Republican Ayatollahs
In Oregon, a 59-year-old terminal bone cancer patient is struggling with the most painful decision of his life. At the most, he has six agonizing months to live. He’s trying to decide whether to keep fighting hopelessly against the disease, or whether to take advantage of Oregon’s Death With Dignity law.
Under this law, a terminally ill patient of sound mind, with the permission of two doctors, can request —in writing — a lethal dose of medication. There’s a minimum 15-day waiting period following the request. This law was passed overwhelmingly in 1997 by Oregon’s voters.
But George W. Bush has apparently forgotten his party’s own slogans about states’ rights and limited government. He wants the federal government to overturn Oregon’s Death With Dignity law.
Bush has tried several times to have this law overturned. He’s issued an order for the federal prosecution of any doctor who issues a prescription under Oregon’s Death With Dignity law. He’s been overruled every time, but like a cat that keeps jumping up on the table no matter how many times you throw him off, he’s taken this all the way to the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected this Fall.
This patient is a retired Viet Nam veteran, merchant seaman and tugboat operator. He doesn’t want to subject himself — or his wife and daughter — to his loss of autonomy, self-control and dignity. He clearly doesn’t want to be the latest exhibit in the Terri Schiavo of the Month Club.
Most people can understand and empathize with his painful situation. Unfortunately the Ayatollahs who have taken over our country think they should have the final word. Don’t these assholes have enough to do?
For people who get off on the idea of the Almighty Church/Government reaching into everyone’s lives, there are several theocracies to choose from. We don’t want one here. If you want a Grand Inquisitor making every personal decision for you, please purchase a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan. Buh-bye.
posted by Tom Harper @ 11:34 PM
17 Comments:
Bulldog Manifesto: Thanks. I don't think there's much difference between the Muslim Taliban and the Christian Right. Substitute "God" for "Allah" and they're both practically interchangeable.
Dear Tom:
I agree with what you are speaking on, which is an adult's ability to take their own life with dignity, before allowing it to fall to terminal disease.
I think Oregon did a good thing, when it passed that law and I think that in light of course, that the Feds have now made it illegal for these persons to even smoke marijuana to ease their pain--that we have taken away their methods of pain coping as well.
Not only does the Fed think that you should suffer and die from your disease, they evidently think that you should do so in the most painful way possible. Well, that or die in the most drugged up morphine addicted way.
For a person who is terminally ill, none of the alternatives look very good, you know?
I watched as a person I knew, suffered with lung cancer. She told me that one day, if she got bad, she was going to send me home and take all the morphine in the bottle and end it. Its not the way that it worked out in the end.. but it was the first time that I heard someone so clearly say.. "I will not live this way for my family to remember me in that manner."
Blog on!
First off, cool name Bulldog.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had no idea that this even existed.
The Bush Administration is just unbelievable. I always thought that they, along with conservatives, were for state's rights, the Constitution, less government intrusion and personal responsibility. I guess that goes out the window when they see a political opportunity arise where they can stick their nose in it, and degrade their opponents who actually stand for something.
How come I know this is going to become widespread since the whole Rove saga is growing.
Christian Fundamentalists are equal or worse than Islamic Fundamentalists.
You are absolutely correct on this one. The Feds have zero business involving themselves in the affairs of the terminally ill, unless they are comitting crimes involving force or fraud, and even those should be dealt with locally.
Important issue, Tom. Thanks for bringing the specific case to our attention. Individual rights are going to be clashing with an invasive government more and more in the future, and we need to be loud on this point.
Nariel: That seems to be the case. They want you to suffer to the max when you’re terminally ill, and stay alive right up to the last possible second. I guess it’s supposed to build character, or make someone a better Christian, or something.
Sorry about your friend with lung cancer. This happens a lot under Oregon’s law. Terminal patients are allowed to have the lethal drugs in their possession (I think it’s an overdose of barbiturates), and more often than not, they don’t even use them. But they want to know that if things get too unbearable, they can end their life painlessly.
Samantha: I’m afraid states’ rights and limited government are all down the drain now. That was so 1990s. Now it seems government, the church and Big Business have all fused into this giant monolith; you can barely tell where one leaves off and the other begins. They still use all their slogans about individualism and limited government, and just hope the public won’t notice the disconnect.
Trevor: You’re right, the federal government shouldn’t be involved in this at all. If there’s a need for the government it should be state or local authorities.
Brother Kenya: Yup, we’re definitely gonna have to be on guard to defend individual rights against a powerdrunk government. This particular case, Oregon’s Death With Dignity law, has gotten lots of media attention, but too many of these government power grabs are totally under the radar with no mention at all by the “media.”
Republicans, small government, states rights? What year is this?
Toad734: Small government, states' rights, hmmm, a distant memory...it's starting to come back to me now...
As an Oregonian who voted in favor of the Death With Dignity thingie twice, I think it's a fair option for people to have. Those who think they know the absolute truth about everything are the ones who are trying to cut this act down. Those who don't believe anybody's quality of life will be improved by keeping that person alive in misery are the ones who voted in favor of it.
Tom and Toad, it's startin' to look alot like 1679.
One of the problems I have with christianity in general, especially the U.S. variety, is it's "followers" inability to mind their own damned business, which of course stems from a deep-seated desire to rule over all. This bunch in particular, when it comes to assisted suicide, seem to think that dying people should suffer in dignity, and die with grace - well, death ain't like that. It's shit and piss and blood and agony, when they're dying of a terminal disease.
I wonder how those turkeys could possibly be so sheltered as to live in the dream world that they obviously do.
I read the other day on the American Library Association's website (www.ala.org) that "Final Exit" is #36 on the list of most-frequently-banned or challenged books.
Snave: Oregon’s voters should be the ones deciding this, not the federal government. Some people just can’t find anything else to do except meddle in everybody else’s personal business. Forcing somebody to prolong his/her final weeks or months is absolutely perverted.
Bee: Ahh, 1679. Back by popular demand. I don’t know what makes these people so nosy and sanctimonious. It seems like the people who are the most sheltered and pampered are the ones who know exactly what everybody else should do. I doubt if any of these assholes ever knew anyone who was terminally ill or watched somebody die in a hospital. It would snap them out of their stupor in a hurry.
Rambler Joe Snitty: Yup, that figures. I guess it’s supposed to be God’s will and not something mere mortals should be tampering with. Or something like that.
Well said!
Thanks Mags.
OK Democrat: You’re right, it’s definitely intolerable. I always wonder if these people would apply this same morality to themselves if they were in the same position. No marijuana to ease the nausea from chemotherapy; no choice of ending their own life painlessly if they were terminally ill. Somehow I doubt it.
Such an important issue. It is very adult and takes a tremendous amount of courage to make the decision to die with medical assistance. I would centainly make that decision if I could spare my family my suffering. Someone else's personal savior will not interfer with whatever decision I may or may not make concerning MY life and MY death.
We have had several very up close and personal deaths in our family. Death is very intimate so I suggest once again that Repugs, conservatives, and fundamentalists stay out of other people's BEDROOMS. If they choose to be martyrs them let them die in the manner of their choice. Bravo to the people of Oregon for standing up these theocratic tyrants!
Kitchen Window Woman: I agree, it’s a very painful decision to have to make. It certainly isn’t the business of the church or the government. Religious fanatics are famous for applying their strict morals to other people and not to themselves. I could easily picture these same people using medical marijuana or asking for an overdose of barbiturates if they themselves were in this situation.
<< Home