Connecticut physician-assisted suicide bill a slippery slope
It has come to my attention that our state’s government is considering a bill to make physician-assisted suicide legal (S.B. No. 48). This bill, introduced by Senator Edward Meyer, is a dangerous precedent of the codification of state-sanctioned euthanasia. Even though it is self-inflicted, it is euthanasia nonetheless. To give this power to the government is to surrender an inalienable right that should only be held by the individual. I do not claim that those suffering from a painful and incurable disease should not be allowed the dignity of a peaceful and painless passing. However, I do deny the need of our state’s government, or any government, to make such a law. Such issues of life and of death are the sole purview of the individual.
Many people are weary of the “slippery slope” argument because of its misuse in the debates on gay marriage. But, if this bill is passed, then we would be taking that first step towards state-sanctioned euthanasia. Sure, one could argue that cooler heads would prevail and that the brakes would firmly be applied before we hit such a grotesque landmark. However, consider Belgium, which is now considering an expansion of a physician-assisted suicide law to include the mentally impaired and children. Belgium, a post-industrial, modern society, secular and liberal, entertains the idea that it would be acceptable to make the most vulnerable members of their society candidates for euthanasia. Who is to speak for the children or for those unable to speak for themselves? What mediator will make the determination that one’s life is no longer worth living? It is a cold thing to consider. Would that happen here? One cannot know with any certainty. Though, if Senator Meyers’s bill is passed it would make such a scenario a little easier to bring to reality. Once something is made legal it becomes a tool for whatever character of humanity that holds the reins of government.
Determinations of death and dying are ones that should remain the sacrosanct possessions of the individual; they should not be codified, in any language or in any form, by any government. It is my hope that this bill is defeated and I would urge my fellow citizens to consider my argument and express their opinion to their elected representatives.
Michael K. Sipes
Madison
Many people are weary of the “slippery slope” argument because of its misuse in the debates on gay marriage. But, if this bill is passed, then we would be taking that first step towards state-sanctioned euthanasia. Sure, one could argue that cooler heads would prevail and that the brakes would firmly be applied before we hit such a grotesque landmark. However, consider Belgium, which is now considering an expansion of a physician-assisted suicide law to include the mentally impaired and children. Belgium, a post-industrial, modern society, secular and liberal, entertains the idea that it would be acceptable to make the most vulnerable members of their society candidates for euthanasia. Who is to speak for the children or for those unable to speak for themselves? What mediator will make the determination that one’s life is no longer worth living? It is a cold thing to consider. Would that happen here? One cannot know with any certainty. Though, if Senator Meyers’s bill is passed it would make such a scenario a little easier to bring to reality. Once something is made legal it becomes a tool for whatever character of humanity that holds the reins of government.
Determinations of death and dying are ones that should remain the sacrosanct possessions of the individual; they should not be codified, in any language or in any form, by any government. It is my hope that this bill is defeated and I would urge my fellow citizens to consider my argument and express their opinion to their elected representatives.
Michael K. Sipes
Madison
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home