New Mexico Second Judicial District Judge Nan Nash was asked the question of whether or not fatal prescription drugs should be administered to a terminally ill cancer patient who requested her life be ended. The Judge decided the patient had that right.
In 2010, a film crew in Switzerland was invited to record an assisted suicide.
The video is the ideal scenario- the women peacefully passes away while talking with friends. If you would like to see it is, the video is here.
As long as the ruling is not appealed, New Mexico will become the fifth state to allow assisted suicide, following Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont. Oregon was the first state to do so in 1997, and the topic has been widely debated since then, mainly due to stories more similar to this one.
After becoming paralyzed up to his head, Timothy Bowers woke up and told his family that this was not what he wanted. He didn't want to live the rest of his life in that state, and wanted them to remove his breathing tube (because his paralysis did not allow him to breathe on his own). They complied and he passed away. This case has been discussed by medical ethicists and lawmakers because many say that he did not have enough time to make a thoughtful decision and acted out of shock from his injury. Many people who are in this situation are given a month or two to adjust and then end up changing their mind.
Judge Nash gave this statement about the ruling: "This Court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying."
This topic really comes down to the question of how far our personal rights can go, and which are overridden for certain causes. In the past, supreme court (Washington v. Glucksberg, and Vacco v. Quill.) has ruled that the government's interest in preserving life and preventing intentional killing outweighed the patient's interest in the liberty to choose to die. I disagree with that. In the quote above, he says that assisted suicide is a fundamental and private right to the "liberty, safety, and happiness" of citizens. This is seemingly parallel to the unalienable rights listed in the declaration of independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (listed in all versions of the document!) I think that not giving people the choice of assisted suicide violates these rights.
How do our unalienable translate to modern circumstances? How do you interpret the quote from Judge Nash?
Personally, I never knew about these assisted suicide laws. And I find it really interesting. Partially because making a law about this is so hard. Every person is different and has a different view on life. Obviously the law has to be precise and have no loopholes, so I guess there must be laws about this. And even though suicide is looked at as a negative thing in our society, when a terminally ill person is living through so much pain, I can sympathize and understand why they do what they do. I find it weird to parallel the declaration of independence though because I always look at that document as a new beginning, or a rebirth of a nation. Not a document saying it is alright to commit suicide if you are terminally ill. It really is a more grim approach, but it does make a point that the people in this condition should have a right to choose.
ReplyDeleteNice post, Billy, and great comment from Charlie.
ReplyDeleteI like how you framed the suicide video as "the ideal scenario", Billy. Because this is far from a settled issue, though, you give your readers a sense of how the earth is moving under our feet, state by state.