Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Self-Protective Living Will
Well, with this morning's news that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore has ruled to allow the torturous killing of this helpless woman, I think it's time we need to consider that it appears that there is a new Law of the Land. Whereas in times past the assumption was that unless a written record existed stating the patient's wish to not be kept alive in this manner, that the patient would be assumed to want to live. That is clearly not the case now.
The case now is that if you are unable to effectively communicate your desire to live, you are at the mercy of your legal custodian, whether that custodian is working in your best interests or not. If you lose the ability to speak or otherwise communicate your desire to remain alive, whether that condition is known to be permanent or not, you can be killed without your due process rights being upheld.
This woman was not charged with any crime. She was not tried for any crime. She was not convicted of any crime. And she certainly was not sentenced to execution in any criminal court proceeding.
Her "crime" was losing (perhaps - we'll never really know) her ability to effectively and clearly communicate with the outside world. Think about that for a moment: that is now the standard that will be used to determine whether you may be killed or not.
Think about this: supposed there was a murderer, a death-row inmate who suffered the same kind of debilitation while awaiting execution. Where do you think these very same Leftists would stand with regard to strapping that disabled person to the electric chair? And the chair would be a far more merciful method of extinguishing the life of that individual. Would the Left support executing that convicted murder by dropping him on a gurney and watching that person starve and thirst to death over a period of 11 to 20 days?
So, we are still in the hands of an outrageously out-of-control judiciary that will have its way regardless of the Constitution and its subservient laws.
Here's a quote from the Florida State Constitution:
The Law is meaningless. We are ruled by an oligarchy, a caste of priest kings in black robes. And this will continue to be the case until the Republican Party in Congress steps up to their responsibilities to enforce the will of the People, and to follow the Constitution, and have up-or-down votes on judicial nominees. If they fail in this then they will pay dearly for it in their next primary elections.
As for the rest of us, I strongly suggest each person develop a "living will" that explicitly states under what conditions you wish to continue to receive medical treatment or basic food and water. Of course, in a world where the US Supreme Court has cited case law from other countries as part of their deliberative process, I foresee a day coming, should this situation not be righted, when even your own explicitly-stated demand that you continue to receive nutrition and hydration, via a "living will," will be dismissed as irrelevant.
After all, will come the reasoning, who would want to live that way, right? And isn't that more important than mere words written on parchment more than 200 years ago by dead white slave-holders?
Well, with this morning's news that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore has ruled to allow the torturous killing of this helpless woman, I think it's time we need to consider that it appears that there is a new Law of the Land. Whereas in times past the assumption was that unless a written record existed stating the patient's wish to not be kept alive in this manner, that the patient would be assumed to want to live. That is clearly not the case now.
The case now is that if you are unable to effectively communicate your desire to live, you are at the mercy of your legal custodian, whether that custodian is working in your best interests or not. If you lose the ability to speak or otherwise communicate your desire to remain alive, whether that condition is known to be permanent or not, you can be killed without your due process rights being upheld.
This woman was not charged with any crime. She was not tried for any crime. She was not convicted of any crime. And she certainly was not sentenced to execution in any criminal court proceeding.
Her "crime" was losing (perhaps - we'll never really know) her ability to effectively and clearly communicate with the outside world. Think about that for a moment: that is now the standard that will be used to determine whether you may be killed or not.
Think about this: supposed there was a murderer, a death-row inmate who suffered the same kind of debilitation while awaiting execution. Where do you think these very same Leftists would stand with regard to strapping that disabled person to the electric chair? And the chair would be a far more merciful method of extinguishing the life of that individual. Would the Left support executing that convicted murder by dropping him on a gurney and watching that person starve and thirst to death over a period of 11 to 20 days?
So, we are still in the hands of an outrageously out-of-control judiciary that will have its way regardless of the Constitution and its subservient laws.
Here's a quote from the Florida State Constitution:
SECTION 2. Basic rights.-- All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.-emphasis mine
The Law is meaningless. We are ruled by an oligarchy, a caste of priest kings in black robes. And this will continue to be the case until the Republican Party in Congress steps up to their responsibilities to enforce the will of the People, and to follow the Constitution, and have up-or-down votes on judicial nominees. If they fail in this then they will pay dearly for it in their next primary elections.
As for the rest of us, I strongly suggest each person develop a "living will" that explicitly states under what conditions you wish to continue to receive medical treatment or basic food and water. Of course, in a world where the US Supreme Court has cited case law from other countries as part of their deliberative process, I foresee a day coming, should this situation not be righted, when even your own explicitly-stated demand that you continue to receive nutrition and hydration, via a "living will," will be dismissed as irrelevant.
After all, will come the reasoning, who would want to live that way, right? And isn't that more important than mere words written on parchment more than 200 years ago by dead white slave-holders?
Comments:
Post a Comment
