The dilemma that we are now faced with and sadly brought on by our nation's courts is multi-faceted. First, the determination of who exactly has a "life not worthy of living" now becomes entirely subjective. Not only from individual to individual and from state to state, but from nation to nation as well.
The dangerously seductive arguement that many Americans seem to have unwittingly accepted is that we as individuals have a constitutional "right to die". Simply put, we don't.
Our nation's Supreme Court seems to think that the "right to die" is a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. It may in fact be a liberty, but it is not a fundamental or natural right. While the Ninth Amendment might seem to imply that we do in fact have additional fundamental or natural rights, what the court fails to recognize is that, it is not with their power to grant us those additional rights. Those fundamental rights are God given rights, natural rights, i.e., rights we possess by nature and not by law. To give an analogy, I have a right to go to Heaven, it is a liberty that I possess and yet the court cannot grant me that right. Likewise, the court cannot grant me the "right to die", only God can, and only when he chooses.
The courts now find themselves in a dilemma now by basing all their current and future judgements for other cases on a mistake made back in 1990 where our court played God and granted a "right" that they actually had no power to grant. The "right to die".
Throughout this recent case, the arguement accepted by the court seems to have centered on "This was Terri's wish." and "This is what Terri would have wanted." Im sure Terri like many of us also wants to go to Heaven.
Very well then, if the court feels that Terri can choose that she does not want to live her life based on her medical condition, then how can the same court deny a person who makes the choice i.e. the liberty that they don't want to live their life as a prisoner, as a drug addict, as a sick person, as a disabled or retarded person, as an only child, or as an ugly person, the list goes on. Surely if the court feels that the "right to die" is a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause then anyone at anytime can take their own life and choose the time of their death.
Secondly, and yet even more sinister, who (other than the individual concerned) has the right to decide in cases such as this? The parents, guardian, husband/wife or the State?
Can a parent or the State for that matter now decide that their disabled child is living a "life not worthy of living"?
The dangerously seductive arguement that many Americans seem to have unwittingly accepted is that we as individuals have a constitutional "right to die". Simply put, we don't.
Our nation's Supreme Court seems to think that the "right to die" is a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. It may in fact be a liberty, but it is not a fundamental or natural right. While the Ninth Amendment might seem to imply that we do in fact have additional fundamental or natural rights, what the court fails to recognize is that, it is not with their power to grant us those additional rights. Those fundamental rights are God given rights, natural rights, i.e., rights we possess by nature and not by law. To give an analogy, I have a right to go to Heaven, it is a liberty that I possess and yet the court cannot grant me that right. Likewise, the court cannot grant me the "right to die", only God can, and only when he chooses.
The courts now find themselves in a dilemma now by basing all their current and future judgements for other cases on a mistake made back in 1990 where our court played God and granted a "right" that they actually had no power to grant. The "right to die".
Throughout this recent case, the arguement accepted by the court seems to have centered on "This was Terri's wish." and "This is what Terri would have wanted." Im sure Terri like many of us also wants to go to Heaven.
Very well then, if the court feels that Terri can choose that she does not want to live her life based on her medical condition, then how can the same court deny a person who makes the choice i.e. the liberty that they don't want to live their life as a prisoner, as a drug addict, as a sick person, as a disabled or retarded person, as an only child, or as an ugly person, the list goes on. Surely if the court feels that the "right to die" is a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause then anyone at anytime can take their own life and choose the time of their death.
Secondly, and yet even more sinister, who (other than the individual concerned) has the right to decide in cases such as this? The parents, guardian, husband/wife or the State?
Can a parent or the State for that matter now decide that their disabled child is living a "life not worthy of living"?
No comments:
Post a Comment