Quite easily, actually. This has been slowly put in place over the last 20 years.
"The Court started the euthanasia 'ball' rolling with its 1965 decision, in which it defined for the first time a mythical 'privacy right' that had somehow escaped the notice of the entire system of government for two centuries. This decision held that married couples should have unrestricted access to artificial contraceptives.
"The Paramount 'Right to Privacy.' The 'right' to privacy is critical to Neoliberal thinking. Anti-lifers find themselves compelled to kill preborn babies and bothersome newborns and adults, engage in sodomy, and perform other unspeakable acts. Such activities cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination, so they must be hidden.
"This privacy 'right' was extended drastically in the Court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion. And now, the 'right to privacy' is being used to obtain euthanasia on demand.
"Since 1973, many courts have dealt with the active and passive euthanasia question, and the overall pattern is an ominous shift towards the elimination of those whose lives are judged to be "devoid of meaning."
"CASES
"Karen Ann Quinlan, 21, stopped breathing for unknown reasons and suffered irreversible brain damage. She lapsed into a deep coma, but continued to show minimal brain activity. Because of this brain activity, she could not be legally declared dead, and so was kept alive on a respirator. Quinlan's father petitioned the Court to allow her doctors to let her die by disconnecting her from her life support systems.
The Court ordered that Quinlan be removed from the respirator, if her doctors and the hospital agreed. The appended opinion expanded the 'right to privacy' found in the decision to include the right to refuse treatment. Essentially, the Court held that a patient no longer able to communicate may now exercise this 'right' through a family member or duly authorized guardian. 1976 - Supreme Court of New Jersey
"Joseph Saikewicz had been severely retarded since birth and was confined to a mental institution. He had developed incurable leukemia, and his doctors were willing to prolong his life with standard chemotherapy. His guardian asked that he not be treated. The Court held that the pain and fear that Saikewicz would suffer far outweighed any benefit of treatment to him. The ruling revolved upon on what he would have said if he could have spoken in his own behalf. The Court extended the decision by stating that persons who have never been able to make judgments for themselves have the 'right to die.' Later decisions in the Massachusetts court held that families and physicians could make such judgments without even going to court.1977 - Supreme Court of Massachusetts
"An 83-year old monk, Brother Joseph Fox, lapsed into a permanent coma during surgery. His superior stated that he would not want his life extended by 'extraordinary measures,' and said that, in accordance with Catholic doctrine, his respirator could be removed. The court found that Brother Fox's refusal of treatment (expressed while he was still conscious) was legally binding, and ordered the hospital to disconnect the respirator and let him die.1981 - New York Court of Appeals
"This pitiful case really crossed the line between what most pro-life activists find to be justifiable and unjustifiable regarding euthanasia. It revolved around a tiny baby boy born with Down's syndrome and a breathing defect that hampered his swallowing as well. The defect could have been corrected easily with surgery, and literally hundreds of couples begged to adopt him. However, the Court held that the parent's was more important than this baby's The baby died in agony just days before the appeal reached the United States Supreme Court. This heartless judgement caused so much consternation that a Federal law was passed in 1984 that prohibits the withholding of "medically indicated" treatment from any disabled newborn. However, a later judgement in New York (the case) found that parents of an infant with spina bifida and other non-life threatening disabilities could choose to "treat" their little baby "passively" with adequate food, antibiotics, and dressings. In other words, all the parents are legally obligated to do is keep the child comfortable and hope that he or she dies.1982 - Supreme Court of Indiana
"55-year old Clarence Herbert suffered a heart attack during surgery and lapsed into a permanent coma. His family asked doctors to remove his respirator, which they did, and they then discontinued intravenous feeding. A week later, he died. Nurses called the District Attorney's office, and doctors Neil Barber and Robert Nejdl were charged with murder. The doctors were convicted, but the appeals court reversed the ruling on the grounds that withholding life support and food was a passive omission, not an aggressive action designed to murder.1983 - California Court of Appeals
"Claire Conroy, at 84 years old, was conscious but confused, and could only be fed intravenously. She was unable to swallow or communicate, and was expected to die within one year in her current condition. Her nephew sought to have her feeding tube removed. However, Conroy died while the court deliberated the case. This court decision set narrow limits upon withholding care when the patient clearly would have refused treatment when evidence exists to prove this point; when the cost of care outweighs the benefits; or when no evidence shows that the patient would have refused treatment, but the burdens of care outweigh the benefits, the patient would suffer 'inhumane' pain. The significance of this case is profound: The Court held that food and water is in the same category as artificial respirators and other medical treatment and may be withdrawn as "extraordinary measures."1985 - New Jersey Supreme Court
