A judge in Riverside County, California, shot down the state’s assisted suicide law on Tuesday, shocking a state full of liberals that had congratulated themselves on their assumed higher level of “compassion” for sick people.
Because, you know, it’s more compassionate to kill patients then cure them, or something.
Even with the ruling, though, the Judge Daniel Ottolia has delayed his ruling to give the state’s extremist, left-wing Attorney, General Xavier Becerra, a chance to file an emergency appeal of the order.
Still, opponents of the 2015 law celebrated the judge’s rule.
“We’re very satisfied with the court’s decision today,” said Stephen G. Larson, lead counsel for a group of doctors who sued in 2016 to stop the law, according to the Sacramento Bee. “The act itself was rushed through the special session of the Legislature and it does not have any of the safeguards one would expect to see in a law like this.”
Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, the Stockton Democrat who originally pushed this cynical law, insisted that the state would “vigorously defend the law.”
“It’s a reminder for all of us that there are those out there who would like to take our rights away,” Eggman bellowed. “When we move forward, there are those who would like to drag us back.”
Rights? The right to kill a patient? I guess for an abortion-loving Democrat, killing people comes natural.
“Signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2015, the assisted death law allows doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients with six months or less to live. Hundreds of Californians have already taken advantage of that option, including 111 individuals who died from taking the drugs in the first seven months of their availability,” the Bee noted.
Democrats call the “right” of a doctor to kill his patient an act of “dignity.”
The original bill that Gov. Moonbeam signed failed to pass, though, until the state’s Democrats began playing political games.
But the legislative push originally fell short amid opposition from oncologists, Catholic hospitals, clergy and disability rights groups, who argued that the policy was immoral and could have a detrimental impact on health care for the state’s most vulnerable patients.
After failing in regular session, lawmakers successfully revived the assisted death proposal in a special session called that summer by Brown to find a source of funding for public health programs.
“That special session was called to address funding shortages caused by Medi-Cal,” Larson said. “It was not called to address the issue of assisted suicide.”
So, as is their wont, the Democrats played games to get their way by stealth. Like how Obama pushed through Obamacare — with no bipartisan support and in the dead of night so no one could watch — California Democrats played their games.
As I noted, opponents are celebrating the move:
Larson said his clients are most concerned about a lack of protections in the law, including an inadequate definition of terminal illness and a provision exempting doctors who prescribe the lethal drugs from liability. But he said they also challenged the manner in which the law was passed, an argument the judge sided with on Tuesday.
While nothing is set in stone in defeating this cynical law, at least there is some hope that it can be declared illicit.
So, why should we be against this idea of “death with dignity”? Well, first of all, do you want the same government that can’t do anything right having the power of life and death over your grandmother… or yourself? I know I don’t.
Indeed, assisted suicide laws are a recipe for elder abuse. When death is the goal, the patient is the last person taken into consideration. Instead of what is best for the patient, the laws end up working for insurance companies that want to stop paying for expensive health care, doctors who want to be rid of a patient, even people who might be looking to use the organs of those killed via the law.
One incident that alerted me to what a bad idea these laws are occurred back in 2009 when it was discovered that cancer patients in Oregon were were being offered government suicide options but not medical care.
Doctor C.L. Gray and his Physicians for Reform group told of the horror story of Oregon’s government run healthcare plan that offered a cancer patient named Barbara all the suicide assisted funding she wanted, but not one penny for the medical care that could save her life.
As Doctor Gray put it, Barbara was no longer thought of by government as a patient but instead had become a “negative economic unit.” Oregon’s government run healthcare system wanted Barbara dead because keeping her alive was simply to costly.
It’s bad enough that a handful of states have taken up these uncaring, cut-rate medical plans, but at least patients in Oregon of Massachusetts can go to another state to find the proper care. But once full government-run healthcare becomes a nationwide plague, there simply won’t be any other place to go.
If you want a government that feels that assisted suicide is better because it’s cheaper, then a vote for the Democrat’s plans of government-run healthcare is just the ticket. But if you want a system that cares about patients, then keeping government out of healthcare is more like what you’d want.
In the end, this is a huge philosophical discussion, as well. If it could all be so simple as a sick person deciding for themselves whether they wanted to carry on living, perhaps assisted suicide might work. But the problem is we lowly humans simply don’t have the all-seeing omnipotence to be sure that there is no hope for any given patient.
But, the bigger problem is that when government gets involved by necessity you then widen the number of people involved in such decisions. Instead of just a sick person making a life or death decision, you end up with multiple doctors, insurance salesmen, and — worse — politicians being given the power to makes these decisions.
Finally, we have to answer this most important question: do we want corrupt government officials to have the power of life and death of every last citizen at a time when they are most vulnerable?
Do you want some perfunctory government slug to have the power to decide if you live or die? Do you want the same sort of people who run the Department of Motor Vehicles handling your life and death decisions? Seriously, do you?
Furthermore, should we be setting our government toward policies that devalue life? How far do we want to go down that road? Just what sort of life is not worth saving? Just how much should we allow government to control who should live and die?
I’d argue that we don’t want government involved in these decisions. It can all lead to no good.