Finally, Some Truly Compassionate Conservatism
People who don't understand what it means to be a classic conservative -- as in "classically liberal" -- probably won't get this headline as it applies to this blog item.
That kind of conservatism is supposed to be about personal autonomy and small government, and a decision in New Mexico fits right in with this.
Erik Eckholm writes in The New York Times that a New Mexico judge has affirmed the right to "aid in dying":
A state court in New Mexico said Monday that terminally ill residents have a constitutional right to obtain "aid in dying," a ruling that could make New Mexico the fifth state to allow doctors to prescribe fatal drug doses that suffering patients can use to end their lives."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," wrote Judge Nan G. Nash of the Second District Court in Albuquerque.
The case was brought by two doctors who sought protection against prosecution if they provided fatal drug prescriptions to a patient, and Aja Riggs, a 49-year-old woman with cancer who told the court in a December trial, "I don't want to suffer needlessly at the end."
Arguing their case were the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and Compassion & Choices, a national advocacy group. They asserted that a doctor's help for a competent, terminally ill patient who wished to hasten death was not covered by a 1960s state law making it a felony to assist a suicide.
The state argued that such an action by a doctor was covered by the law and that banning doctor-assisted suicide was consistent with individual rights under the State Constitution.
Judge Nash agreed that the law applied, but said that "the liberty, safety and happiness interest of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying is a fundamental right under our New Mexico Constitution."
I'm very uncomfortable in allow doctors to write these scripts. There are all sorts of consequences when you mess with the pillar of do no harm.
First it is the right to die. Next, it will be the duty to die. Hey, Social Security: it is saved!
I R A Darth Aggie at January 21, 2014 6:30 AM
This is not an easy topic; However, I see NO compassion in letting (or even worse helping) someone to take their own life.
If walking along the Golden Gate Bridge you happen to see someone waiting to jump, would you let him? or would you push him? Or would you do the truly compassionate thing and try to help him?
I opt for the third - help him.
And, I say this as one who has helped dear family members die. I helped them by trying to minimize their suffering; not by ENDING life.
Charles at January 21, 2014 7:00 AM
I'm a doctor. Doctors shouldn't be in the business of killing people.
DrMaturin at January 21, 2014 9:03 AM
I take solice in knowing that my friends who are in crippling pain endure it by choice.
I wish the options for taking one's life were less brutal than using a firearm or a bridge, and less expensive than a trip to another state.
I'm all for making barbiturates available without a prescription to anyone old enough to drink or go to war.
Michelle at January 21, 2014 10:10 AM
I'll bite.
What's the constitutional difference between the right to abortion and the right to die.
Bob in Texas at January 21, 2014 10:18 AM
@Charles, what if the only relief from pain is death?
@Dr Martin, I'm not a doctor so I dont know the oath, looked it up though, the original oath apparently says you cant provide abortions, internal surgery or have sex with you co workers.
Oaths are pesky things, I can see why its been changed so many times.
But I'll ask you as well, what happens when there is nothing more to do and the only relief from pain and disease is that of the grave?
lujlp at January 21, 2014 10:22 AM
My dog died in my arms from a lethal injection when he was too ill from cancer to enjoy life anymore.
My brother, OTOH, had to blow his own brains out alone in his garage when he was in too much pain from adrenal failure and a back surgery that didn't fix his injuries from an accident. Of course, he'd tried therapies for his Addison's disease, but they didn't work, and he had a poor prognosis. He wasn't depressed, he wasn't insane, he used to run his own business, serve the community and restore antique tractors. Why couldn't he have died like a dog?
Lori at January 21, 2014 11:02 AM
@lujlp
Pain can be relieved in most cases. But when healers become killers a line has been crossed that can't be uncrossed. Especially when the healer is, de facto, an employee of the State, as we are becoming more and more.
DrMaturin at January 21, 2014 11:47 AM
It means something that Amy's title for this blog post —one about people in horrible pain and about the lawful taking of others' lives, perhaps the most serious topics imaginable— is built from cold teenage sarcasm. About conservatives.
Maturin's deft response from Planet Maturia should lead our thinking: Childish resentment is a bad posture from which to write policy.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 21, 2014 12:37 PM
Pain can be relieved in most cases
So then; induced comas, morphine drip, and dying a month or two later (and $20,000 further in the hole) from organ failure caused by bed sore infection is better then?
lujlp at January 21, 2014 1:47 PM
Lori, thank you for putting a fine point on it.
I've already said goodbye to someone with a family history of a debilitating and fatal disease. The person doesn't want to die without saying goodbye, leaving behind a violent mess and a note.
Maybe now instead, if need be, we can vacation in a state with more merciful aid in dying laws. I don't want anyone I love to die alone.
Michelle at January 21, 2014 3:40 PM
My house and property isn't worth a massive amount. All my vehicles combined are worth less than $50K.
But between life insurance policies I have somewhere a lot over a $100K that goes to my sister. Right now my sister values my help and support. But if I were to get into an accident that I'm essentially a lump of meat, I'd rather she would have the money than me wasting away in a bed in the some nursing home. Same for Alzheimer's.
What benefit does that give to anyone?
Life is choices. But keeping someone alive because it is better for you, and not them I can only view as egotistical.
Jim P. at January 21, 2014 6:27 PM
"I'm a doctor. Doctors shouldn't be in the business of killing people."
But dragging their suffering out until the money's gone is a-ok. Somebody's got to pay for your new boat.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 22, 2014 9:46 PM
"I'm a doctor. Doctors shouldn't be in the business of killing people."
But they have been, and for centuries - just not for profit.
If grandfather wasn't going to make it through another winter – he might have been helped along by the family physician.
Now that everything is a matter of public record and subject to litigation, that can't happen as often.
Radwaste at January 23, 2014 6:06 AM
> But they have been, and for centuries -
> just not for profit.
That's so butch... So world-weary... So dark-minded and alluringly condemnatory...
We can only assume you've been sneaking sips from Grandad's "medicine" again.
Because, like, modern medicine is a like a total scam, right? Totes!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 25, 2014 12:30 AM
Leave a comment