefits the community as a whole to forbid someone from assisting in someone’s suicide, or to commit murder.
I have no desire for anyone to suffer. I strongly believe in self determination and the right to determine quality of life. But state permission to kill someone, or to help someone kill themselves is well beyond wrong. It is a decision that rightly belongs in the hands of the people as to if someone was murdered or not.
I do not understand Dr. assisted suicide. Are there no tall buildings where these people live? Have the no access to razor blades?
This is simply an attempt to further corrupt the morals of a country by co-opting the medical field into a murder organization. Abortion is even worse.
Soon you will be expected to die.
Fortunately this new law will never be abused....
How considerate of you to force my wife and kids to remember me, not by how I lived but how I died, i.e., a red spot at the base of a tall building, splayed out in the bathroom with blood splattered all over with my wrists slit, my brains blown all over from a .38 slug. How considerate of you to deny my ability to simply talk with my doctor and get a little pill that would let me fall asleep and never wake up. I thought conservatives were against government intrusion in personal decisions. Sorry, if I’m to a point where I am a few days or weeks of pain away from oblivion, no one should be able to tell me I can’t simply slip away with my dignity intact.
You have a “right” to let others kill you, whether you asked for it or not, out of convenience
This legislation should be applied to the legislation itself.
“California senate approves right to die legislation.”
As well as the California Senate should have the right to die.... preferably painfully.
Sadly this won’t allow the Enviro-nuts who say that there should be less people on the planet to let you help them with their little “problem” by shuffling the envio-nuts off their mortal coils a little ahead of schedule.
As a consequence of the Constitution no longer being taught, citizens probably don’t understand that there is nothing in the Constitution stopping the states from making such laws.
In fact, and with all due respect to the family and supporters of Terri Schiavo, and also Florida FReepers, as much as people supported Terri, I wouldn’t be surprised if, as a consequence of not understanding constitutionally unchecked 10th Amendment-protected state powers, that Florida citizens have not lifted a finger to work with their state lawmakers to prevent another situation like Terri’s from happening.
Also, as a side note to euthanasia issue, please consider the following. It wouldn’t be surprising if pro-gay activist justices don’t want citizens to know that the argument presented in this post also applies to gay marriage. More specifically, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, there is nothing stopping the states from making 10th Amendment-protected laws to prohibit either constitutionally unprotected gay marriage or abortion any more than there’s anything stopping the states from making euthanasia laws.
In fact, the Supreme Court should arguably have declined to decide the constitutionality of gay marriage as much as it declined to hear Terri’s case in the name of state powers. The Court’s inconsistent actions on such issues is arguably evidence that activist justices are wrongly amending the Constitution from the bench.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear and activist justices along with it.
You’re welcome.
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.