Given Gorsuch's strenuous opposition to 'aid in dying' rights, I'm curious as to what people here think? Does the State have a right to coerce you to live, or if you are diagnosed with a terminal disease, should you have a right to aid in a painless death?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Ooopsie. I thought I posted this in the politics section. Maybe a mod can move it there.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

The state does not have the right to coerce someone to live or die....

__________________
Сделать Америку великой Снова
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." Margaret Thatcher

Here's a review of Gorsuch's book on Euthanasia. I haven't read it but the review is what I expected given what I know of Gorsuch's tutelage under John Finnis.

0 out of 5 starsHuman life is good in itself
ByClark Glymouron February 4, 2017
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
A decade ago Neil Gorsuch, soon to be Justice Gorsuch, wrote a book arguing for the legal prohibition of suicide and assisted suicide. The argument is this:

1. Human life is good in itself, a basic good to be valued for itself, not as a means to anything else.
2. Therefore, human life is “inviolable.”
3. Just law should prohibit intentionally violating the inviolable.
4. Therefore, just law should prohibit intentional killing, of oneself or another.

Historical irrelevances and objections to other views aside, the argument is that simple. Grant the first premise. Part of the sense of “inviolable” in sub-conclusion 2 is made clear in premise 3, and with that understanding, the inference to premise 2 is a non-sequitur. Gorsuch himself contradicts it:

“…the inviolability of life recognizes and accepts that many other legitimate end and goods exist besides life itself, and the difficulty of choosing between such goods…

One such good is relief from human suffering, and human agony in particular, which is what suicide and assisted suicide aim to stop in an individual case. Gorsuch owes compelling reasons as to why the choice cannot be left to the individual and why the moral balance must always be in favor of continuing life. He provides none at all. We do not ordinarily let others decide that balance for us, and Mill On Liberty gives a good reason why not: ordinarily, no one knows another’s suffering so well as the sufferer.

The book is filled with irrelevant history (why in the world should we even begin to think that the history of legislation enabling slavery, torture, maiming, censorship, inequality and more is a moral guide to anything, or evidence of the wisdom of the past?)—and responses to objections that are irrelevant to his argument. What is left, put baldly in a paragraph, is nothing at all.
Read less

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I would argue that life is neither good nor bad. In my opinion, good and bad are both situational and a matter of perspective. I recognize that this violates a basic assumption on our culture in which, what god makes is by definition, good. See Genesis 1. This underlies all of western jurisprudence, IMO. Acknowledged or not.

If I am correct in my first assumption then the rest of the Gorsuch argument falls.

Another factor that I believe is important is that we are each individually owners of our own bodies and cannot own the body of another. Rent? Yes. Own, no.

If that belief is correct then it is not within the State's purview to determine when it should be ended.

Thus, I oppose State regulation of abortion, capital punishment and slavery.

But I sure do emotionally sympathize with Gorsuch. I am not so certain of my own beliefs that I am unwilling to explore his.

(my autocorrect changes "Gorsuch" to "Grouch")

It's quite likely that Gorsuch's views are similar to John Finnis' since Gorsuch chose Finnis as his dissertation director. Finnis is well known for his legal philosophy which includes the claim that all sex acts except for those within heterosexual marriage intending to conceive and capable of conception are morally legitimate (ie no blowjobs, no masturbation and definitely no gay sex) All of this is based on his theory of natural law (which appears to be the basis of Gorsuch's opposition to euthanasia) which claims there are 7 basic goods which are self-evident. In my view, all seven are not self-evident and they definitely are not inviolable. But in addition, I think there are other goods such as irrationality or non-rationality. With Adam Smith I think some of our moral inclinations are rooted in our feelings and not in our reason. But anyway, here's a summary of Finnis' view which may be related to Gorsuch's argument.

https://hughmccarthylawscienceasc.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/a-summary-of-john-finniss-theory-of-natural-law/

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

What would Jack Kevorkian do?

Line'em up and knock'em down.

