Boston, Mass., Jan 14, 2020 / 05:01 pm (CNA).- Second Thoughts Massachusetts, a disability rights group, has praised a recent ruling that there is not a right to assisted suicide in the state’s law or its constitution.
In a decision dated Dec. 31, 2019, Justice Mary Ames of the Suffolk Superior Court ruled that physicians who prescribe lethal medication for assisted suicide in Massachusetts can be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter, but that physicians may provide information and advice on assisted suicide to terminally ill, competent adults.
“We are gratified that the court reaffirmed the law against assisted suicide, and referred the matter to the legislature where lawmaking belongs. Disability rights advocates will continue to press the legislature that assisted suicide is just too dangerous,” John Kelly, director of Second Thoughts, commented Jan. 13.
The case on which Ames ruled was brought by Dr. Roger Kligler, who has prostate cancer, and Dr. Alan Steinbach, who treats patients considering end-of-life problems.
Among the arguments Kligler and Steinbach made were that prosecution of a physician for manslaughter who prescribes medication for assisted suicide “impermissibly restricts a patient’s constitutional right to privacy” and their “fundamental liberty interests.”
They also argued that the prosecution of such physicians “violates the constitutional right to the equal protection of law by treating differently terminally ill adults who wish to receive [assisted suicide] and terminally ill adults who wish to hasten death by the voluntarily stopping of eating and drinking (VSED), withdrawal of life support, or palliative sedation.”
Ames wrote in her decision that “any physician is free to provide information on the jurisdictions where [assisted suicide] is legal, guidance and information on the procedures and requirements in those jurisdictions, and referrals to physicians who can provide [assisted suicide] in those jurisdictions. Such conduct, without more, does not constitute involuntary manslaughter.”
She also wrote that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had taken pains “to preserve what it viewed as a meaningful distinction between death that results naturally from the withdrawal of medical equipment and death that results from affirmative human efforts,” and that it had said the law “does not permit suicide” or “unlimited self-determination.”
Ames said that neither of two relevant SJC decisions suggest “that the principles that underlie the right to refuse medical treatment apply to the affirmative act of taking one’s own life with the assistance of a willing physician,” and that the SJC would likely maintain “a strong distinction between [assisted suicide], and the withdrawal of treatment and palliative care.”
Compassion & Choices, an assisted suicide advocacy group, has said they plan to appeal the ruling, WBUR reported Jan 10.
Ames wrote that the state legislature could “conclude that difficulty in determining and ensuring that a patient is ‘mentally competent’ warrants the continued prohibition” of assisted suicide.
She added that the legislature could conclude that “predicting when a patient has six months to live is too difficult and risky for the purposes of” assisted suicide. She noted that the state “put forward expert testimony that while doctors may be able to accurately predict death within two or three weeks of its occurrence, predictions of death beyond that time frame are likely to be inaccurate.”
Moreover, Ames said the legislature could also conclude that “a general medical standard of care is not sufficient to protect those seeking” assisted suicide, noting that the state provided testimony that assisted suicide “is neither a medical treatment nore a medical procedure and thus there can be no applicable medical standard of care” and that the legalization of assisted suicide “is an attempt to carve out a special case outside of the norms of medical practice.”
The legislature could, too, conclude that assisted suicide “is not equivalent to permissible alternatives,” citing the difference between assisted suicide and voluntary cessation of nutrition and hydration, withdrawal of life support, or palliative sedation.
Ames concluded that “there appears to be a broad consensus that this issue is not best addressed by the judiciary,” and that there are strong arguments for prohibiting assisted suicide or ensuring it “occurs in an environment in which clear, thoughtful, and mandatory standards are in place to protect terminally ill patients who wish to make an irreversible decision. The Legislature, not the Court, is ideally positioned to weigh those arguments and determine whether and if so, under what restrictions, [assisted suicide] should be legally authorized.”
There are bills in both houses of the state legislature to legalize assisted suicide. The bills are due to be considered by the Joint Committee on Public Health next week.
Ruthie Pool, president of MPOWER, a group of people who have experienced mental health diagnosis, trauma, or addiction, commented Jan. 13 that “as someone who has been suicidal in the past, I can relate to the desire for ‘a painless and easy way out.’ However, depression is treatable and reversible. Suicide is not. The current bill in the legislature pretends otherwise.”
In 2012, Massachusetts voters narrowly rejected a ballot initiatve that would have legalized assisted suicide.
At the time, Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston commented that “it is my hope and prayer that the defeat of Question 2 will help all people to understand that for our brothers and sisters confronted with terminal illness we can do better than offering them the means to end their lives.”
The 2012 initiative was opposed by both the Massachusetts Medical Association and the Boston Herald.
In the US, assisted suicide is legal in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia; and in Montana by a court ruling.
[…]
I hold Pope Francis partially to blame for this witch hunt of traditionalist Catholics. I am NOT saying that he was party to this political persecution of Catholics in the USA. But I AM stating categorically that his repeated and public singling out traditional Catholics for criticism and ridicule only serves to encourage persecution of Catholics by rogue elements in our Federal government. He should hang his head in shame.
Amen, Deacon.
My only possible disagreement is that it is “rogue elements.” I am beginning to believe it is standard operating procedures of the government these days.
I don’t think it’s any business of the FBI what form of the liturgy Catholics attend or whether they’re in full agreement with VII but it did appear from the documents that it was SSPX communities who were singled out, not so much those who attend the TLM outside the SSPX.
