[Vision2020] Rights, Guns, Abortion, Speech, and Death

Tue Nov 11 11:44:03 PST 2008

Scott
You make some good point. The quality of life is important. One who is in constant pain should be able to put and end to it. Any laws on this should be carefully worded so that one doctor could not make the decision. It should be the patients desire and require several medical people to agree with it. 
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Scott Dredge scooterd408 at hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:50:39 -0800
To: vpschwaller at gmail.com,  viz vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Rights, Guns, Abortion, Speech, and Death

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is address to Dr. Campbell, but I'll chime in anyway with my 2 cents.  I don't believe that 'right to privacy' is the proper way to go after the 'death with dignity' issue.  In certain cases privacy would be a conflict of interest as the case where 2 brothers plot to kill their parents under the guise of 'death with dignity' so they can inherit the family jewelry store to solve their current financial crisises before immediately getting into new ones.  BTW, have you all seen the movie 'Before the Devil Knows You're Dead' starring Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei, and Albert Finney about 2 brothers who come up with an ill-conceived idea to rob their parent's jewelry store?  I don't recommend it since it gave me nightmares for this first time since I watched 'Open Water' the nightmarish movie Carl Westberg recommended.
> 
> 'Death with Dignity' should just be argued for and against on some other grounds.  Pick something else other than 'right to privacy'...maybe avoiding excruciating pain in the last 6 months of a terminal condition.  Although I think there are already loopholes in the law that allow this.  One of my girlfriend's ex-boyfriend had some rare spinal cancer about 15 years ago and when his 6'4" frame became emaciated to the point where he looked like a 60 pound Auschwitz victim, his doctors gave him a very high dose of morphine targeted to suppress his pain and one of the side effects was that this dosage was that it killed him within 48 hours (this was according to one of our other friends so I can't vouch for the accuracy / legality of this approach).  Personally, I think it would have been more humane to administer this treatment (if guaranteed effective) a little earlier before wasting away to skin and bones, constantly throwing up bile, being forced to endure months of the wo!
 rst case
of dry mouth anyone can ever imagine, etc.  Maybe there are hard-to-imagine worse cases than this that could be used in favor of shaping 'death with dignity' laws.  And once again, you need to somehow maneuver through the crowd of Bible thumpers although every single one of them who fought to prevent Terri Schiavo's feeding tube from being removed, all said 'she's in a far better place' after she died / was murdered. 
> 
> -Scott
> 
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:10:37 -0800
> From: vpschwaller at gmail.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Rights, Guns, Abortion, Speech, and Death
> 
> Dr. Campbell - so taking this one more step, should and would these "rights" be extended to those who choose death with dignity?  Does not the right to privacy similarly ground the "right" to choose the timing of one's death as well?
> 
> 
> Thank you for your reply
> 
> GS
> 
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Campbell, Joseph <josephc at wsu.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> I've been reading your posts lately about the possible
> threat to the 2nd amendment given the recent Obama election and, although I
> find your thoughts and arguments interesting, I am in firm disagreement with
> your view. So I'd like to say what I think about the issues. I've
> made these points before but I don't think I've made them all to
> you.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> First, you mention a lack of consistency between liberal
> views on abortion rights and liberal views on gun rights. Some of the confusion
> may be settled if, instead of talking about abortion "rights," we
> talked about the right to privacy, the right upon which the "right"
> to abortion is founded. Granted the right to privacy is not an explicit right,
> not explicitly noted in the bill of rights, for instance. But the argument is
> that several of those rights would make no sense were there not a prior right
> to privacy. We could talk about whether this argument is good or bad at a later
> point but for now let's just assume that there is a right to privacy that
> grounds the "right" to abortion.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> No one thinks that we have an absolute right to privacy, one
> that should not be infringed under any circumstance. In a court of law, for
> instance, a lawyer might ask a defendant questions about his private life that
> might be deemed inappropriate under normal circumstances. Yet the defendant
> cannot, or cannot always, refuse to answer on the basis of his right to
> privacy. A search warrant allows police to investigate the drawers containing
> your undergarments. Similar examples abound.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Consider next the right to free speech. That right is not
> absolute either. I do not have the right to slander you, to libel you, to tell
> lies about you, or even (I would say) to insult you. I have a right to speak
