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...
" In order to kill Cruzan, it was necessary to first dehumanize her, a task willingly and expertly taken up by Dr. Fred Plum, Chief of Neurology at the Cornell New York Hospital. During testimony, he referred to her as a mere "collection of organs" and an "artifact of technological medicine."In an interview with Nat Hentoff, Dr. Ronald Granford observed that she was the "moral equivalent of a biopsy from Nat Hentoff's arm," and asserted that her "legal personhood" should be removed so she could be disposed of or experimented upon without the bother of having to go to court.
"Nancy's parents petitioned a lower court to order the Missouri Rehabilitation Center at Mount Vernon to allow their daughter to die. This court granted the petition, but the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision, stating that a decision to withhold or refuse treatment must be an "informed" one, and, most importantly, that a state's interest in human life does not depend on the of that life. On appeal, the case became the first to directly address the question of euthanasia at the United States Supreme Court level. In a stunning victory for life, the Supreme Court narrowly averted making this case the euthanasiast's by denying that the so- called "right to die" is unfettered and absolute. The justices ruled that the States may require "clear and convincing" evidence that a comatose person actually wished to die before they lost their ability to decide their fates for themselves. The Court essentially held that the States do not have to buckle under to family member's demands when a patient's wishes cannot be concretely proven.
"However, the ruling indicated that there is a Constitutional right to refuse tube feeding and other life-sustaining measures when patients make their wishes clearly known before they become incompetent. So a determined Joe and Joyce Cruzan headed back to the Missouri courts, and rounded up a string of Nancy's co-workers who were willing to testify that she would never want to live "like a vegetable." Nobody bothered to explain how her co-workers could all remember such a statement so clearly after more than eight years. Nancy did not enjoy any kind of representation in the State court; nobody testified for her, because all of those who wanted her to live were ruled nonparties by the judge. The outcome of the one-sided hearing was a foregone conclusion.
"Her feeding tube was removed on December 14, 1990 at the Missouri Rehabilitation Center in Mount Vernon, Missouri. In a chilling portent of the future, the first rescue mission staged to save a person from death occurred on Tuesday, December 18, 1990. 19 persons were arrested as they tried to reach Nancy's hospital room. They were charged with the same offenses they encountered at abortion mills; criminal trespass and unlawful assembly. Scores of armed police officers patrolled the halls of the Missouri Rehabilitation Center (George Orwell would be proud!) until she finally died of starvation and thirst after 12 days, on the day after Christmas 1990. 1988 - Missouri Supreme Court
"Carrie Coons was an 86-year old woman in a "persistently vegetative state." She was not terminally ill. She was being sustained only by a gastronomy tube in April of 1989, when this case was heard. The Court had originally approved the removal of Mrs. Coon's gastronomy tube, but delayed the actual order for two weeks so that a facility could be found that would starve her. During this grace period, Mrs. Coon's roommate and several nurses "weaned" her off the gastronomy tube and began feeding her by mouth. She recovered completely. After the order to withdraw treatment had been rescinded, the Court asked Dr. Michael Wolff, one of Mrs. Coon's physicians and a nationally recognized expert in geriatric medicine, how doctors could accurately foretell how long a person would remain in (or even they would remain in) a "persistent vegetative state." Dr. Wolff replied that "I don't think there is any mechanism to establish that with absolute certainty."1989 - New York State District Court
"These court cases describe with crystal clarity the trend from abortion on demand to infanticide to passive euthanasia to active euthanasia. As time passes, the requirements for "rubber-stamping" euthanasia inevitably become looser and looser, just as they did for abortion. The final result will be, as the Hemlock Society desires, the 'right' to kill oneself at any time, for any reason, or the 'right' to demand that a licensed euthanasiast do the job for you. In other words, euthanasia on demand. Next will come the elimination of those who are deemed to be a burden to individuals or society. And, ultimately, we will begin eliminating 'useless eaters' unless we can stop this death machine in its tracks."