Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > [Kevorkian trial]
> >> 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.
> This particular case was not that simple. The ALS patient in this
> case was physically capable of making the willful act necessary to
> end his own life (when appropriately attached to an apparatus for
> this that Dr. K uses frequently), but in this case he did not--the
> Dr. actually took that act. "Consent" is not so clear here. If
> he was capable of expressing a desire to die, and capable of doing
> the act, why didn't he? I certainly don't think suicide should be
> a crime, even when assisted, but if a patient /can/ perform the
> final act himself but /will/ not, then I think his verbal consent
> is of dubious value, and it is appropriate for a jury to look into
> questions such as whether the family pressured the doctor into
> performing the procedure, or whether the doctor's own agenda was
> better served than the patient.
It is a question of delegation. If we are to apply your logic to other areas of rights, then only people who have served in the military to defend the nation have a right to enjoy the rights protected by that government. I have a right to defend myself in court. The fact that I delegate the power to execute that defense to an attorney does not negate my right to a defense, but under your logic it would. The patient of Kevorkian has been documented as being of sound enough mind to delegate his wishes to another who was more capable of executing them than he.
If a person is frozen by fright on the edge of a cliff, does that mean that they don't wish to be rescued?