> freely and in so doing I might insult you but that does not mean that I have a
> right to insult you. I looked up 'human rights' in an on-line
> dictionary and got: "The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans
> are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of
> thought and expression, and equality before the law." I am entitled to
> speak freely but I'm not entitled to insult you. Still, in an effort to
> ensure the former we might have to put up with the instances of the latter.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> I would say the same about the "right" to abortion,
> which I would not call a right at all. I have a right to privacy and what that
> ensures is that the government cannot tell me when I should and when I should
> not have a child. That is my decision. Provisions should be made that allow me
> to make that decision on my own, without government intrusion. That gives me
> limited access to abortion. The "right" to abortion is founded on
> the right to privacy, and since no one thinks that the right to privacy is
> unrestricted, no one should be in favor of unrestricted abortion
> "rights," though as in the case of free speech the initial right
> may be important enough to allow for behaviors that others would deem
> offensive. Such is the price of freedom.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> It is no mystery when rights should be restricted, for no
> one has the right to deprive another of his right. My right to free speech
> cannot restrict your right to privacy, so restrictions against, say, my
> broadcasting your home address and phone number are appropriate. In general,
> when my acts are likely to lead to harm to other persons, the law may
> intervene. My rights go only so far. What counts as a harm? What counts as a
> person? These questions complicate the matter but clear answers in each case
> abound, and in those clear cases laws may be made restricting certain behaviors,
> behaviors that would otherwise be protected.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Thus, your view on gun rights seems to be far more extreme
> than what I take to be the liberal view on abortion and speech and rights in
> general. In the latter cases, we recognize restrictions all the time. In fact,
> there are many restrictions to speech and abortion that are already imbedded in
> the law. Few liberals want to do away with laws against slander or laws against
> third trimester abortion since in those cases the harms are clear. (In the latter
> case, I am not talking about the harm to the fetus, I'm talking about the
> harm to society in general, which might override the woman's right to
> what goes on in her own body once the fetus has passed the point of viability.
> That is how I understand Roe v. Wade.)
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Someone above – I can't remember if it was you
> or Dan or someone else – talked about the right to bear arms extending to
> hunters and gun collectors, as if we had rights to hunt or rights to collect as
> many and as diverse a collection of toys as we individually deemed fit; that
> the second amendment protected the collection of any gun by any person for
> whatever reason. That is like saying that because I have a right to privacy
> I'd have a right to your house were that the place that I felt most
> private. The second amendment says nothing about hunting or collecting. Nothing
> at all, for there are no such rights: not in the bill of rights, not in heaven,
> not on earth. These are privileges at most, not rights.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Nor is our right to bear arms unrestricted, as you seem to
> suggest. If it were, why not allow citizens to obtain nuclear arms? The reason
> is that the chance for abuse and harm is great. The implication is that in such
> cases, the restriction of arms is justified. To think that nuclear arms offer
> the only such case is absurd. Ergo, there is no unrestricted right to bear
> arms. That is a myth.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> I understand that Americans have a fascination with guns,
> just as they have a fascination with privacy and with speech, and given those
> fascinations a tolerance for pushing the bounds of those rights should be
> respected by all parties: conservatives should appreciate the attempt from
> liberals to push the boundaries of our rights to privacy and free speech, and
> liberals should appreciate the attempt from conservatives to push the
> boundaries of our rights to guns and free speech. (It seems that free speech is
> a right of which we all agree, though how that right should be manifested is
> something about which we don't always agree.) Toward that end, I'll
> try to be more respectful of your attempts to keep your toys. But not to the
> extent of affording easy access to nutcases like the Moscow and Virginia Tech
> murderers. Clearly there is a problem with current gun laws but one that we
> should be able to solve without infringing on your right to protect yourself,
> or even your "right" to have a little fun!
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> Joe Campbell
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> 
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> 
>                http://www.fsr.net
> 
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> 
> =======================================================
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/
>