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.
[…]
What are the cardinal ordinances of the church? Have some of the cardinals in the church strayed from the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Some may say that Papa has displayed overweening pride in appointing so many cardinals! God always reminds us of what our duties as servants of Christ.
Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
Hebrews 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Colossians 2:14 By cancelling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Ephesians 2:15 By abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
This is good news indeed, political correctness and tree hugging aside, Jesus is our answer, let us ask in faith.
More important than who will vote, is who they might vote for…
A timely, professional, balanced, matter-of-fact, and thorough profile for nineteen of the most likely papabili is supplied by an independent and unaffiliated team of anonymous scholars, and edited by Edward Pentin. Very well worth reading: “The Next Pope: The Leading Cardinal Candidates” (Sophia Institute Press, 2020).
The alphabetical presentation includes: Bagnasco, Burke, Duka, Eijk, Erdo, Muller, O’Malley, Ouellet, Parolin, Piacenza, Ranjith, Ravasi, Sarah, Schonborn, Scola, Tagle, Turkson, and Zuppi.
Each profile includes a short biography, together with three following sections reporting on the apostolic roles to teach (prophet), govern (king), and sanctify (priest). In the Introduction, Pentin writes, “I have tried to ensure that the cardinals are presented in charity and truth, offering what I hope is an accurate picture of what sort of man might one day fill the shoes of the Fisherman.”
As a lay reader of this well-documented piece, the contrast between this informational approach and other possible approaches (e.g., the St. Gallen Mafia, as self-labeled by the late Cardinal Danneels) is restoring, reassuring, and refreshing.
Allow me to say, Burke or Muller might make excellent candidates! Yet the matter is in the hands of the Lord. He gave us Bergollio so that we might reflect on the folly of man and once again put our trust and confidence in Jesus Christ!
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Psalm 28:7 The Lord is my strength and my shield; in him my heart trusts, and I am helped; my heart exults, and with my song I give thanks to him.
Romans 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.
Jeremiah 17:7-8 “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose trust is the Lord. He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit.”
Mark 5:36 But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.”
Psalm 9:10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you.
Blessings
Pope Francis is doing fine. The Holy Father has a long way to go. Before the real hour comes for consideration, several cardinals with voting rights will have triumphantly crossed the 80 year mark and attain liberation from the voting process.