I just hope that state’s legislators read this decision carefully because, as the paragraph I quoted above demonstrates, maintaining the law against assisted suicide serves and protects the general welfare and is in the public interest.
With all of the wokeness and technocratic impositions the medical establishment is eager to impose on health care these days, why would anyone go to medical school or become a hospital administrator?
This much is clear: Hospice either gets fixed, or society will be pushed into the arms of the euthanasia movement, with all of its attendant evils (as currently unfolding in Canada). Because people are not going to put up with their loved ones dying in agony.
A court has struck down a measure to expand euthanasia laws in the Netherlands. Activists wanted to make it legal for non-medical professionals to perform assisted suicide procedures.
If we don’t change our current cultural trajectory we will end up in the same dark corner as Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium. And the real danger to our cultural wellbeing is that the people who now complacently assume that such warnings are alarmist will be the ones applauding the loudest when that dark time comes.
How we treat our dead reflects our views on what we think about the living. In this sense, human composting — and even more so, another growing practice of liquifying bodies and pouring the remains into the sewer — reflects a disturbing mindset that denies ultimate meaning to human life and views us, essentially, as just another animal in the forest.
Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith joined Laura Ingraham to discuss the culture of death that now pervades the Left and the wages of its anti-humanist philosophy.
I have been puzzled about the urgency to pass the Respect for Marriage Act before the end of the current Congress. Despite Justice Thomas’s dictum in his Dobbs concurrence that Obergefell (which created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage) should be overturned, I cannot discern a reason to force such a case onto the Court’s docket. If some traditional-marriage activists tried to do so, they would almost surely fail, but even if four Justices eventually voted to hear such a case, it would be years before the matter would be ripe for ultimate adjudication. So, why the rush? In part, I think it is to enable immediate federal regulation of marriage law. Bureaucrats can’t promulgate rules based on a Supreme Court ruling: They need an enabling statute. …
Can you sense it? Do you feel the dread? Institutions are failing. Cohesion has frayed. As the poet wrote, the center cannot hold, the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity. Our country is becoming the United States of Social Anarchy.
The Biden administration, many state governments, and the medical establishment are all pushing “gender-affirming care” as the only humane means of treating children who believe they are not the sex they were born. This so-called care includes radical interventions such as puberty blocking, mastectomies, facial surgeries, and even genital removal for teenagers.
I don’t know how much more of this our culture can take. “Gender-affirming” surgeries are growing increasingly extreme. A source sent me links to websites operated by doctors who perform “bottom surgeries” advertising “genital nullification” — a.k.a. “nullectomy” — procedures that remove genitalia in order to create a “smooth” appearance in the groin.
It is important to keep an eye on mainstream bioethics journals, because seemingly ludicrous ideas that begin in the ivory tower often become public policy.
Until President Biden protects the right to act in the public square here at home consistently with one’s religious beliefs, his administration’s support for International Religious Freedom Day has to be judged so much hot air.
I have been warning that the “nature rights” issue is moving very quickly now from the fringe to mainstream environmentalism. Now, a major essay in a prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journal argues that oceans are a “living entity” entitled to rights.
I believe this moral panic will end when trial lawyers catch the scent of money and malpractice cases flood the courts — as has started in the U.K. That time cannot arrive soon enough.
Some lines should never be crossed. Allowing doctors to kill patients during organ harvesting wouldn’t only be an acute threat to the sanctity of life, but I can think of no better way to sow mistrust in our health care system generally—and the lifesaving field of organ transplant medicine specifically.
The nature-rights movement continues to move from the fringe into decidedly establishment circles, with virtually no push back and a foolish, “It will never happen here,” shrugging of the collective shoulders. Now, the U.K.’s Law Society — the organization that represents solicitors, roughly equivalent to the ABA — has issued a report calling for the establishment of nature and non-human rights.
The purposes of medicine are expanding rapidly beyond treating actual illnesses/injuries and promoting wellness, to also facilitating life fulfillment and making personal dreams come true.
A new and highly problematic means of obtaining organs is pushing the boundaries of the “dead donor rule,” which requires a vital organ donor to be truly dead before organs are retrieved. It also requires that no patient be killed for their organs.