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

[Glenn Schwaller]

I prefer to look at death with dignity not as suicide, but as a means
to end prolonged physical agony from disease, entered into as a
private, personal choice.  I think by and large most people opting for
this end to suffering have discussed this at length with friends and
families (as is generally the case for living wills) and all would be
in agreement.  Yes there will always be cases where a spouse or child
or sibling would disagree with someones choice of death with dignity,
but such is true for abortion as well and it seems to be dealt with.

This is in marked contrast to "suicide" which is probably NOT
discussed with family, clergy, nor physicians.  This is an abrupt,
unexpected (for friends and family), and selfish end to life without
giving other options such as counseling, for example, a chance.
Personally, I would take this stand on abortion as well.  So in answer
to your questions:

1/Is it solely a person's decision whether or not to give birth (if pregnant)?

I am not particularly interested in getting into any battle over this,
but simply to answer your questions.  If one is to accept Roe v. Wade
then the answer is yes.  Since I, personally, object to Roe v. Wade,
my answer is no, for the same reason death by suicide is an
unacceptable decision:  many more than just the individual (including
the fetus) are affected by this decision, and they should have a voice
(or consideration) in the final decision.  Ultimately though, it does
become an individual choice, but it should not be made in the absence
of others' advice or counsel.

2/Is it solely a person's decision when and how to die (if living)?

This question is a bit disingenuous (since I was not asking about a
right to end my life at any time I saw fit), but to answer that
question directly, I would say no, again for the same reasons cited
for suicide.  My actual question dealt with "death with dignity" and
is concerned with decision of when and how to die when faced with
unpleasant death as a result of disease or illness.  These are two
very different questions, and here my answer would be yes.

As you say "were I terminally ill and faced with nothing but a short
life of pain, I'd like to have a choice".  I think this is indeed a
personal choice based upon the careful consideration of others who
will be impacted by this decision.

GS


On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Campbell, Joseph <josephc at wsu.edu> wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
>
>
> I agree with you about the difference between the issue of abortion and death with dignity. I don't think that there is a right to suicide and I don't think that one could justify suicide by appeal to the right to privacy. Here are two questions that might help us to see the difference:
>
>
>
> 1/Is it solely a person's decision whether or not to give birth (if pregnant)?
>
> 2/Is it solely a person's decision when and how to die (if living)?
>
>
>
> I think the answer to (1) is "In general, yes; the pregnant woman has the sole decision" but the answer to (2) is "No." (If I understand your initial post to me on this subject, you would strike the "In general" in the first answer!)
>
>
>
> Note, too, that on the issue of abortion I agree, more or less, with Roe v. Wade: Once the fetus reaches viability, it is no longer just the mother who can decide (that is why I say "In general …" in answer to (1)). Once the fetus reaches the point of viability the state has some say in what happens, as I see it. Anyone who commits suicide, though, is well beyond viability! So there is no inconsistency here. We are social beings, our lives are interconnected with others, and with those connections come obligations that complicate the matter.
>
>
>
> Here is another way to put the point. If a single mother wants to have an abortion within the first trimester does she owe anyone an explanation? I think not. (Again, you might extend this to the end of pregnancy.) If she wanted to kill herself does she owe anyone an explanation? I think she does. Suicide is not a private decision. "No man (or woman) is an island."
>
>
>
> Lastly, in general, I agree with what you say in the second paragraph below, too. There might be other ways to establish death with dignity, other than via the right to privacy. Certainly were I terminally ill and faced with nothing but a short life of pain, I'd like to have a choice. My Catholic upbringing would likely dictate what I would choose but, in general, it would be nice if people had the choice. But setting this up in a safe way that prevents abuse is difficult and I have nothing enlightening to add to the debate.
>
>
>
> In general, I'm a legal minimalist: the fewer laws the better. Laws should only be established in cases of clear harms to clear persons. Otherwise we should be allowed to do as we please.
>
>
>
> Best, Joe
>
>
>
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Scott Dredge
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:51 PM
> To: vpschwaller at gmail.com; viz
> 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 worst 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 Click here