Replies

This was a rational discussion of the real issue for most of us of Terri's case. It wasn't forcing someone to live against their will, or inserting ourselves in "their" decision. It was that there was a question about which way things should go absent a clear indication.

Your post says that anybody who doesn't want to be put to death when they are disabled should "simply" write up a legal document asking to be kept alive. There are two problems.

One, minor problem, is that sometimes these forms are IGNORED. The argument is that you weren't "competent" to make the decision ahead of time because you didn't know what it really was like.

But that is just a symptom of the bigger problem, which is the lean of society to the idea that some people are better off dead.

See, there is are economic and emotional reasons why someone would be biased toward ending the life of a person who can't protect themselves. The only thing protecting them is laws in the books, OR the general societal bias toward life. Now we've lost the societal bias, it has leaned toward "killing" as the "humane" thing to do. So in fact those who argued for Terri's life were called the mean-spirited ones, while those who called for her death were the compassionate ones.

The law of the United States should be that you only get put to death if you specifically requested it. You should not have to specifically request to be kept alive.

See, there is are economic and emotional reasons why someone would be biased toward ending the life of a person who can't protect themselves. The only thing protecting them is laws in the books, OR the general societal bias toward life. Now we've lost the societal bias, it has leaned toward "killing" as the "humane" thing to do. So in fact those who argued for Terri's life were called the mean-spirited ones, while those who called for her death were the compassionate ones.

You've summarized it nicely. The culture of death has succeeded in turning upside down a fundamental principle which has guided our laws and framed our notions of civilized society. And that is, that life is to be valued, even if it is under difficult circumstances, over death. Our assumption has been that rational beings would choose to remain alive rather than be put to death. Now the assumption has been reversed. That presents a real danger, because in cases where there is doubt, the default position becomes "kill the person" rather than "let the person live". Time was in this country that you didn't need a piece of paper to guarantee your right to live (as flimsy as that itself is, as others have ably pointed out), it was just assumed that you had that right. Now, the assumption is that you don't have the right to live absent that piece of paper, and someone, a relative, a judge, the state, or maybe a "an interested party", can decide, ostensibly "on your behalf" or "for your own good", that you should be killed.

The law of the United States should be that you only get put to death if you specifically requested it

I understand your intent, but I disagree. The right to Life is inalienable, which means you cannot sell them, lose them, loan them, trade them, or give them away, and the government cannot take them from you. They are permanent and unchanging. However, you can forfeit them through criminal wrongdoing.

That means the government has no authority or duty to oblige your wish to be put to death in the absence of some criminal wrongdoing on your part simply because you request it

It is very dangerous, (besides being immoral and illegal under natural rights) to give power to probate judges and doctors that allows them to kill people.

Cordially,