No "suicide" label on initiative (Washington State)

I suppose under the Ninth Amendment that individual states could make assisted suicide/euthanasia legal, and, by the same token, they could also make murder, rape, robbery and arson legal. However, to say that any of these crimes would have been considered protected “rights” by the Founding Fathers is absurd.

“I suppose under the Ninth Amendment that individual states could make assisted suicide/euthanasia legal, and, by the same token, they could also make murder, rape, robbery and arson legal. However, to say that any of these crimes would have been considered protected “rights” by the Founding Fathers is absurd.”

Not at all. First we have to decide what are crimes. I agree that rape murder etc are a crime. But suicide only affects you directly and it is clear to me that if falls under the right to self determination.

After all who are you to try to tell me what to do with my life? Are you going to stand over a cancer victem and tell them they have to suffer the tortures of hell for a few more weeks because you say it’s best for them, or because you say so?

That sounds like the mind set of a lefty or a sadist.

I’m not sure that you are clear on what this initiative in Washington is referring to.

We ARE NOT talking about suicide. We are talking about physician assisted suicide (which is really the same as euthanasia).

And as I explained earlier, there is NO MANDATE that forces a state to make ANYTHING a crime. However, this does not mean that it’s right and it does not mean that it is somehow a Constitutional right.

One of the (many) problems with this type of law, as Oregon's experience for the last 10 years has shown, as that there are no real protections for the vulnerable patient: the law protects only the death-dealing doctor.

The law may say that the suicide-requesting patient must be rational, un-coerced, and terminal --- but there are no requirements that the patient's situation must be assessed to determine whether clinical depression or family coercion or emotional manipulation might be factors in his decision. How is a doctor going to assess coercion?

And if the doctor goes ahead and prescribes the lethal overdose, there is no safeguard whatsoever that the dose will be self-administered by the patient, and not dissolved in a bowl of pudding and spooned into the patient's mouth by an impatient Heir Apparent.

The law does not protect the patient. It does protect the doctor, because the doctor is immune from prosecution if he can demonstrate that he acted in "good faith." Unless he accepted a bribe in the presence of witnesses, lack of "good faith" is practically impossible to prove.

“However, this does not mean that it’s right and it does not mean that it is somehow a Constitutional right.”

I say again.... Have you read the 9th amendment?

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.