Home
Oregon and the Culture of Death
Loose Canon can't comment on the legal aspects of the Oregon doctor-assisted suicide law that was just upheld by the Supreme Court. But morally it is a horror of an opinion. The coverage on the networks was upbeat with one cancer patient saying it gave her "a sense of security." What I can say personally is that when my oldest friend battled cancer she fought for every last moment, and I thank her and love her for giving the extra time to me. Saying that life must end on our terms is the ultimate contradiction of God. Fiat Voluntas Tua. Thy will be done. We want it to be according to our wills. If you don't believe in God, of course, it's a whole different ballgame. Whose will is there beyond your own?
As I said, I don't know enough about the law to dissect the ruling. But Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas have law degrees, and they all dissented from the majority, with Scalia and Thomas writing minority opinions. "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," Scalia wrote.
Speaking of Scalia's dissent, Catholic blogger Diogenes wrote: "The contrary view has its own history of advocacy." Diogenes quoted from Hannah Arendt's 1963 book "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil". The quote comes from Arendt's reporting on Eichmann's trial. Robert Servatius was Eichmann's defense lawyer. Here is what Diogenese quoted:
"The moment, one of the few great ones in the whole trial, occurred during the short oral plaidoyer of the defense, after which the court withdrew for four months to write its judgment. Servatius declared the accused innocent of charges bearing on his responsibility for "the collection of skeletons, sterilizations, killings by gas, and similar medical matters," whereupon Judge Halevi interrupted him: "Dr. Servatius, I assume you made a slip of the tongue when you said that killing by gas was a medical matter." To which Servatius replied: "It was indeed a medical matter, since it was prepared by physicians; it was a matter of killing, and killing too is a medical matter."
As I said, I don't know enough about the law to dissect the ruling. But Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas have law degrees, and they all dissented from the majority, with Scalia and Thomas writing minority opinions. "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," Scalia wrote.
Speaking of Scalia's dissent, Catholic blogger Diogenes wrote: "The contrary view has its own history of advocacy." Diogenes quoted from Hannah Arendt's 1963 book "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil". The quote comes from Arendt's reporting on Eichmann's trial. Robert Servatius was Eichmann's defense lawyer. Here is what Diogenese quoted:
"The moment, one of the few great ones in the whole trial, occurred during the short oral plaidoyer of the defense, after which the court withdrew for four months to write its judgment. Servatius declared the accused innocent of charges bearing on his responsibility for "the collection of skeletons, sterilizations, killings by gas, and similar medical matters," whereupon Judge Halevi interrupted him: "Dr. Servatius, I assume you made a slip of the tongue when you said that killing by gas was a medical matter." To which Servatius replied: "It was indeed a medical matter, since it was prepared by physicians; it was a matter of killing, and killing too is a medical matter."
<< Loose Canon Home