Wednesday, January 18, 2006

More Liberal Hypocrisy

I read this blurb from the L.A. Times on the Supreme Court's assisted suicide ruling yesterday:

"However satisfying the outcome in this case, we are not prepared to conclude that the federal government cannot under any circumstances undermine a state position on a contentious social issue like assisted suicide."
Ummmmm..... Hello? Isn't that exactly what they did 30-some odd years ago in Roe v. Wade where the Supreme Court undermined several states' positions on a contentious social issue like abortion? And before anyone accuses conservatives who support the federal law banning assisted suicide and oppose the Roe decision of being inconsistent, consider that position sides with life in both instances. From a conservative constitutional standpoint, most powers should be reserved to the states (the argument against Roe, which was and should still be a state political issue), but on an issue such as assisted suicide where the Food & Drug Administration has regulatory powers over the use of approved drugs, it boggles the mind to see how administering medication with the intent to produce death can be seen as a legitimate medical treatment when the first duty of medical professionals is to "do no harm." In fact, the Hippocratic Oath, which all medical professionals must take, states "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

16 Comments:

At 1/18/2006 11:22:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Riley, while I agree with your sentiment, I seem to remember medical practitioners no longer are required to take the oath.

 
At 1/18/2006 12:29:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Some medical schools have offered an alternative oath.

 
At 1/18/2006 12:31:00 PM, Blogger Charlie said...

I don't see any hypocrisy here, the LA Times quote implies that there are some circumstances when the government can overrule the states on social issues. So that's completely consistent with support for Roe.

 
At 1/18/2006 03:39:00 PM, Blogger James E. Martin said...

The hypocrisy comes from the 3 right wing extremists on the high court who advocate 'states rights' and then vote against states rights.

 
At 1/18/2006 06:53:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

They are merely setting the stage for overturning Roe. They couldn't, in good conscience, choose for the states on this matter and then give Roe back to the states.

THAT would be hypocritical.

 
At 1/18/2006 08:42:00 PM, Blogger republitarian said...

Abortion and assisted suicide are not just "life" issues. If laws are going to restrict behavior then we need to determine whose rights are being trampled on. In the case of assisted suicide, can you name the victim of a crime?

 
At 1/18/2006 09:20:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Republitarian,

Victims in assisted suicide: The person who dies, the medical profession, our society in general to name a few.

My point above is valid. In both cases people's inalienable right to life are trampled on (abortion and suicide). Life is the most foundational principle we have which is why the constitution mentions is first, right before liberty and property.

 
At 1/18/2006 10:43:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

rtwng: is physician assisted suicide, the patient chooses to end their own life. Nothing is forced, thus their right to life isn't trampled upon.

We won't get into abortion here.

 
At 1/18/2006 10:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our SOCIETY is a victim when a dying person dies one month sooner rather than lie writhing in pain????? How bizarre.

 
At 1/19/2006 02:44:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

He is grasping for straws to justify his religious belief in real world terms.

Don't worry about him, anon.

 
At 1/19/2006 09:58:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

It has nothing to do with religion in general whether or not it does with me personally. Our founding documents establish the right to life as a basic principle that must be honored.

As for the abuses that could (and would) occur with this, please see my post over at Commonwealth Conservative for more. This is not something we want to approve of as a society that cherishes human life.

 
At 1/19/2006 10:00:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Sorry, the post I was referring to was two subjects below in this blog, not Commonwealth Conservative.

 
At 1/19/2006 06:31:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Again, if a person chooses to end their own life, how is their right to life being infringed upon?? If they have a right to life, then they should have a right to end their life, if they so choose.

 
At 1/20/2006 11:34:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Simple Willis, they are infringing on it themself. It may be a moot point to take any action about it since they are probably dead, but it doesn't change anything. The Constitution expressly talks about a right to life, but there is no right to die.

 
At 1/21/2006 10:42:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

A "right to life" includes the ability to do with that life whatever you want, including to end it.

 
At 1/22/2006 01:05:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

So Willis, do the other "inalienable" rights described in our founding documents (liberty, persuit of happiness) have similar implied meaning? In other words do I have a right to sell myself as a slave? Ooops, forgot we made that illegal about 140 years ago.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home