Randall Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 It's not the government's place to put parameters around the conditions of our death. However, the residents of the State of Washington are seeking legislation to do just that. It's called the "Death with Dignity" law, and it mirrors legislation put in place in Oregon approximately a decade ago. Essentially, it states that if you are terminally ill and it is determined you are going to die within the next 6 months, you can seek help from a medical professional to self-administer life ending medication. On the surface this sounds like a step in the right direction. However, the cost is greater than the benefit here. By voting for this legislation, we are sanctioning the government's right to put conditions around our basic rights. The right to dispose of our life is a property right. No man or government has the right to say "you can die if and only if...". Link to the bill: http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06...0Bills/6843.pdf Now, there may be a need for legislation to protect doctors who administer euthanasia (from being charged with murder), that's a separate issue. We have to take extra care when it comes to voting on our rights, because while we think we are getting an inch back from the government, we are really giving them a mile. --Randall Weytens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 It's not the government's place to put parameters around the conditions of our death. However, the residents of the State of Washington are seeking legislation to do just that.Actually, that is a misinterpretation of the law. It removes certain parameters surrounding the conditions of a person's death that currently exist.On the surface this sounds like a step in the right direction. However, the cost is greater than the benefit here. By voting for this legislation, we are sanctioning the government's right to put conditions around our basic rights.The government has already asserted that right; by not voting for this law, one would be in sanctioning the continuation of that non-right.Now, there may be a need for legislation to protect doctors who administer euthanasia (from being charged with murder), that's a separate issue.One addresed in the bill. For example it repeals RCW 70.122.100 and 1992 c 98 s 10 & 1979 c 112 s 11 which prohibits physician-assisted suicide. Is there some existing proper right of individuals which you think would be abrogated by this bill? I thought it was a good law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Actually, that is a misinterpretation of the law. It removes certain parameters surrounding the conditions of a person's death that currently exist.The government has already asserted that right; by not voting for this law, one would be in sanctioning the continuation of that non-right.One addresed in the bill. For example it repeals RCW 70.122.100 and 1992 c 98 s 10 & 1979 c 112 s 11 which prohibits physician-assisted suicide. Is there some existing proper right of individuals which you think would be abrogated by this bill? I thought it was a good law. David, This is a vote to enumerate, not eliminate the conditions surrounding an individual's death. The government has taken something from us to which they have no right, and to vote for this is to say that we acknowledge that they still have the right to place restrictions on our choices. Their control over the right to end our lives must be eliminated entirely. --Randall Weytens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 The government has taken something from us to which they have no right, and to vote for this is to say that we acknowledge that they still have the right to place restrictions on our choices.No, actually it does not say that. What it does is repeal, given certain conditions, a right which is already denied. I agree that the law does not go far enough because of the "terminal illness" restriction, but not going far enough is not at all the same as denying previously acknowledged rights. Your argument would lead to the conclusion that all imperfect but rights-restoring bills are a moral travesty because they do not go far enough. Objectivism does not have a sour-grape view of rights -- movement in the direction of restoring rights is good, not bad. What you linked was a senate bill, not an initiative or referendum. Is this matter being presented to the populace? Your wording about "vote" suggests it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Hester Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 What it does is repeal, given certain conditions, a right which is already denied. Do you mean "What it does is repeal...restrictions on a right which is already denied" or something similar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Do you mean "What it does is repeal...restrictions on a right which is already denied" or something similar?Indeed, I do. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.