A state district court judge in Montana has simply issued a ruling that would make assisted suicide perfectly legal in that state. No legislation, just a ruling from the bench. No checks or balances, merely a judicial fiat. And the reasoning that the judge applied to this steps right over the edge of that slippery slope. You see, Judge Dorothy McCarter used a line of reasoning that equates humans and their pets.
“I mean, we put our pets to sleep when they’re suffering and that’s considered humane,” she said. “And yet, if we want to do it to our loved ones, it’s considered murder.”
Think that line of reasoning through. While the judge is saying that any “mentally competent terminally ill Montanan…” can decide to die with a doctor’s help, pets are put down by those that are responsible for their care. How long until the judge’s fiat morphs into that? How long until families can simply make that decision for an incompetent Montanan? Or one who’s heirs don’t want the Montanan’s estate “squandered” on medical care? Note that the judge even put it in those terms: “…if we want to do it to our loved ones….”
This is appalling from both a legal and a moral standpoint. If Montanans genuinely want the right to die, they should get a law passed to allow it. These things are not simply imposed by a judge. The judge’s poorly thought out decision leaves the door open for real abuse in the future, besides being an abuse of her position. We are not supposed to be ruled by judges.
Are you against Assisted Suicide in all circumstances? If so, then don’t do it, but for those of us that do not oppose it, let us. Don’t intrude, don’t let the govt. intrude, be good Republicans and let us make our decisions and not have the govt do it for us. And yes I am a Republican.
Pingback: Public Secrets
Lynndh, read what I wrote again. What I am against here is rule by judicial fiat. We can leave the ethical minefield for another discussion.
Lynndh, are you against rape in all circumstances? Then by all means don’t commit rape, but don’t stop others from doing so.
(I would have used murder, but that’s too close to what assisted suicide is until you get around to changing the rules. Perhaps you’d prefer a less offensive felony?). Plenty of Republicans of my acquaintance are in favor of all kinds of laws that stop other people from doing what they would prefer to do to others.
Gaius, sorry if I misread. I do agree that judicial fiat is wrong. Cranky, your just cranky. Not the same thing and you know it. Or should.
I think the conservative view, as opposed to the libertarian view, is that legalizing behaviors that have mostly personal consequences, like drug use, gay marriage and assisted-suicide, have social impacts that greatly impact even those who don’t directly avail themselves to those new liberties.
.
While it’s true that one doesn’t have to put himself down if his medical costs become a burden, he still has to live in a society that has now accepted that decision as the norm.
.
Does he have a right to object to that kind of a society?