N.M. Judge OKs Doctor-Assisted Suicides





Photo credit: jimmywayne (Creative Commons)

While the radical left pleads for looser restrictions on the barbaric practice, traditional Americans continue to mourn the millions of lives lost to abortion over the past four decades. The murderous procedure, many contend, is evidence of this nation’s disregard for human life.

That argument received additional fortification this week when a New Mexico judge ruled that doctors can now legally take part in a patient’s death, provided he or she expresses a desire to die.

According to the ruling by Second Judicial Judge Nan Nash, terminally ill individuals with a sound mind can now petition their respective doctors for medication that will facilitate their demise.

She based the ruling on an interpretation of the state’s constitution, which protects the citizen’s rights but does not specifically address the issue at hand.

“This court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying,” she wrote in her decision.

While her state already has a law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide, a felony, Nash ruled a doctor accelerating a patient’s death does not qualify.

The ruling was in response to action taken by a number of plaintiffs – both physicians and ill patients – who wanted to legally protect doctors who help kill their patients. While the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and other left-leaning organizations herald the decision as a progressive advancement, many who believe in the sanctity of life are incensed.

In a statement, New Mexico ACLU spokesperson Laura Schauer asserted that residents of the state “now enjoy the comfort and peace of mind that come with knowing they can prevent a prolonged, agonized dying process at the end of life.”

New Mexico is now the fifth state to allow such facilitation. Faith leaders, including members of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, expressed their disappointment in Nash’s ruling.

Executive Director Allen Sanchez explained that the “chance for human error” should preclude any doctor from making such a life-and-death decision. “If we are not willing to give that ability to a judge and jury by doing away with the death penalty in New Mexico,” he said, “we should not be willing to give one doctor and two witnesses that ability.”

Historically, as societies lurch to the left, a telltale peripheral effect is the cultural devaluation of life. This is seen in policies around the world today and, increasingly, within our own borders.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

Photo credit: jimmywayne (Creative Commons)





"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >

Comments

  1. Seeks_the_truth says:

    I disagree with this perspective. Doctor assisted suicide is NOT a disregard for human life. In fact, it's the opposite. A person has the RIGHT to decide how to leave this world with dignity and respect.
    To have laws outlawing suicide is clearly a nanny state. What right does the government, or anyone, have to tell a person they must suffer until the end.

    Yes, I am aware the Bible speaks against suicide. Yes, I know the Bible says it's an unpardonable sin. And?
    Again, what right does anyone have to tell another how they are to end their life?
    We give more respect to animals than we do to humans. We don't think twice of euthanizing a dog that is suffering and in pain, but yet we balk when a person living in constant pain, eaten up with cancer, asks to end their suffering.
    Unless you have lived with REAL chronic severe pain, you can never understand.

    Give them a respectful way to end the suffering. Give those who have no other way the chance to do what they feel right.
    I have yet to hear one good argument why this is wrong.

    We see today not only those wanting to take away pain medications from those in chronic pain but also their right to end the suffering.
    I ask, who died and left one person in charge of my life? My God, The God of Abraham, never died. He lives still.

    • Edwardkoziol says:

      Wow of all people one who knows the bible better then people who are suppose to know the bible inside out. My question is I understand the suffering part and want to end the pain but to ask someone else to kill you just doesn't sound right.Assissted suicide is asking another person to kill you,it should be set up for you to pull the trigger.

      • Seeks_the_truth says:

        That is the way it's set up. The problem is you need the doctor to prescribe the medication for you to commit suicide.
        As with Kavorkian. He set up an IV with a lethal dose of medications. You pushed the button to inject yourself.
        If a person is a quadriplegic and unable to commit suicide themselves, this is the only way it would be 'assisted'. Then, it is a choice each person should be allowed to make for themselves.
        If a person wants to help another ease their pain, that is their choice. Not another's to make.
        As in other situations, it's not truly assisted. That's the technical word for it.
        If the government, and people, had not made the laws that dictate what medications require another to authorize, it wouldn't need another to prescribe the medication.
        Isn't this the nanny state at it's base?
        It's not assisted to allow a person the right to have in their possession something they should never had been denied anyway.

  2. The squeezing in of the obamacare DEATH SQUADS.

Speak Your Mind

*