This bill, termed with Orwellian flair, is another, more brazen attempt to push assisted suicide into California.
 |
| State Senator Bill Monning (San Luis Obispo) cosponsor of SB 128 |
Reuters reports:
California lawmakers on Thursday revived a bill that would allow physician-assisted suicide in the most populous U.S. state, after a renewal of debate on end-of-life issues prompted by the death of 29-year-old Brittany Maynard last year.
About Brittany Maynard: a terminally ill 29 year old, she determined to end her own life, yet had to move to Oregon in order to do so without incriminating her assistants.
Here are some comments about her desperate state:
I was 29 years old. I'd been married for just over a year. My husband and I were trying for a family.
Our lives devolved into hospital stays, doctor consultations and medical research. Nine days after my initial diagnoses, I had a partial craniotomy and a partial resection of my temporal lobe. Both surgeries were an effort to stop the growth of my tumor.
In April, I learned that not only had my tumor come back, but it was more aggressive. Doctors gave me a prognosis of six months to live.
Did anyone in her immediate family try to understand what was inducing the aggressive growth of this terrible tumor? No one can understand the pain of a brain tumor. Understandably, Maynard did not want to put her own family through more pain. Some researchers are exploring if mental scars or spiritual misunderstandings contribute to autoimmune diseases like brain cancer. Studies into long-term care and cures will be stifled, however, if patients in deep pain choose to end their lives.
Maynard continued:
Because my tumor is so large, doctors prescribed full brain radiation. I read about the side effects: The hair on my scalp would have been singed off. My scalp would be left covered with first-degree burns. My quality of life, as I knew it, would be gone.
 |
| Brittany Maynard (Rawstory.com) |
She had already determined that her qualified of life would have suffered. She had nothing on which to make the determination besides the warnings of her physicians. If she had undergone the treatments, she could have proved the medical class wrong. Since when does the opinion of another, however education, become the final point for continuing or ending one's life?
These remarks are more revealing and disturbing about the basis for "Death with Dignity" legislation:
I considered passing away in hospice care at my San Francisco Bay-area home. But even with palliative medication, I could develop potentially morphine-resistant pain and suffer personality changes and verbal, cognitive and motor loss of virtually any kind.
Could . .could. . .could. So many unknowns, and yet she wanted to end her life, a decision which she could not undo.
Maynard ultimately did pass away, and her ongoing legacy will advance the legal sanction for terminating the lives of other people who would rather give up than seeking help.
A few comments about this cynical measure deserve consideration.
What are the long-term political implications of assisted suicide? Are Democrats trying to get rid of one class of residents, potentially conservative voters? Such an idea is beyond cynical, but really very silly. Another consideration: the medical industry is taking on more costs because of Obamacare. Assisted suicide will save hospitals money, time, and other resources, while shifting the responsibility onto patients and their families rather than the medical professionals and their attending institutions.
Is this assisted suicide bill an attempt to prevent more Californians from fleeing the state? What difference would it actually make, anyway, since these individuals are trying to kill themselves? They do not want to contribute anything more to the state's economy, since they want to die.
The argument surrounding these end-of-life issues is not only economic, though, but moral and essential in the light of Western Civilization, and political civility. Many people who neared death have received miraculous healings and astounding medical cures.
I remember reading one report about a man who had lain in a coma for decades, but then woke up. What had happened all those years for the comatose patient? His brain had healed itself over time, and restored the man to a fit and active conscious state.
These death with dignity laws are anything but, since they are predicated on the notion that current, present day inconveniences should determined life or death.
For all the pretenses against the death penalty, Democrats have no problem killing unborn babies in their mother's wombs, and now expanding access to death for the elderly, too. Once again, the hypocrisy of the left is on full display. Previous pro-life advocates had pushed against assisted suicide legislation. This time, though, lobbying efforts have given up:
The bill, which is being fought by numerous religious and medical organizations, would allow adults suffering from incurable illnesses that their doctors say will kill them within six months to request medication to end their lives.
One major source of opposition has given up:
It was approved by the state Senate appropriations committee days after the powerful California Medical Association dropped its opposition.
The association which teaches medical professionals "First, do no harm" is now permitting the state of California to allow patients to kill themselves with the help of loved ones. Why this reversal? Perhaps the liability against medical staff has become so great, or the government subsidies too tempting.
Government has done so much harm to cities and states, and now will allow for the expedited termination of individuals suffering with debilitating diseases with no known or apparent cure.
 |
| Terri Schiavo before her death |
Granted, Californians should invite less government intrusion into their daily lives. President George W. Bush's intervention into the Terry Schiavo case in 2005 also alarmed limited government advocates, frustrates also with George W. Bush's overreach into education, Medicare, and government spending in general.
However, the problems with coerced assisted suicide, the abuse of this open channel to terminate life, should raise greater concerns. Governments exist to protect our rights, starting with life. If the state deems it acceptable to assist the deaths of others who just do not want to live anymore, where does the lack of respect or life end?
On another note, the state of California is already on a slow-track of economy and moral suicide, assisted by big spending liberal Democrats bent on a progressive vision of an illiberal, government dominated dystopia aided and abetted by a permanent underclass of labor unions, subsidized academics, and welfare recipients. Add to these crushing fiscal burdens the water crisis plus the crumbling state transportation and infrastructure, and California is already flat-lining.
Indeed, Democrats are not only pushing assisted suicide in California, they are actively contributing to the assisted suicide of California. Who will protect us from our protectors? The legislative class should adopt the Hippocratic Oath and stop doing harm to California and her residents.
No comments:
Post a Comment