New Jersey has a ew law legalizing
doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. The law took effect August 1,
2019. The new law was challenged by a lawsuit brought by Dr. Yosef Glassman, an Orthodox
Jewish doctor. Glassman lost his first round, which sought a suspension of the
law until his legal challenge proceeded in the courts. The NJ Star-Ledger
defended the law and condemned Glassman's challenge.
For
once, I agree with the Star-Ledger. But what’s interesting is the Star-Ledger’s
reasoning, which was based primarily in principle. I love hoisting statists on
their own petard, and the Star-Ledger offered a particularly delicious
opportunity to do just that. In For the
dying, relief from the NJ courts,
the Star-Ledger wrote:
The new state law that allows horribly sick patients in New Jersey
to end their lives peacefully, under the care of a doctor, was drafted with
great respect for those who object on moral or religious grounds.
No doctor is forced to prescribe the lethal medication that’s
needed. No pharmacist is required to mix the deadly cocktail. The bill
affects only those who choose to walk this path.
It’s the opponents of this law who have repeatedly sought to
impose their views on the rest of us by using the full weight of the
government, including the threat of prison, to force terminally ill
patients to fight until the bitter end, with no exceptions, even for patients
in constant agony.
So, it comes as tremendous relief that the state court of appeals firmly
rejected the first legal
challenge to the law, which came from an Orthodox Jewish doctor in Bergen
County, Dr. Yosef Glassman. He cited the Torah in his complaint and managed to win a
lower court decision two weeks ago
that briefly blocked the law’s implementation while his challenge is heard.
The moral of this story comes from Assemblyman John Burzichelli,
D-Gloucester, the law’s sponsor: “I have my beliefs, you have your beliefs, but
don’t use the machinery of government to impose them on others,” he
says. [sic]
The emphasis. Is mine. I posted these comments:
The great principles
identified here should be applied to all laws. They are the theoretical basis
of American law, which is to secure and protect individual rights under the
law, equally for all. For example, let’s apply these principles to another
issue, paraphrasing from the editorial’s own words:
“The new state law that allows same sex couples
to marry was drafted with great respect for those who object on moral or
religious grounds.
“No private merchant is forced to provide gay
wedding services. No baker is forced to provide their wedding cake. No banquet
hall is required to host their reception. The bill affects only those who
choose to walk this path.
“It’s the proponents of this law who have
repeatedly sought to impose their views on the rest of us by using the full
weight of the government, including the threat of prison and fines, and force
bakers and banquet halls to fight until the bitter end for their right to
refuse, with no exceptions, even though they conscientiously object.
“The moral of this story comes from Assemblyman
John Burzichelli, D-Gloucester, the law’s sponsor: ‘I have my beliefs, you have
your beliefs, but don’t use the machinery of government to impose them on
others,’ he says.”
Amen.
A properly limited government
constitutionally forbids any person or faction from using the government's full
weight to force their values on unwilling others. A dying patient, pharmacist,
doctor, a gay couple, et al, are not violating anyone’s rights. Neither is any
private individual refusing to sanction gay marriage or right-to-die. Each
should be free to act on their own moral judgement.
Unfortunately, we’ve
forgotten these basic principles. Thanks to the S-L for reminding us of what
America actually stands for.
Needless to say the Star-Ledger fully supports
anti-descrimination laws targeting private relationships. And obviously, no law
mandating non-descrimination is (or logically can be) “drafted with great
respect for those who object on moral or religious grounds.'' By definition,
such laws necessarily allow some to impose their beliefs on others. So it was
very satisfying to apply their own principles to rebut one of their own sacred
positions. In fact, their principles can be devastatingly applied to their
entire precious regulatory welfare state.
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment