I still haven't figured out what to do with M. Terwilliger. If the laws as written (or suggested) don't address all the problems raised by an issue, should I just dismiss the debate?
I think part of the problem with that particular situation is that it's very vague. "Allow euthanasia" doesn't say who can do what they can do to assist the person in ending their life, who can authorize it and how it's authorized, etc. You can bet your sweet booty that any real-world euthanasia law would spell these things out in minute detail in excruciatingly dense legalese - and any legitimate health care provider who intended to help patients end their lives would want it so, to cover their own arses!
My personal opinion on the matter is that the right to end one's own life is a fundamental part of controlling one's life, a fundamental liberty right. Therefore, assisting someone in ending their life is not inherently criminal. That said, the state and individuals have a strong interest in making sure that, in assisting someone in ending their life, the assistor is a) actually carrying out that person's wishes, and b) that person's wishes are well-informed, that is, that he or she understands as accruately as possible within the bounds of medical science the chance of surviving his or her illness or injury, or how long it will be before he or she dies "naturally," and how much more suffering he or she is likely to endure. Finally, the definition of "assisting" should contain the element that the individual ending his or her life must "pull the trigger," that is, make the ultimate decision or perform the final act that makes the end of his or her life irrevocable. A circumstance that doesn't include that final clause is something else, covered by living wills and the like, that should be legislated separately.
This seems to be the Bush administration's approach to many problems. In the case of immigration, the options suggested by members of its party are a) allow in as many immigrants as businesses can hire or b) expel every person whose ancestors didn't come over on the Mayflower, and erect a 100 foot high wall of plutonium around the country. In the face of these, they've chosen c) do nothing, and maintain the status quo.
Or, in the case of Social Security reform, their options were a) raise the rates and the cap slightly, to make the system solvent but gain nothing for their corporate cronies and actually make the super-rich pay taxes, or b) privatize it and piss off the AARP and anyone who's actually ever paid into the system. Instead, they chose c) throw it back at Congress and blame their inability to solve the problem on partisan politics.
But "dismiss" is certainly in the spirit of the hour, for BushCo is nothing if not dismissive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
My personal opinion on the matter is that the right to end one's own life is a fundamental part of controlling one's life, a fundamental liberty right. Therefore, assisting someone in ending their life is not inherently criminal. That said, the state and individuals have a strong interest in making sure that, in assisting someone in ending their life, the assistor is a) actually carrying out that person's wishes, and b) that person's wishes are well-informed, that is, that he or she understands as accruately as possible within the bounds of medical science the chance of surviving his or her illness or injury, or how long it will be before he or she dies "naturally," and how much more suffering he or she is likely to endure. Finally, the definition of "assisting" should contain the element that the individual ending his or her life must "pull the trigger," that is, make the ultimate decision or perform the final act that makes the end of his or her life irrevocable. A circumstance that doesn't include that final clause is something else, covered by living wills and the like, that should be legislated separately.
no subject
no subject
Or, in the case of Social Security reform, their options were a) raise the rates and the cap slightly, to make the system solvent but gain nothing for their corporate cronies and actually make the super-rich pay taxes, or b) privatize it and piss off the AARP and anyone who's actually ever paid into the system. Instead, they chose c) throw it back at Congress and blame their inability to solve the problem on partisan politics.
But "dismiss" is certainly in the spirit of the hour, for BushCo is nothing if not dismissive.
no subject