|
Jewish World Review / June 9,1998 / 15 Sivan, 5758
Cal Thomas
Oregon: the new killing fields
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? Residents along Virginia's
beaches are prohibited by the Endangered Species Act from
removing dead and rotting sea turtles without a government
permit. Meanwhile, Attorney General Janet Reno last week
announced that the Justice Department will not interfere with
Oregon's new doctor-assisted suicide law.
The Justice Department said Reno's decision should not be
taken as a signal that she and the president are dropping their
"long-standing opposition" to physician-assisted suicide.
Well, what kind of signal is it, then? If this were a civil rights
case involving racial minorities instead of an equal dying
opportunity case that potentially could touch every life in this
nation, you can bet the administration would find some
authority somewhere to do what it wanted done.
Those who believed 25 years ago that abortion would never
lead to threats to life this side of the womb were wrong. Once
a new right is granted by government, it is difficult to take it
away, whether it was formed in bad law or in bad medicine.
It starts with the "hard cases," the ones that appeal to
emotions over reason. In the case of abortion, it was
pre-teens impregnated by drunken stepfathers. At the other
end of life a seemingly rational elderly person who claims to
be in excruciating pain with an advanced malady is put
before the cameras as the poster adult for the euthanasia
movement. Trouble is, it never stops at the extremes.
Now some Oregonians are petitioning state government for
tax subsidies to help underwrite this newly created "right to
die" for those who can't "afford" to kill themselves or who
need special help doing it. Doesn't anyone in Washington --
or anywhere else -- see where this is leading? Won't anyone
shout "stop before it's too late?" Don't people study
philosophy anymore (the study of theology is too much to
expect in a nation that now regards what God says about
anything as unconstitutional)?
Writing in the June issue of Crisis magazine, Boston College
philosophy professor Peter Kreeft recalls a recent Time
magazine cover story devoted to the questions: Why is
everything getting better? Why is life so good today? Why
does everybody feel so satisfied about the quality of life?
"Time never questioned the assumption," notes Professor
Kreeft, "it just wondered why the music on the Titanic
sounded so nice."
The article, he notes, judged the health of America by its
economic indicators and ignored all other signposts that
might have pointed in a different direction. "Perhaps Time is
just Playboy with clothes on," he says. "For one kind of
playboy, the world is one big whorehouse. For another kind,
it's one great piggy bank. For both, things are getting better
and better."
But the cultural indicators clearly show things are getting
worse. Prosperity blinds us to the storm. And, as anyone who
is unprepared for a tornado will tell you, failing to anticipate
disaster enhances the likelihood of casualties.
The federal government's first obligation is to protect life. That
also used to be the first obligation of physicians. Because the
Supreme Court in 1973 removed a right to life for the unborn
it neither endowed nor had the authority to take away, we
are now faced with physician-assisted suicide in Oregon. And
then what? Why, obligatory killing, of course. Just as soon as
the authorities say it is in our best interest if we want to keep
those economic numbers high, another step or two will be
taken toward the abyss. Doctors, politicians, judges and
certain clergy will assure us that everything is just fine and that
it's time to take our overdose of barbiturates as a patriotic act
and a favor to the Dow Jones Industrial Averages in which we
now trust.
Death itself is undignified. But assisted suicide is demeaning
to life. It isn't death that needs assistance. It's life, which is now
under attack at both ends in the killing fields of
In a new twist on the meaningless claim, "I'm personally
opposed to abortion, but I don't want to impose my morals
on others,'' Reno said she and President Clinton still oppose
the Oregon law, but she said the Drug Enforcement
Administration does not have authority under the federal
Controlled Substances Act to take action against Oregon
doctors who prescribe lethal doses of drugs for the terminally
ill.
Janet Reno