The false argument of "choices"....
If there is any doubt concerning the anti-choice platform that conservative Republicans wish to enforce, one need look no further than Dave's new column. And I'm not talking about anti-choice in the context of abortion here, but conservatives' wish to deny choice in a number of areas. Dave's new article details the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling this past week upholding Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, and Gordon Smith's response to it. According to Dave, having terminally ill patients making informed decisions on the best way to end their life is "evil."
I want to digress a moment on the subject of "choice." I recently had a conversation with an economic conservative and the issue of health care came up. Why is it not possible for basic health needs to be covered for all Americans, I asked. "There will never be government-controlled health care in the United States because Americans like choices," was the reply. That made me wonder about the millions of people living in poverty who lack any kind of insurance, specifically children. Are they choosing to live without insurance (or a job, or roof over the heads)? No, of course not. It's a false argument, one that conservatives stick to in their zealously blind ideology that benefits them at the expense of very many.
In his new column, Dave gives voice to the chorus of conservative flip-floppers who, all of a sudden, feel that the concept of "choice" should be denied to Americans who wish to end a terminally ill, painfully short life. I see. If I understand the conservative argument correctly, you 'choose' not to have health care or access to pharamaceuticals, and, due to this lack of access, you'll 'choose' to die in a painfully drawned-out process! (Plus, you'll never be able to see a doctor, so what, really, is the point of the Death with Dignity law?) According to conservative flip-floppers, the concept of "choice" is something to give lip-service to every four years, and then precede to take stances denying choices to Americans in the interim....
Dave calles his column "Life-and-death questions for Gordon Smith" and, boy, he's not kidding. I counted 12 question marks in this column. Does that seem like too many questions to you? Does it seem as if Dave was struggling with this column? Like he had a point to make, but not sure what it was? And decided to fill up space by attempting to peer into the mind of Senator Smith? And seeing how many different ways the Senator's simple statement- "This law is now fully tested and constitutional. Case closed."- can possibly be examined? What possibly could the Senator mean by that statement? Was Dave going to offer any possible answers to the number of questions he raised? No? Why not? Does that seem a bit irresponsible? How about obnoxious? Maybe annoying? Perhaps? Do you? Dontcha wish your girlfriend was hot like me? Dontcha?
Dave calls Senator Smith "scattered and pragmatic," comparing him to former Oregon Senator Bob Packwood, rather than former Senator Mark Hatfield. Dave might make this comparison considering Hatfield's pro-life stance when it came to both abortion and the death penalty, but it should be noted that the maverick Republican Hatfield was both principled (and pragmatic) enough to break from the Republican Party establishment repeatedly throughout his Senatorial career. (Such as in regards to opposing the death penalty.) Assisted suicide was not an issue when these Senators represented Oregon in D.C., but I would hope that both, especially Hatfield, who referred to himself as a "liberal Republican", would take the principled stance that right-thinking terminally ill individuals can make the most important decisions in regards to their life, and how to live it- or end it. This principled stance is a stance that Dave seems unable to take.
At any rate, the scope of the case against the Death with Dignity Act as it was argued before the Supreme Court was very narrow. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft ruled that Oregon doctors violating the Controlled Substances Act by prescribing lethal dosages of drugs, and could therefore have their prescription-writing abilities taken away. The Controlled Substances Act was written to prevent doctors from abusing their prescription-writing abilities to become drug dealers. Any right-thinking individual would realize that doctors attending to the requests of a patient at their time of highest need- to take a lethal dosage of drugs to end pain and suffering- is not anything close a drug dealer. If anything, they are a dealer of mercy.
Considering this narrow, technical scope of the argument presented to the court, it is disenheartening to read Justice Scalia write "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose ' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death." The purpose of this case wasn't to hear Justice Scalia define "legitimate medical purpose," but to see if Oregon's Death with Dignity law violated the Controlled Substances Act. It appears that Justice Scalia's growling dissent of an opinion smacks of, oh I don't know, legislating from the bench. Could it be that Nino is a *gasp* judicial activist?
At least Dave didn't take the bizzaro approach in this column and follw the lead of James Bopp, the president of something called the National Legal Center for the Medically Disabled and Dependent- basically an arch-Christian conservative group hiding behind the real needs of people with disabilities and diseases to push an agenda. Mr. Bopp filed the amicus brief challenging Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, and upon the Supreme Court's ruling had this to say on the 'Newshour with Jim Lehrer': "The vast majority of states have such laws [preventing assisted suicide] because they recognize that it is really a form of discrimination to say, well, your life is not worth living and therefore we're not going to protect your life from assisted suicide because you have some condition or illness or disability."
Yeah, except for one thing- the reason why it's called "assisted suicide" is because its the choice made by the terminally ill individual. Not by the state of Oregon. And it most certainly will not be applied towards people with disabilities or 'conditions.' But here we are back at the subject of choices- it's really hard for people to make the right ones when there are people like Dave Reinhard and James Bopp spreading so much misinformation around....
