As predicted

Once Washington state passed that assisted suicide measure in November’s elections, people on both sides of the life issues were predicting the ‘right-to-die’ movement would spread rapidly throughout other states. It has already started.

As you may know, Montana went for the deception last Friday, and the judge had the audacity to cite human dignity as the cause she was upholding, in her opinion.

“The Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally [ill] patient to die with dignity,” wrote Judge Dorothy McCarter in the opinion for Montana’s First Judicial District Court, issued late Friday. 

The conclusion goes on to specify that this includes the patient’s option to “obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medication that the patient may take on his own if and when he decides to terminate his life.”

Note the former Hemlock Society’s role in these cases, and how they’ve changed their name to market their intentions. “Compassion and Choices”. And the public is buying their ideas more now.

Wesley J. Smith carries their own argument through to logical conclusions.

“Why limit the right to people diagnosed with a terminal illness?” asked Smith.  “If I want to die because John McCain lost the election and I can’t stand the idea of an Obama Presidency, that’s my business and nobody has a right to interfere.”  Smith also contended that the ruling opens the door to active euthanasia, as it concedes that a person has a right to be assisted in dying.

“What is really happening is a coup d’ culture,” Smith lamented, referring to a trend of what he calls the “mystery of life” jurisprudence, which allows individuals’ worldviews to override public policy considerations. 

“It is a toppling of the current social order that is based in Judeo/Christian moral philosophy – in part through court rulings based on autonomy – with the eventual legal implementation of a dramatically different value system founded in utilitarianism [and] hedonism,” he said.  “Once that process is complete, judicial rulings will inform us that ‘choice’ has definite limits.”

Like choosing to receive medical treatment when it is rationed, and choosing to live when someone wants you terminated.