Again, the FBIs job is not to sort out Catholic disputes over liturgy or infiltrate churches. Ive had SSPX friends and have never heard anything extremist or violent from them. My hope has always been that the SSPX and Rome would reconcile.
they just shot a pastor out west, I wonder why they didn’t arrest him out in public
Do you really believe that they act upon what the Pope says?
If the Pope publicly denigrates traditional Catholics by calling them rigid and radical, don’t you think that is encouragement enough for the Catholic-haters in the Biden administration?
This is the same FBI that Catholic Joe uses against his political enemies, Christians and now Catholics.
The war on Christians and Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, began 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.
To identify as Catholic does not preclude being a domestic terrorist. Unfortunately! If you listen to many “Trad” podcasts you will soon realize that there ARE far right Catholics who could possibly be a threat to our present form of government. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn’t mean that if possibly suspect they shouldn’t be investigated. If you don’t do anything wrong you shouldn’t be worried.
I fear traditional Catholics far less than the rogue administration now running the Federal government and people who think it’s the purview of government to interfere in the religious practices of Catholics.
There is no such thing as “Far-right” Catholics, only CINO Catholics, who do not follow the doctrines of the Church. To them, it may seem like we are “far-right”, but that is because the CINOs are “far-wrong”!
Dee. How far-right are CINOs? I continue to remain cautious when I see a broad-brush indictment of any group. I try to refrain from usig “all” and “none”. God bless.
Do you have examples of traditional Catholics who pose a threat James? I don’t doubt it’s possible but I’m not aware of any.
Seriously? This is the very thing that a govt should NOT do. Investigate any random group hoping to find a crime or grounds for prosecution. Like checking all the figures in your tax return hoping to find a mistake and calling it criminal activity. In our country that is supposed to be illegal. Police are supposed to investigate AFTER a crime has been committed, or when/if they come into possession of evidence a crime is about to be committed. PLANTING undercover “moles” into catholic churches , or worse yet, trying to “turn” church employees and clergy is McCarthyism at its worst. Doubtless conservative people are often not only conservative in their religious practices but in their politics as well. But there is a gross difference between being conservative and being radical enemies of one’s govt. Funny that today, I read that the former DEM-led J6 Committee has destroyed a great deal of security video tapes and evidence which was supposed to be turned over to the GOP. Every time I see subversive actions trying to distort our country and our rule of law, the partisan and illegal actions are ALWAYS coming from the left. Since that crowd has no moral compass or patriotism or loyalty to the US, it’s no shock to observe this. Just disgusting. Catholic democrat voters, wake up before this gulag machine comes for you too.
“If you don’t do anything wrong, you shouldn’t be worried.” Seriously? Have you not been paying attention? The current administration and its DOJ have been going after a lot of people that have done nothing wrong. Parents, pro-life fathers, etc.
Perhaps you’re on this Catholic page to try to distract?
After Mark Houck I don’t see how you can do nonchalantly give this administration the benefit of the doubt in these regards.
I am truly concerned by the comments I have read here. They make me wonder if the conservative traditionalist schismatics are in league with radical national supremest groups.
The FBI, a bastion of Catholicism, is being attacked by radicals around the world. Now it is being attacked by our Mother Church?
The implication the President Biden, a life long faithful son of the church, hates the Church would be laughable in a sick comedy. It is tragic our Church has been infected by those who have the cognitive dissonance to believe such things.
Faithful son of the Church who supports abortion and performed a gay marriage. If that’s faithful, what does a faithless son of the Church look like?
More social credits for you Comrade Scott!
🙂
Joey has no issue with terminating an unborn life so he is NOT following the faith. Did he finally admit his son had a daughter?
He also became rich off foreign involvement, directly or indirectly – better open your eyes
I’ll assume this is satire.
Rubbish! Prove it! I assume you are a satirist. You can do better.
The troubling issue is the FBI is identifying Catholics as potential terrorist. Who would have thought this even a few years ago. This is a product of many rapid pro abortion American organizations that are out to destroy anyone and any organization, religious and others, that is pro life. The FBI is means they use to implement their anti life agenda.
If you don’t think that it is the puppet master Obama pulling all the strings on Joe the Stooge; think again. This administration has been Obama’s play toy since long before Trump “lost” re-election. This country made the mistake of placing in office a Muslim-leaning, homosexual communist as the first president to take over control of the country following 9/11. That mistake cost us dearly and continues to grind away at the very fabric and foundation of our country. If something doesn’t change and change dramatically and quickly, I think it prudent to discuss a “post-American” world and how to prepare oneself for a “post-American” America.
More and more information will emerge regarding how Obama has been behind all this corruption in government. Look to see how he militarized the FBI and the CIA to go after and destroy his political enemies. I have a standard that I apply when judging people’s trustworthiness: the broader the smile, the less you can trust the actor.
Dear Deacon. Without getting too political… I was no fan of PRESIDENT Obama, however you indicict him with “ALL corruption in government” without any details. WOW! You seem to have missed our recent history.
God bless.
Should we believe this? AG Garland said. “It does not do investigations based on religion. I saw the document you have. It’s appalling. It’s appalling. I’m in complete agreement with you.”
It has been revealed that there are rogue FBI members that have infiltrated the DOJ and other government agencies and the military. Because of it’s mission of protecting US citizens, I withold judgement until Jordan finishes his investigation the investigaters.
God save the union.
While Portland, Oregon has lost an estimated one billion dollars, owing to crime-related homelessness that exists on the sidewalks in front of businesses there, the F.B.I. in Portland is concerned about conservative Catholics? This belongs in the comics section of “The Oregonian.”
Sadly, Mark T you are not far from the mark.