> On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 08:53:03 -0500, you asked that I clarify my
> I'm fully aware that health care choices don't amount to the same as
> euthanasia in the eyes of the court. However, defenses and arguments
> may have been raised during these proceedings which might prove useful
> in a legal strategy defending euthanasia.
> I'm also fully aware that Dr. Kevorkian is finding himself up the
> creek without a paddle on this very same issue.
I'm surprised there is not more outcry against this. What this court decision means is YOU don't own your life, the government does. It can decide when you die, whether in an execution chamber or on the battlefield, but you cannot. This is purely a decision which openly says we are all enslaved to the government.
> >2. What does your second sentence mean? Were you suggesting that there may
> >be some American states which are receptive to euthanasia? Please clarify.
> I don't think every single state has actually ruled against euthanasia
> yet. Therefore, there's the possibility that one of those states might
> not rule against euthanasia on a test case. The problem is that the
> federal government might come up with legislation that'd override
> state laws and force state courts to revert or issue adverse rulings
> in following cases.
> In my view, the idea of a vessel or haven where a person may resort to
> a merciful abridgement of bodily waste and suffering (euthanasia), and
> also acquire some measure of hope for defeating and perhaps even
> reversing the ravages of disease in the future (cryogenics), is a
> notion worth following. Despite the enormous amount of research and
> effort this endeavor might demand, I still think it's worth pursuing.
Yes it is. Hoping to base such operations on land somewhere with a freindly or bribable government is, IMHO too risky, as most penny ante countries will bend over at the first cough from one or more of the big boys.