Anti-ACLU Rant of the Week 3/31/05 - Part 2
Giving blog time over to Jay 777 and the Stop the ACLU! Blog:
This week's topic is euthanasia.
Given the events of the past weeks involving the Terri Schiavo case (and others), the wishes of a person for self-control over their own affairs (advanced directives, a/k/a, "living wills") has clashed with this country's social and moral conscious.
For a perspective on the ACLU's opinion, click here.
On reading this brief, several things leapt out at me. In a nutshell, euthanasia/assisted suicide, is NOT the same thing as an advanced directive. Not does it give over any right to medical personal to propagate the advanced directive; that is to say, the medical personal hastens death through withdrawal of treatment.
But the ACLU doesn't see it that way:
From the above brief: "B. The Equal Protection Argument Set Out in the Brief of Amici Curiae National Right to Life Committee & Oregon Right to Life Is Without Merit."
The ACLU is attempting to blur the lines between a person's right to control their own fate and their misguided legal arguments giving government the right to end a person's life without respect to that person's wishes.
This flies in the face of the very foundation of our government; that is, the guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!
I end with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "the chief purpose of government is to protect life, Abandon that, and you have abandoned all."
As always, the anti-ACLU gang is:
posted by TheBitterAmerican @ 10:06 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Awesome job!
TrekMed, my man. Good to see you are still in fine form!
I am, however, confused about what you are saying on this particular brief.
The ACLU of Oregon was representing Oregon as a "friend of the court" in a suit against Ashcroft & other federal company... who were trying to take out the assisted suicide statute in Oregon. Their method of doing so was to attack the regulation of drugs, among other things.
Do I have this right, so far? I am in a rush, scanned the brief quickly, and may have to come back later and do a mea culpa... but let's plod on anyway.
Now, in Oregon, the assisted suicide mainly applies to those who personally express their wishes to die... most of the time quickly instead of slowly from a painful disease. In fact, I could never understand that if Michael wanted Terri to die a "peaceful" death, then why not just move her to Oregon where it could be done more immediate, sans the two week drawn out dehydration period.
And oh, BTW, I just can't believe from so many who say dehydration is peaceful. Somehow all those children who are little more than shadows of humans we see when everyone is asking for donations for food and water don't look so very peaceful. We are a presumptuous lot, deigning to state what another is feeling. Unless we are in their skin, how do we know for sure? But.. .that aside. I'm digressing...
Wishes expressed by a terminal person is, in fact, an advanced directive. And Oregon statute allows the medical teams to assist in one who expresses this within guidelines.
The blurring of the lines between gov't wishes and a personal wish is far more prevalent in Schiavo's case. Gov't (the courts) sentenced her to death on another's testimony of her "directive". Another gov't entity (Congress) tried to review the case de novo before she was put to death. In this case, gov't was fighting gov't with differing opinions over Terri's wishes and rights.
But I'm missing how this pertains to the State of OR/ACLU of Oregon vs Ashcroft, etc. Perhaps you could enlighten me to your extended thoughts here?
Post a Comment
<< Home