I want to digress a moment on the subject of "choice." I recently had a conversation with an economic conservative and the issue of health care came up. Why is it not possible for basic health needs to be covered for all Americans, I asked. "There will never be government-controlled health care in the United States because Americans like choices," was the reply. That made me wonder about the millions of people living in poverty who lack any kind of insurance, specifically children. Are they choosing to live without insurance (or a job, or roof over the heads)? No, of course not. It's a false argument, one that conservatives stick to in their zealously blind ideology that benefits them at the expense of very many.
In his new column, Dave gives voice to the chorus of conservative flip-floppers who, all of a sudden, feel that the concept of "choice" should be denied to Americans who wish to end a terminally ill, painfully short life. I see. If I understand the conservative argument correctly, you 'choose' not to have health care or access to pharamaceuticals, and, due to this lack of access, you'll 'choose' to die in a painfully drawned-out process! (Plus, you'll never be able to see a doctor, so what, really, is the point of the Death with Dignity law?) According to conservative flip-floppers, the concept of "choice" is something to give lip-service to every four years, and then precede to take stances denying choices to Americans in the interim....
Dave calles his column "Life-and-death questions for Gordon Smith" and, boy, he's not kidding. I counted 12 question marks in this column. Does that seem like too many questions to you? Does it seem as if Dave was struggling with this column? Like he had a point to make, but not sure what it was? And decided to fill up space by attempting to peer into the mind of Senator Smith? And seeing how many different ways the Senator's simple statement- "This law is now fully tested and constitutional. Case closed."- can possibly be examined? What possibly could the Senator mean by that statement? Was Dave going to offer any possible answers to the number of questions he raised? No? Why not? Does that seem a bit irresponsible? How about obnoxious? Maybe annoying? Perhaps? Do you? Dontcha wish your girlfriend was hot like me? Dontcha?
Dave calls Senator Smith "scattered and pragmatic," comparing him to former Oregon Senator Bob Packwood, rather than former Senator Mark Hatfield. Dave might make this comparison considering Hatfield's pro-life stance when it came to both abortion and the death penalty, but it should be noted that the maverick Republican Hatfield was both principled (and pragmatic) enough to break from the Republican Party establishment repeatedly throughout his Senatorial career. (Such as in regards to opposing the death penalty.) Assisted suicide was not an issue when these Senators represented Oregon in D.C., but I would hope that both, especially Hatfield, who referred to himself as a "liberal Republican", would take the principled stance that right-thinking terminally ill individuals can make the most important decisions in regards to their life, and how to live it- or end it. This principled stance is a stance that Dave seems unable to take.
At any rate, the scope of the case against the Death with Dignity Act as it was argued before the Supreme Court was very narrow. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft ruled that Oregon doctors violating the Controlled Substances Act by prescribing lethal dosages of drugs, and could therefore have their prescription-writing abilities taken away. The Controlled Substances Act was written to prevent doctors from abusing their prescription-writing abilities to become drug dealers. Any right-thinking individual would realize that doctors attending to the requests of a patient at their time of highest need- to take a lethal dosage of drugs to end pain and suffering- is not anything close a drug dealer. If anything, they are a dealer of mercy.
Considering this narrow, technical scope of the argument presented to the court, it is disenheartening to read Justice Scalia write "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose ' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death." The purpose of this case wasn't to hear Justice Scalia define "legitimate medical purpose," but to see if Oregon's Death with Dignity law violated the Controlled Substances Act. It appears that Justice Scalia's growling dissent of an opinion smacks of, oh I don't know, legislating from the bench. Could it be that Nino is a *gasp* judicial activist?
At least Dave didn't take the bizzaro approach in this column and follw the lead of James Bopp, the president of something called the National Legal Center for the Medically Disabled and Dependent- basically an arch-Christian conservative group hiding behind the real needs of people with disabilities and diseases to push an agenda. Mr. Bopp filed the amicus brief challenging Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, and upon the Supreme Court's ruling had this to say on the 'Newshour with Jim Lehrer': "The vast majority of states have such laws [preventing assisted suicide] because they recognize that it is really a form of discrimination to say, well, your life is not worth living and therefore we're not going to protect your life from assisted suicide because you have some condition or illness or disability."
Yeah, except for one thing- the reason why it's called "assisted suicide" is because its the choice made by the terminally ill individual. Not by the state of Oregon. And it most certainly will not be applied towards people with disabilities or 'conditions.' But here we are back at the subject of choices- it's really hard for people to make the right ones when there are people like Dave Reinhard and James Bopp spreading so much misinformation around....
posted by true_slicky at 10:08 PM
1 Comments:
Great blog I hope we can work to build a better health care system as we are in a major crisis and health insurance is a major aspect to many.
Post a Comment
<< Home