The importance of having a good family doctor should not be under rated. Their first ethical responsibility is to reduce pain and suffering.


If you know each other well. I believe there is an unspoken understanding that the morphine dose will be increased enough to reduce unbearable suffering when there is no other upside possible. . Or denial of treatment if it just extends the torture.


In doing so there of course is a consequence to the living condition. All serious pain cannot be reduced to a liveable level otherwise.


It would be an alternative form of torture otherwise for a lot of people. I do not think people are generally aware that there exists pain that drugs cannot suppress.


Or that enough pain killer has to be administered to do so will finish you. Otherwise when you went to a hospital the screaming would resound around inside the building. To me it is administered death by necessity and the option is unacceptable.


Has been in practice for decades. Nobody has the right to prolong unbearable suffering. This is also one area where having proper medical relationships with medical providers is important.


If you want to be brutal about it. My doctor is a compassionate killer but I preffer it this way if there is a necessity in his mind to do so.


Two cases of very advanced live cancer where diagnosed by him in 2016. One was a relative and the other a close family member of ours both under forty.


A part of the outcome was they perhaps waited too long before seeing the doctor. Although I know little about liver cancer. If they were put to death it was not by a death panel. It was a reasonable medical decision by the doctor himself most likely. If so I approve.


Neither could eat any more and both where in really serious pain. The doctor did all he could to enable a liver transplant on both of them but since the cancer had spread they were not eligiable for a replacement.


Both were dead two weeks later. I believe he helped them and we had a short talk about their rapid demise without getting into how it occurred. diagnosis to death in less than three weeks.


Some doctors or even himself might have let them go around two months until the natural expiration. That's if he did not know them and their family well enough.


It is no longer practical life when you are in a condition of almost screaming agony with absolutely no upside. Life is only precious when not in a state of torture.


I have never had any issues with mercy killing as long as it is acceptable to the recipient. He or she does not need to ask for a good doctor to know. It actually is a frightening concept if it was really needed for an individual and denied.


By the same token if the need is not there a doctor will not do it. This would be a serious breech of his oath.

Making suicide illegal is about like making mastarbation illegal. Those who want to will.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

End of life decisions are personal. Shouldn't be illegal. Doctors that assist go against the hippocratic oath but whats an oath between friends in this day and age.

I again think this has to be qualified. Their oath also states to remove pain and suffering.


Now assistance given for a mental disorder or depression type of situation. Is a whole different story. Actually in countries that have approved mercy killing there are strict conditions that must be met. I think two doctors must concur is the common one.


In my grandmothers case was perhaps a good example. She was ninety five. Vision and hearing where pretty well gone and she was bedridden. She told me she wanted to die but they would not let her.


Every time an episode arose she was sent to the hospital and returned usually a few days later. She told me that she wanted to die but they would not let her.


In my grandmothers case she retained full mental capacity to the end. So she was competent to make a decision if mercy killing was legal.


I have always found it a little strange to see where suicide is not only illegal but a punishable offence if not successful. Although I think seldom pursued.

The quickest way to remove pain and suffering is to change jobs from physician to executioner.

Which needs to occur sometimes.
Last year my dad died. He was accepted into home hospice in a rural NY country less than two weeks before he died. Upon acceptance we were given a prescription for morphine and some anxiety producing drug which they insisted we fill right away. Since the county is poor, hospice visits are only scheduled every two weeks and he was dead before his second scheduled visit. My sister and I, who along with some other family members were caring for him, had no training in the administration of the drugs and no training in what to expect. In the last 36 hours or so he wasn't conscious and we had contacted hospice for an emergency visit and advice. When the nurse arrived I got the distinct impression that what she was thinking was, "WTF, you idiots. We gave you the morphine and expected you to pump him full of it to reduce his suffering and hasten his end while minimizing his awareness with the other drug." She didn't say this for obvious reasons and my sister would never have agreed to such a direct analysis and course of action, but after that visit, he didn't last much longer. An open, clear, legal frank, and informative discussion of the process would have made those final days easier I think.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

exactly.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.