This week's topic for the Stop the ACLU Blogburst is the ACLU and "assisted suicide." I've been debating how to approach this one because of the situation. It's in the news now because the case from Oregon that's at the Supreme Court.
The case that is before the Supreme court, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with assisted suicide. Keep that in mind -- absolutely nothing.
The case that's before the Supreme Court is about the rights and freedoms of people to make laws that apply to themselves, or if one person appointed to a federal position can nullify any laws passed by a majority of people.
So the ACLU is supporting the case, but not based on it's merits -- they are supporting the case because they support assisted suicide (which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the case in front of the Supreme Court).
Now, Teach thinks that assisted suicide should be allowed under certain conditions. He only slightly agrees with the ACLU because the ACLU is trying to sell this as a privacy right, but he thinks it's about the 9th Amendment.
He still opposes the ACLU because he says that the ACLU is attempting to change and misapply the Constitution. He is correct. The ACLU only uses the Constitution when it meets their needs of advancing their communist-supplied agenda.
Jay, however, talks more about the actual act of assisted suicide and what's involved. He rightly points out the idea that SOMEONE gets to determine when a life gets to end -- and that's a really bad idea.
DFelton thinks this is a complete federal issue and that the idea that states actually have rights, while it may be correct, died with the Civil War.
You see, if a person is allowed to have a doctor kill them, it will be very clear and obvious that if a person is incapacitated, that whoever has power of attorney for that person will then be able to make that exact same decision. Then you've moved down that infamous "slippery slope."
Now, I don't know the Oregon law, so I don't know how it can be applied. However, if a person has the right to make a decision, they most certainly have the legal ability to transfer that decision-making to another person. That's clear and basic law.
In addition, time and time again, the state has been able to decide that a person is not competent to make decisions for themselves, and the state will make decisions for them. And the state very often makes decisions for the "public good." It is not a far stretch for the state to start making these medical decisions for others.
Individuals will also make those decisions -- "Gee, Grandma has a lot of money I'd like to get my hands on. Sure, Doc, go ahead and kill her."
Again, I don't know Oregon law, but I cannot imagine how normal transfer of legal decision-making rights can be limited. So the ACLU is wrong again. They're wrong for supporting the law, and they're wrong in the way they're supporting the appeal.
Unfortunately, the Court should decide in favor of the state because the people should be free to make their own decisions as a state.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.
Ogre - The incapacitated have these decisions made by next of kin - greedy or not - NOW because they decide when/if to pull the plug. What the Oregon law would do is allow them to be proactive, rather than just be a 'DNR' and choose to die.
As long as the decision remains with the person, I don't have a problem with it.
I DO have a problem with the Feds trampling on state's rights.
I'm in a bit of an ethical dilemma, is it wrong to wish that those in the ACLU would practice doctor assited suicide? I'm just saying . . .
Right, Peter, that's my point. If allowing a doctor to actively cause a death IS a valid choice of a person, then ANYONE who can make decisions for that person (or who the state determines who can make that decision) can now kill people. I don't see any way for that sort of decision to ONLY remain with the person under our system of laws.
And Oddy, they, like most on the left, only want rules and things that apply to OTHERS, not themselves...
Thanks, this one was a tricky topic to tackle, you did great.
Thanks, that's why I was a bit late than normally -- I just wasn't sure how to hit this one for awhile.
I think this case can put Roberts in a tricky situation. It should be a State's Right thing, according to the 9th and 10th Amendments. However, the drug being used is a federally controlled substance, making it against federal law. Roberts could end up "legislating from the bench" on this one. Were it me, I would say that Oregon is able to allow assisted suicide, but cannot use a federally controlled substance. Which would lead to "how do they do it?" If it is going to be done, it should be done humanely. And, what if Oregon comes up with an alternative that is humane: does the Fed government outlaw that method?
Yup, it's a tough one. The feds will not give up. This could be similar to the CA and Marijuana one -- CA wants to allow it, but the feds don't. End result COULD be -- go ahead and do it -- the Oregon officials won't arrest anyone, but the federal government might.
And if the feds revoke the doctor's license and Oregon has any guts, they'll issue a state doctor's license. Now THAT would be fun.
I am not familar with the case you mention (perhaps you could give a link to an article from a news source?), so I won't comment on the specific issue. However, I will comment on a logical fallacy in your argument.
**Ogre Said**
***You see, if a person is allowed to have a doctor kill them, it will be very clear and obvious that if a person is incapacitated, that whoever has power of attorney for that person will then be able to make that exact same decision. Then you've moved down that infamous "slippery slope."***
The "slippery slope" argument has to have three things to be a valid argument. (1) A first step which may or may not be undesirable. (2) Solid chain of evidence that it inevitably leads to the next step, and that step inevitably leads to the third, and so on. And (3) a final result that is clearly undesirable.
The second claim is the one you have failed to prove. You show no evidence that this one step will INEVITABLY, without a doubt, lead to subsequent steps. You have stated the equivalent of "if I let my son throw a snowball at his sister, it's just a slippery slope until he becomes an axe murderer." Or another example, "if we deregulate gun ownership, it's a slippery slope until the country is in a state of anarchy."
Neither my hypothetical statements nor yours ("if we allow assisted suicide, it's a slippery slope to killing incapacitated relatives for their inherritance") includes a direct link between the initial thing, and the final thing. None of the statements can be considered "proven," none of the hypothetical worst-case conclusions are proven, until that direct, inevitable, unstoppable connection from the first item to the last is demonstrated, and neither of us have done so with our statements.
I'm not sure why you say that a slippery slope argument requires inevitability. In my view, that's the point of a slippery slope argument -- it MIGHT lead to the result, if you progress down the pathway. Clearly this might lead to that result, as can be illustrated with the Schiavo case. However, if the only way you can have such an argument is with total, absolute certainly, than I'm not sure there's anything that can be a slippery slope argument -- except perhaps government expanding and taxing more.