Document text
- Subscribe - Contact Us - Rate Card - Place an Ad Archives Revels Classifieds Real Estate Menu Guide Wedding Weather Subscribe Contact Us October 11, 2005 Off the menu: religion, politics and … death From the RIGHT side Mike Green Everyone knows you shouldn’t discuss religion and politics on a first date. I’d like to add one more topic to that short list. When you’re on a lunch date with your wife, mother-in-law and grandmother, steer clear of the subject of death. For the record, it’s not the most uplifting conversation in which one can engage. But such was the case last week when I had the great fortune to dine with three wonderful women, one of whom was determined to discover my opinion on the upcoming challenge to Oregon’s “ Death with Dignity ” law; an issue that many believe will be the first test for newly appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. I don’t recollect how the subject arose. I know I didn’t bring it up. And when it came my turn to speak, it seemed like such a simple question to dodge … “Mike, what do you think?” I thought I was in trouble. Time to go check on the food. Surely everyone was starving. Upon returning to the table, my grandmother gave me that direct look that let me know she wasn’t to be trifled with. She wanted an answer and no amount of squirming would deter her direction. I was doomed to discuss death … with my grandmother. And in the presence of her daughter, and her granddaughter to whom I am married. Just lovely. I have many fond memories as a young boy of times spent with my grandmother, who taught me so many things about life, faith and society. She was one of the great pillars of my life until she died. But the foundation she helped to build in me stands firm and strong today. My new grandmother is one such pillar as well. She is the nurturing matriarch of the family, extending her love and great wisdom to so many people. She and grandpa (a true family patriarch in his own right) have been the rock upon which numerous lives have depended over many decades … and if there is anyone who can discuss life and death, it is grandma. I knew I had no business addressing this issue with such an incredibly wise woman who had seen more than I could ever imagine, and has remained in such great health that she volunteers to this very day with Meals on Wheels, often serving clients younger than herself. If I had been smart I would have found a way to keep my mouth shut, rather than discuss the manner in which people ought to be able to die with a woman who is several decades my senior and had recently lost the last of her four brothers. But knowing the right thing to do isn’t any guarantee that the right thing will be done. Common sense told me to change the subject or assume the deer-caught-in-the-headlights look and pretend I had no opinion. Instead, I leapt into this highly controversial issue with all the confidence of a child explaining to an adult how things ought to be. It reminded me of conversations I would have with the grandmother of my youth, who taught me to question why and seek the truth, wherever it may lead. She used to listen patiently while I would try to explain what I was thinking. I have just as much love and respect for my new grandmother who also listens patiently while I fumble around with words; and if she desired my honest opinion, she should certainly have it. I began with a basic premise. Within the parameters of the law, I am not a supporter of most any intrusion of government into the personal lives of individuals. I do not believe that government ought to make decisions of when and how individuals should choose to take their own lives. While government may rightfully protect the public by imposing legal limitations on various acts individuals may attempt to commit, when a person decides with the support of their family to end their life in a manner that does not impose upon the public, there is no place for government in such a decision. Specifically, I am referring to chronically ill patients whose lives are fraught with pain on a daily basis for which there is no cure or relief. Still, it is not my belief that anyone should take his or her own life or the life of any other. But, if someone should choose to make such a decision, and additionally that person has the support of family members, how is it that my belief should legally prevent them from engaging in what they believe is an act of relief from a burden that I cannot fathom? Certainly the federal government, bound by the mandated restrictions of the constitution, has no jurisdiction over this arena of individual rights. Nevertheless, the federal government, in an effort to overturn Oregon’s “ Death with Dignity ” law, has challenged the notion of doctor-assisted suicide by challenging the authority to use certain controlled substances to achieve goals for which the law does not provide … such as assisting patients in ending their lives. The challenge by the feds, using the Controlled Substance Act as a platform from which to launch an argument, is based upon a fundamental ideal that seeks to utilize the power of the federal government to over ride the will of the people in the state of Oregon. Despite the fact that I agree with the ideal, I am opposed to the legal abuse of federal powers in an effort to forcibly impose that ideal upon an entire population. One of the problems this nation has with the introduction of every bill, and the subsequent signing of every law, is the presumption that someday that law will be used out of context in an effort to exert the will of a few in order to undermine and over ride the will of the majority. History is replete with instances of our government abusing laws in an effort to impose its will in areas unrelated to the legal status covered by the intent of the law. Ironically, in this instance of the “right to choose to die,” the right side of the