> "People already have the right to refuse unwanted treatment, and suicide
> is not illegal. What we oppose is a public policy that singles out
> individuals for legalized killing based on their health status. This
> violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, and denies us equal
> protection of the laws.
If people can refuse unwanted treatment and if they can commit suicide (by law), then there already IS a policy in place that legalizes killing based on health status. We aren't slipping toward that condition, we are already there.
The state makes it possible for people to commit suicide or refuse unwanted treatment ON THE BASIS OF THEIR HEALTH STATUS without prosecution or being forced to do anything against their will. They can do so for any reason, right?
How is the state, exactly, singling out Terri? Her legal guardian _ASKED_ the state to decide. The only reason they addressed her health was to see if her condition met the kind of condition MS said she's want to die under.
Yet, by the NDY's logic, the state's response to his request should have been "Well, dewd, we can't make that decision. It's up to you. It's ok for you to pull the plug. Otherwise, if we took over your responsibility to decide, we'd be violating the ADA."
IF the NDY's logic was pursued, wouldn't it meant that the Schindler's NEVER would have had a say at all? Terri would have died long ago.
it's my experience that individuals can feel one way about what they want for themselves -- death on the basis of their health status -- and what they might want for others. It simply doesn't follow that, if (subjunctivve mood!) I off myself (or have my legal guardian do it for me) because I'm blind or asthmatic, that I therefore think that everyone should off themselves for that reason or that we should, as a matter of public policy, off the blind and asthmatics if they don't want to. For one thing, it doesn't follow because my decision wouldn't ONLY be based on my status as unemployed, would it? Similarly, if someone with a disease wants to off themselves, it's probably for a host of reasons beyond merely the disease.
If I off myself so that my son can have a decent life financially, that does not mean I think anyone else should do the same. They are not me. It simply means that, as Carrol said, I'm leaving while the party's still fun. It's not different than Michael Perelman's 100 yo friend deciding to starve to death. He'd decided it was time to go. So did HST. So? I just can't see how their suicides means that others in their condition should do the same. Surely HST wasn't intending that others should follow suit. He was making the decision for himself, based on HIS life.
So, I"m at a loss as to how individuals or their guardians deciding to pull the plug are sending the message that the disableds' lives should be snuffed or even that everyone who's in Terri's boat should be offed. The law, at least in FL, is that it's an individual's/legal guardian's decision. How exactly can this slide to the point of becoming a state policy of offing the disabled or, rather, offing people based on their health status?
And, I"m especially confused about how, in this case, the state answering Schiavo's request is a step in that direction. In this particular case, had the state refused to make a decision, Terry would have been dead quite awhile ago.
So, again, as long as the NDY does not object to current law, which is that it's the individual's/guardian's decision, then how is the Schiavo case a step toward euthanizing the disabled in general?
And, btw, did any woman author ever point out that telling a woman not to committ suicide because she had a duty not to make others unhappy was infuriating when she'd spent most of her life worrying about everyone's happiness. I'm not up on my tragic women writers.
Kelley