Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Not today Grim Reaper!
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…
Not only is medical murder not a fundamental human right, it’s outright banned in
West Virginia now!
“West Virginians narrowly approved a constitutional amendment to explicitly prohibit physician-assisted deaths, according to a MetroNews analysis of statewide numbers.
“At the time of the call, votes in favor of the amendment numbered 318,386. Votes against the amendment numbered 312,886. That was a 5,500 vote difference.
“Amendment One, which presents a heavy question about life and death, was on the back of ballots — beneath national, state and local political races.
“The explanation provided on ballots was that ‘The purpose of this amendment is to protect West Virginians against medically-assisted suicide.’”
Death by doctor is not a fundamental human right according to… the Europeans.
“Back in 1997, the euthanasia movement tried to gain an assisted-suicide Roe v. Wade. It didn’t work out. The Supreme Court instead ruled in Glucksberg v. Washington 9–0 that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, which, in a delicious irony, became the primary precedent applied in Dobbs to overturn Roe.
“At the same time, the high court also ruled that refusing life-sustaining treatment is not the same thing as suicide in Vacco v. Quill. In other words, ‘pulling the plug’ is allowing nature to take its course and not self-killing.
“Now, some 27 years later, the European Court of Human Rights has issued a similar ruling. In a case brought by an ALS patient who wants to die, the court decided instead that countries can outlaw assisted suicide (PAD, physician-assisted death) without violating the human rights of the terminally ill and, moreover, that self-killing is not the same thing as refusing or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment (RWI). From Karsai v. Hungary:
“ ‘The Court further notes that it has found it justified for Hungary to maintain an absolute ban on assisted suicide, on account, among other aspects, of the risks of abuse involved in the provision of PAD, which may extend beyond those involved in RWI…the potential broader social implications of PAD; the policy choices involved in its provision…; and the considerable margin of appreciation afforded to the States in this respect.
“ ‘Similar cogent reasons exist under Article 14 for justifying the allegedly different treatment of those terminally ill patients who are dependent on life-sustaining treatment and those patients who are not, and who in consequence cannot hasten their death by refusing such treatment. The Court would note in this connection that, in contrast to the situation with regard to PAD, the majority of the member States allow RWI… Furthermore, as mentioned above, the right to refuse or withdraw consent to interventions in the health field is recognised also in the Oviedo Convention, which, in contrast, does not safeguard any interests with regard to PAD.
“ ‘The Court therefore considers that the alleged difference in treatment of the aforementioned two groups of terminally ill patients is objectively and reasonably justified.’
“This is excellent news. But the court did not rule — as Glucksberg did not about states — that countries cannot legalize assisted suicide or euthanasia.”
Texas was surprisingly pro-death of patients, but reforms arose due to lawsuits.
“Texas’s infamous ‘futile care’ law (contained within TADA, the Texas Advanced Directives Act) looks to soon become less authoritarian. Under current law, a patient in the ICU can be cut off from wanted treatment based on the doctor’s perception of his or her quality of life. If the MD thinks the wanted treatment is “inappropriate,” a behind-closed-doors ethics-committee hearing can be called, and if the committee decrees that the treatment will be withdrawn, the patient and/or family has only ten days to find another facility willing to provide the care. There is no appeal process and no written record of who said what and the bases for the decision.
“…
“[T]he law faced a stiff constitutional challenge by the mother of Tinslee Lewis, who was told by doctors years ago that her daughter had only weeks to live and that continued life support was inappropriate. An ethics committee said that treatment should be withdrawn. And, the hospital refused a tracheotomy that was required for Tinslee to be transferred. Heads we win, tails Tinslee loses. The courts stopped the treatment withdrawal, and eventually the case settled. Tinslee was given the care she needed to leave the hospital and continues living in another venue.
“Now, pro- and anti-TADA political forces have agreed to reform the law (H.B. 3162) and make it less authoritarian. For example, the ten-day rule will become a 25-day rule. Further, as described in the Texas Right to Life Press Release:
- “HB 3162 would improve current law is to require the hospital to perform any procedures that are needed in order to facilitate a transfer before the countdown begins. For example, under the current 10-Day Rule, if a patient needs a tracheotomy to be transferred, the hospital can deny that procedure while still counting down the days that patient has left to live, effectively blocking a transfer from happening.”
- “The process cannot be imposed on patients who are competent and capable of communication.”
- “HB 3162 would require that the ethics committee must consider the patient’s well-being, and cannot make judgements based on the perceived “quality of life” of the patient. This includes a prohibition on discrimination against a patient for any unrelated disability they may have.”
- “HB 3162 requires hospitals to report non-identifying information whenever they use this process. Texas Right to Life maintains internal data on the patients and families we assist, but there is no state reporting required, so there is no way of knowing how often this law is used against fragile patients across Texas.”
TTFN.
