| | |
|
EthanSingerFirstEssay 7 - 19 May 2021 - Main.EthanSinger
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | Extending the Enablement | |
<
< | Whether the court in Glucksberg is right about whether there is a fundamental right to die is not the point. The aftermath of Glucksberg and Cruzan shows that fundamental right to die or not, people can still have an interest in dying and will always be enabled in dying. Even where assisted-death is illegal, John and the many others who have enabled their deaths show that hastening death is always possible and legal. What matters then is not whether there is a right to die, but how people should be enabled in dying. | >
> | Whether the court in Glucksberg is right about whether there is a fundamental right to die is not the point. The aftermath of Glucksberg and Cruzan shows that fundamental right to die or not, people can still have an interest in dying and will always be enabled in dying. Even where assisted-death is illegal, John and the many others who have expedited their deaths show that hastening death is always possible and legal. What matters then is not whether there is a right to die, but how people should be enabled in dying. | | | | |
<
< | While Glucksberg points out that some people may have an interest in dying one day and not the next, it is often the terminally ill, and the sickest of the terminally ill, that are the least enabled in choosing how they will die. And as Justice Stevens points out in his concurrence, many of the states that have laws banning physician assisted-death have “authorized the death penalty, and thereby concluded that the sanctity of human life does not require that it always be preserved.” In a society where states acknowledge that life should not always be preserved, and in a society where life will not always be preserved regardless of laws, exceptions to preserving life are clearly made. It is time to revisit how the exceptions are made. Those whose days before an impending death are all but certain to be unpleasant should have their options for hastening their death expanded to include more humane options, right to die or not. | >
> | While Glucksberg points out that some people may have an interest in dying one day and not the next, it is often the terminally ill, and the sickest of the terminally ill, that are the least enabled in choosing how they will die. And as Justice Stevens points out in his concurrence, many of the states that have laws banning physician assisted-death have “authorized the death penalty, and thereby concluded that the sanctity of human life does not require that it always be preserved.” In a society where states acknowledge that life should not always be preserved, and in a society where the end of life can legally be hastened, exceptions to preserving life are clearly made. It is time to revisit how the exceptions are made. Those whose days before an impending death are all but certain to be unpleasant should have their options for hastening their death expanded to include more humane options, right to die or not. | | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |