Discussion Been reading constitutional law to justify our right to die

[worldexploder]

Still working on my manifesto but want it to be taken as seriously as possible. I been reading about the constitutional justifications behind Row v. Wade. I want to sway the average pro choice individual. I want to make the best arguments possible so that I can fire on all cylinders.

I also understand that this manifesto is going to have to be somewhat more moderate than I'd like - such as conceding that the mentally ill must receive 6 months of therapy before being allowed to gain access to Nembutal by an American physician.

I believe in the right to die on demand but these are first steps. These views that we hold near and dear to our hearts is very unpopular unfortunately. We got to tread lightly at least for now.

This could take awhile. Should be finished by sometime in November. I want to write a general statement, a 10 point platform, then an ending paragraph.

 

[blurr21]

Do include recent cases of people with depression/mental illnesses who have been accepted into euthanasia clinics in switzerland netherlands as well as belgium (dunno if youre allowed to do that but just a suggestion)..

 

[worldexploder]

Do include recent cases of people with depression/mental illnesses who have been accepted into euthanasia clinics in switzerland netherlands as well as belgium (dunno if youre allowed to do that but just a suggestion)..

Thanks! Great suggestion. I'm allowed to do that as long as it made the news or on articles.

 

[Sayo]

Nice! You might also want to check out US assisted suicide cases, if you haven't already. Even the rejected ones, so you can see what grounds are raised legally, and the ground covered by previous advocates - also, it appears to be a state issue and very difficult constitutionally, so, in a place like America, in practice it will probably be easier to get it implemented state by state than get a constitutional reform. Wikipedia has a decent list which could give you a start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide_in_the_United_States

 

[worldexploder]

Nice! You might also want to check out US assisted suicide cases, if you haven't already. Even the rejected ones, so you can see what grounds are raised legally, and the ground covered by previous advocates - also, it appears to be a state issue and very difficult constitutionally, so, in a place like America, in practice it will probably be easier to get it implemented state by state than get a constitutional reform. Wikipedia has a decent list which could give you a start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide_in_the_United_States

Thank you so much for the link. Need all the resources I can get. I read up on a lot of cases but mostly involving terminally ill patients like Brittney Maynard. Both terminally, physically, and mentally ill individuals should be treated equally. Even those who are not deemed "mentally ill" should have the right to die.

You're right about the states issue. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can make the right to die legal in all 50 states.

I can't wait to get this done.

 

[Sayo]

Thank you so much for the link. Need all the resources I can get. I read up on a lot of cases but mostly involving terminally ill patients like Brittney Maynard. Both terminally, physically, and mentally ill individuals should be treated equally. Even those who are not deemed "mentally ill" should have the right to die.

I can't wait to get this done.

No worries! I agree with you wholly. Advocates have typically favoured a gentle reformist line, as legalising euthanasia for even the terminally ill (beyond physician-assisted suicide) has been an uphill struggle. I disagree with that approach tactically, out of belief, and in part because euthanasia for the 'vulnerable' has unique challenges (the fear of coercion, etc.), even if it appeals to people out of mercy. But it's useful to be able to see the objections people have raised in the past so that you can pre-emptively challenge them.

Maynard is an inspiration to me personally as a young person with brain cancer (not malignant like hers, but multiple brain tumours that will persist throughout my life).

edit: I was trying to edit this into my previous post, but my internet is a bit fuzzy. I have to say you are also quite inspirational - I am aware you will be working on your Dignitas application, and researching this is no mean feat.

 

[worldexploder]

No worries! I agree with you wholly. Advocates have typically favoured a gentle reformist line, as legalising euthanasia for even the terminally ill (beyond physician-assisted suicide) has been an uphill struggle. I disagree with that approach tactically, out of belief, and in part because euthanasia for the 'vulnerable' has unique challenges (the fear of coercion, etc.), even if it appeals to people out of mercy. But it's useful to be able to see the objections people have raised in the past so that you can pre-emptively challenge them.

Maynard is an inspiration to me personally as a young person with brain cancer (not malignant like hers, but multiple brain tumours that will persist throughout my life).

edit: I was trying to edit this into my previous post, but my internet is a bit fuzzy. I have to say you are also quite inspirational - I am aware you will be working on your Dignitas application, and researching this is no mean feat.

After Brittney Maynard ended her life, I thought her powerful story would create a ripple effect throughout all 50 states. I thought the right to die for all terminally ill Americans was on the horizon. Yet not a god damn thing changed! People forgot about her and moved on. What a shame! I don't see any rational objections for allowing someone in her situation to terminate her own existance.

I agree with you that it's very wise to study past debates and court decisions in order to get a good frame of reference so we can move forward. I know that supporting the right to die for people like us is an up hill battle but we gotta stand for our principles. I also want to cover the points you made such as the fear of coercion. A lot of people are also afraid of the "slippery slope". Any legislation that the government passes can have a slippery slope effect if poorly written.

 

[Aity4883]

[DELETED COMMENT]
#FuckTheGovernment

 

[Battered_Seoul]

Another interesting angle could be how the notional existence of a right-to-die improves the quality of life for depressed subjects who wouldn't necessarily feel the need to exploit it immediately, but would gain comfort and relief from the fact that it existed and could legally and reliably be accessed at a time of their choosing.

I vaguely recall a documentary about a European woman who had been granted euthanasia on account of intolerable mental suffering, yet who ultimately elected not to take up the choice to die on the appointed date and decided to continue to live.

Importantly, the fact that she had a legally sanctioned exit increased her confidence and willingness to confront life and seemed to tangibly reduce her suffering.

Now, I wouldn't want this to be construed as "pro-life", but it is an angle of argument that could potentially appeal as I think many could instinctively accept the notion that life would be radically less miserable if it wasn't mandatory.

 

[worldexploder]

Another interesting angle could be how the notional existence of a right-to-die improves the quality of life for depressed subjects who wouldn't necessarily feel the need to exploit it immediately, but would gain comfort and relief from the fact that it existed and could legally and reliably be accessed at a time of their choosing.

I vaguely recall a documentary about a European woman who had been granted euthanasia on account of intolerable mental suffering, yet who ultimately elected not to take up the choice to die on the appointed date and decided to continue to live.

Importantly, the fact that she had a legally sanctioned exit increased her confidence and willingness to confront life and seemed to tangibly reduce her suffering.

Now, I wouldn't want this to be construed as "pro-life", but it is an angle of argument that could potentially appeal as I think many could instinctively accept the notion that life would be radically less miserable if it wasn't mandatory.

Brilliant! Thank you. This could also be seen as a suicide prevention thing even if the ultimate option is choice.

 

[jake]

Thank you so much for the link. Need all the resources I can get. I read up on a lot of cases but mostly involving terminally ill patients like Brittney Maynard. Both terminally, physically, and mentally ill individuals should be treated equally. Even those who are not deemed "mentally ill" should have the right to die.

You're right about the states issue. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can make the right to die legal in all 50 states.

I can't wait to get this done.

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot necessarily make a federal "right to die," especially considering its current make-up and membership. This will almost certainly be a matter of states' rights, and thus, will vary from state to state (as was true for abortion before Roe v. Wade, and will be true again as soon as someone finds the right case to take to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe).

 

[worldexploder]

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot necessarily make a federal "right to die," especially considering its current make-up and membership. This will almost certainly be a matter of states' rights, and thus, will vary from state to state (as was true for abortion before Roe v. Wade, and will be true again as soon as someone finds the right case to take to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe).

With Neil Gorsuch we ain't gonna get anywhere with the right to die. The fucker wrote an entire book against it yet was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. I am trying to find something in the constition that could justify the universal right to die. They did it with civil rights and they did it with same sex marriage. Why not the right to die?

I read were states do have the right to restrict abortions in the third trimester which I think is bullshit. Seems like states rights always has backwardness to offer. I believe that the universal right to die is a must in a free society wether it's in constition or not. We could amend the constition but good luck with getting 23 states to agree to this.

 

[jake]

With Neil Gorsuch we ain't gonna get anywhere with the right to die. The fucker wrote an entire book against it yet was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. I am trying to find something in the constition that could justify the universal right to die. They did it with civil rights and they did it with same sex marriage. Why not the right to die?

