|
|
Friday, July 30, 2004
|
|
skippy RESPONDS TO HIS COMMENTERS
In my post of yesterday, the lovely Sadie posited about how Supreme Court's rulings in privacy matters might affect stem-cell research and the right to die movement.
Sadie specifically cited the case of Nancy Cruzan, with which I was, admittedly unfamiliar. So, I did me some research. The case, given the cursory reading I gave it, is shockingly similar to that of Terri Schivo in Florida. I wrote about that case on October 20 of last year, which you can read here.
Curzan, as with the Schiavo case, are clear cut examples of the right to die, which is, as I see it, Constitutionally protected in the same way that abortion and sexual relations are. All of these issues are not in an way, supported or funded by state or local governments and therefore, outside of their jurisdiction. Only if, and neither case seems to indicate this, Medicare money is involved in their treatment, there does not seem to be a compelling state interest in the issue.
In my opinion, Sadie made something of a stretch in including stem-cell research. I'm on uneven ground here. Sadie is an attorney. I am not. To be perfectly honest, I didn't even graduate from high school.
Having said that, I see a fundamental difference between the right to die cases and the argument over stem-cell research. I'm a great supporter of both. I cannot argue with the right of anyone to terminate their own life at the time of their choosing, grevious injury or not. And given that the right of next of kin is virtually unchallenged in cases of incapacity (notably excepting the right to die), I feel that this is a matter of individual choice.
However, I differ from Sadie's inclusion of stem-cell reasearch in her comment. The arguement for the reasearch isn't whether it should be done at all, but whether or not it should be funded by the government. This is more complicated. Once you introduce government money, as a general rule, you introduce government controls. This is generally accepted in highway construction, but not stem-cell research.
As I've already noted, I'm a huge supporter of stem-cell research. I believe that any number of diseases can can cured through it. But I cannot overlook that the legality of that research is not at issue. As I understand it, the president's exucutive order did not ban the research, merely the federal funding of it. While this may be a distinction without a difference, there is indeed a distinction. As much as I may disagree with the president's policy, I do recognize that this is one of the issues that American voters may consider in Novemeber. If you should disagree with your government's position on an issue, you are free to change that government.
As i see it, there is a distinct difference between the right to die and stem-cell reasearch. It is not currently the case that federal officers are smothering vegatables with a pillow. But they are asked to fund research that they believe to be wrong. Should you disagree with the policy, you are free to change it.
But there are HUGE differences between the Curzon and Schivo cases and stem cell research.
But ultimately, what do I know? I'm a borderline idiot.
|
|
|
| |