"Helen Corbett was a 75-year old terminally ill and incompetent patient being sustained on a feeding tube. The Florida Court of Appeals decided that "a penumbral right to privacy" allowed the patient or a third party acting for her to refuse artificially administered food and water, even with a State law in place prohibiting such withdrawal.1986 - Florida Court of Appeals
"A blood vessel burst in 45-year old Paul Brophy's brain, damaging it extensively and plunging him into a permanent coma. His family wanted to have his life support disconnected, but the hospital refused to cooperate. The family filed suit. The court found that Brophy, were he conscious, would want the feeding tube and life support systems disconnected. The court also found that Brophy could not be kept alive without his consent, and that the hospital and doctors could not be forced to cooperate in his killing. Brophy was moved out of the hospital, his life support was disconnected, and he died. Paul Brophy was the first person in the United States to die as a direct result of court-ordered starvation.1986 - Supreme Court of Massachusetts
"Elizabeth Bouvia, a 28-year old quadriplegic with cerebral palsy, bedridden and in constant pain, expressed a desire to die. The hospital staff had earlier began to feed her intravenously against her wishes. She asked a court to order that the tube be removed. The court refused, and Bouvia appealed. The resultant frightening decision took a long step towards legalizing and abetting suicide. This was the first court decision that upheld a right to assisted suicide. The majority opinion argued that the medical profession and the State should be "... permitting and in fact assisting the patient to die with ease and dignity." The ruling held that a patient need not be in a coma or near death to decline treatment. The 'right to privacy' may decide whether or not his or her 'quality of life' is sufficient to go on living. The court decided that motives play no important part in such a decision, and ordered that the feeding tube be removed.1986 - California Court of Appeals
" 34-year old Hector Rodas suffered a drug-induced stroke and became a quadriplegic. He was competent (mentally alert), but unable to swallow or talk. He was not terminally ill, and was being fed with a nasogastric feeding tube. The Colorado District Court held that the patient has " ... the right to accept or withdraw feeding and hydration treatment." The public hospital caring for Rodas was ordered to withdraw his feeding, despite protests by hospital personnel that they felt they would be participating in a suicide. The Court further ordered the hospital to provide Rodas nursing care until he died of starvation after 15 days. This is the first case where a Court was petitioned to allow a lethal injection. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had requested a lethal injection for the dying Rodas, but later withdrew its petition.1987 - Colorado District Court
" Nancy Ellen Jobes was 32 years old and severely brain damaged. She could follow people with her eyes and respond to commands and various stimuli. She was being sustained with a feeding tube, but was not terminally ill. The Court ordered Jobes' nursing home staff to stop her feeding, but her family moved her to another facility that starved her to death over a period of 19 days. This case vastly expanded the pool of patients whose food and water could be withdrawn, . In other words, third parties who could "best understand the patient's personal values and beliefs" could substitute their judgment for the patient's. The Court also ruled that, from this point onward, no Court hearing was necessary for health care facilities to gain permission to stop the feeding of a patient or patients.1987 - New Jersey Supreme Court
"49-year old Marcia Gray had been comatose since January of 1986. She and her family had expressed a wish that extraordinary measures not be implemented to extend her life. District Court Judge Francis Boyle ruled that the state-run General Hospital must remove her feeding tube or transfer her to an institution that would carry out this wish. The General Hospital subsequently contacted 274 nursing homes and hospitals in the New England area, but none were willing to accept the patient for the sole purpose of executing her. At this point, Rhode Island governor Edward DiPrete intervened and ordered the hospital to disconnect her feeding tube. This order was not appealable. On October 17, 1988, District Court Judge Francis Boyle ruled that Marcia Gray could be starved and dehydrated to death. On November 16, she was transferred to South County Hospital. Dr. Robert L. Conrad of the hospital was so eager to kill Gray that he removed her feeding tube in the ambulance on the trip to South County! Marcia Gray took 15 long, agonizing days to die, during which time she lost fifty pounds. She had to be heavily sedated to suppress her severe seizures.Of profound significance was the fact that Judge Boyle relied heavily on the 1973 abortion decision to affirm the principle "that a person has the right ... to control fundamental decisions involving his or her own body." Thus, the direct link between abortion and euthanasia is, at last, directly and irrevocably drawn for all to see.1987 - Rhode Island District Court
"Ione Bayer was a 62-year old woman in a persistent coma induced by a heart attack. The North Dakota Court ruled that even food placed in a person's mouth is "artificial and intrusive," and a family could order such feeding stopped without Court intervention, and without confirmation from the patient. The Court ordered Bayer's doctor to stop feeding her, but the doctor refused. In fact, no other doctor would agree to starve her to death. Ione Bayer's family therefore took her home and starved her to death. It took her a week to die.1987 - North Dakota County Court
To be continued...
September is pain awareness month in Florida. What a joke in light of Terri's dire straits.