I read were states do have the right to restrict abortions in the third trimester which I think is bullshit. Seems like states rights always has backwardness to offer. I believe that the universal right to die is a must in a free society wether it's in constition or not. We could amend the constition but good luck with getting 23 states to agree to this.

my point was not that this supreme court -- particularly gorsuch, kavanaugh, roberts, thomas, and alito -- would create some federal right to die by reading between the lines of the constitution (such as was done by a better class of justices in years past to support abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, general rights to privacy, etc. -- civil rights was a wholly different matter, rooted largely in the commerce clause and the right of the federal government to legislate interstate commerce). to the contrary, this court is very unlikely to do that. as with abortion when it gets presented again, this version of the supreme court will find that there is no such right inherent in the constitution and will decide that it is up to the states to legislate and enforce these rights. in effect, the court will simply make these issues matters for the states and will decline to find any federally protected rights. i was merely responding to your earlier statement that "[o]nly the U.S. Supreme Court can make the right to die legal in all 50 states." in fact, the supreme court cannot itself make any law; it can, though, decide that existing laws -- both state and federal -- are constitent with the u.s. constitution or, alternatively, are unconstitutional. thus, the only way that the question you are posing would ever be presented to the u.s. supreme court is if there was a state or federal law that either specifically made suicide legal or illegal, and that law was subsequently challenged through the federal or state court systems, all the way to the supreme court. without researching the laws of all 50 states, though, i am not sure right now whether there is a statute on the books that would lend itself well to the sort of test case that would need to be made to get this in front of the supreme court. and as i started out with here, there is almost certainly no benefit to presenting such a case to the court as presently configured because the majority of these justices will not look to the federal constitution for support for any implicit rights. they will strictly construe the constitution and punt this matter back to the states.

 

[worldexploder]

my point was not that this supreme court -- particularly gorsuch, kavanaugh, roberts, thomas, and alito -- would create some federal right to die by reading between the lines of the constitution (such as was done by a better class of justices in years past to support abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, general rights to privacy, etc. -- civil rights was a wholly different matter, rooted largely in the commerce clause and the right of the federal government to legislate interstate commerce). to the contrary, this court is very unlikely to do that. as with abortion when it gets presented again, this version of the supreme court will find that there is no such right inherent in the constitution and will decide that it is up to the states to legislate and enforce these rights. in effect, the court will simply make these issues matters for the states and will decline to find any federally protected rights. i was merely responding to your earlier statement that "[o]nly the U.S. Supreme Court can make the right to die legal in all 50 states." in fact, the supreme court cannot itself make any law; it can, though, decide that existing laws -- both state and federal -- are constitent with the u.s. constitution or, alternatively, are unconstitutional. thus, the only way that the question you are posing would ever be presented to the u.s. supreme court is if there was a state or federal law that either specifically made suicide legal or illegal, and that law was subsequently challenged through the federal or state court systems, all the way to the supreme court. without researching the laws of all 50 states, though, i am not sure right now whether there is a statute on the books that would lend itself well to the sort of test case that would need to be made to get this in front of the supreme court. and as i started out with here, there is almost certainly no benefit to presenting such a case to the court as presently configured because the majority of these justices will not look to the federal constitution for support for any implicit rights. they will strictly construe the constitution and punt this matter back to the states.

You are absolutely right. Constitutional law can be a son of a bitch. Wether or not we can find something within the constitution that can interpreted into the guarenteed right to die, I still believe it should be in there. Sorry if I didn't say everything right. I'm incredibly drunk and not even half way finished with my beer yet.

Sometimes I wish that the more logical part of America can just be cut off from the south. Than again I'm a southerner. I live in the desolate hills of Appalachia. I have an accent so thick it would probably scare off my great grandparents, You would never know by hearing my voice how progressive I really am. If it wasn't for the "southern way", we could amend the constitution. Afterall, it is a living a breathing document. I do however have hope that Gen Z will be more progressive. Then again, I thought the hippy baby boom generation was progresssive. Once Nixon did away with the draft, many of them became Reaganites.