The Death of American Culture

AP: High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide---

New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives.

The justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has the final say on the life-or-death issue.
---
The outcome is hard to predict, in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who seemed ready to support Oregon's law. Her replacement may be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now.

Roberts repeatedly raised concerns that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules for steroids, painkillers and other drugs.

The Supreme Court eight years ago found that the dying have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O'Connor provided a key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state experimentation.

The new case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's conservative religious supporters. Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration.

Oregon won a lawsuit in a lower court over its voter-approved law, which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people.

The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided in hearing the Bush administration's appeal.
---
If O'Connor is the deciding vote in the case, the court would probably delay the decision and schedule a new argument session after the arrival of the new justice. On Monday Bush named White House lawyer Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor.

While suicide is a sin, I don't think the government can really enforce a law against it.

By definition, suicide means:

The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself.

If someone else does the killing, it is no longer suicide.

And, as Lancelot says in King Arthur, "suicide cannot be chosen for another!"

Does this not open very wide a door we do not want to open? Will only physicians be allowed to assist with ending someone's life? What if that person wants to die, but can't afford a physician? Must we allow anyone the right to assist?

Doesn't that lead to problems? What if someone kills someone else and says it is suicide, despite claims to the contrary?

If we allow this sort of killing, then how can we truly determine, in some cases, if it was murder or at the (now) dead person's insistence?

Do we really want a culture where people can kill others with no fear of prosecution?

I fear this sort of thing will lead to a society where we simply begin killing everyone who lacks a certain quality of life, as happened in the Terri Schiavo case. Who should be appointed to determine the quality of another's life?

For some, a life without certain material goods might be considered a life without quality.

If I believe someone who doesn't believe in God has a poor quality of life because of that lack of belief, can I kill them to put them out of what I perceive as misery?

What about all those orphans or abused children? Shouldn't we just kill them, as well, so that their suffering will be alleviated?

If we are going to do that, then I suppose we'll save plenty of money from the welfare state (as there won't be a need for it) and from Africa, since we won't have to provide aid anymore.

People like the PETA folks complain about the treatment of animals. Why don't they stand up for humans?

Life is life, no matter how wonderful or disappointing. God calls each of us Home in His own time. We should not mess with Him by deciding for ourselves.