political aisle is following the very same tactic used by the left in 1973 in a successful effort by liberals to force abortion upon a nation that had outright rejected it state by state. “ By 1910, every state had anti-abortion laws, except Kentucky whose courts judicially declared abortions to be illegal. In 1967, forty-nine states and the District of Columbia classified the crime of abortion as a felony. ” Just six years later, based on the decision of a small group of robed individuals, the abortion pendulum swung the other way, from protecting life to permissible death. While a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child seems to be an ideal worth fighting for by some liberal-minded people, that same woman does not have the right to force the government of all the people to be the provider of a baby-killing industry for her economic, social, or medical convenience. The same premise applies to those who seek to end their own lives. While individuals should certainly have the right to do with their lives as they see fit, they do not have the right to seek government approval of, or assistance with, their suicidal decision, and by proxy force those who disagree with them to support such activities. But the bottom line lies with the people, not the courts or the legislature. In this case of choosing death, the people are not seeking government approval of the choice to end a life they own, but rather seeking to prevent government from interfering. There are arguments that present cases where people have been coerced or persuaded to sign papers that have led to the termination of their lives. Certainly these arguments have merit and need to be taken into consideration. But, in the overall debate, there seems to be no rational reason why the federal government should waste its time trying to over rule the state of Oregon regarding an issue over which the federal government clearly has no jurisdiction or legal authority; as evidenced by the feds choosing a flimsy attack that would seemingly outlaw only the use of specific controlled substances while leaving the assisted suicide law intact. In the final analysis, if the people approve of a referendum that says anything, isn’t the government bound by law to honor the will of the people? Regardless of whether the people are right or wrong, in a democracy, even a representative republic, the will of the majority should survive the attacks of the minority, should it not? The flexibility of our government is such that it can be changed when our leaders have strayed too far from the will of the people. And the flexibility of our laws, even our constitution, is that those laws can be changed as well when the people have determined change is necessary and have taken appropriate steps inherent in the constitutional law that allows us to alter it or replace it altogether. But one of the restrictions upon federal powers is that they ought not impose upon the rights of the sovereign states, except where specifically detailed within the constitution. And while I am no fan of assisting people who wish to end their lives, I am a huge fan of this constitution, which I have seen breached far too many times over my lifetime by a zealous government (legislative, judicial and executive branches) eager to extend its powers beyond the scope of the law. In this case, the federal government should leave Oregonians to the business of Oregonians. At last check, it seemed the feds were flooded with problems in the Gulf Coast region and under constant fire for decisions that placed us indefinitely in the Middle East. With absolutely no moral compass to guide it, and no legal standing upon which to place even one leg, our secular government ought to find better ways to spend the peoples’ seemingly bottomless pit of cash than seeking methods to save those who want nothing more than to be allowed to die. The potential quicksand upon which I had boldly trod revealed itself to be solid ground as nods of approval were seen around the table. I breathed a sigh of relief to have avoided so many points of contention that may have turned lunch into a roundtable of debate. And deep within that sigh was a feeling of comfort knowing that I was standing on the same side of this issue as my grandparents and family. Mike Green is an award-winning columnist and author. From the RIGHT Side is a web-only column published by the Daily Tidings. To respond to this column send email to [email protected]. Only those responses containing the writer's name, city and phone number (for verification purposes only) will appear on our site. Letters to the Editor and Guest Forums should be e-mailed in text-only format to [email protected]. Please include your address and a daytime phone number where you can be reached for confirmation. Submissions cannot have run in any other publication. Letters are limited to 250 words, Guest Forums are limited to 600 words, and may be edited for length, content and clarity DailyTidings.com Home Page Archives | Revels | Classifieds | Real Estate Guide | Weather | Subscribe | Contact Us Copyright 2005 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers All Rights Reserved Deep Muscle Stimulator Free Music Downloads Slippers Ceramic Piggy Banks Online Casinos FREE Entertainment Guide Calenders 2006 Calendar Women's & Men's Slippers Accelerate Weightloss Products best online casino tcg student loan consolidation teleconferencing cortisol; weight loss Diamonds Vegas Travel Guide Search Engine Optimization Southern Oregon Loans Sportsbook Ztech Media Hosting Student Loans Hotel & Airline Reservations African Safari Myspace Layouts Helzberg Diamonds Online Casinos Community Student Loans Bonus Casino ink cartridges Mortgage Calculator Security Systems Mailing Lists Canadian Pharmacy Casino Gambling Sites Backpacks Click Here .:Advertisements:. Site Search: RESOURCES - Mail Tribune News - ODOT Road Cams