Mercy killing reveals sad state of assisted suicide
As reported in today’s Oregonian, John Roberts has been charged with the murder of his wife. However, Roberts and those close to him and his wife claim it was a mercy killing. Roberts’ wife was suffering from debilitating ALS and chose to die quickly rather than wait for an official assisted suicide. From the Oregonian article:
[Friends and family] say Virginia [Roberts] had her reasons for not using Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, the only law in the nation that allows terminally ill patients to end their lives. Virginia did not want to deteriorate until doctors determined she was within six months of death, as required by the physician-assisted suicide law, they said. Nor did she want to take her own life because of her Catholic beliefs.
Like Sophocles’ Antigone, the story illuminates a sad disparity between state law and natural law. Unfortunately, I doubt the State of Oregon will realize its error any time soon. The assisted suicide laws will not be revised, and Roberts will no doubt face jail time on murder charges (manslaughter if he’s lucky). Until then, we will probably continue to hear these sorts of stories – people who take the law into their own hands after it fails them on a gross level.
I’m sorry but I just don’t see how not having limitations on assisted suicide leads to cases like this. I see little reason for suicide by bureaucratic red tape when a walk down wrist road with your good buddy Mr. Razor does the job just as well. It’s not like there are hordes of terminally ill people roaming the streets looking for a way out.
In fact the law seems to have worked for quite a few people according to the article and so far its only failing is that degenerate husbands are trying to use it to get away with murder. Which is way this is a terrible case to use as an example for reform. It’s actually a great example for why it should not be reformed.
So in conclusion: no ur stoopid.
Drew/Not Drew:
Obviously, the new details in this instance change my view of this particular case, but what I was saying is not that this man killing his wife was OK, it was that these kinds of things can and will happen when doctor-assisted suicide is unavailable for bullshit reasons. I never said that I advocate euthanasia or killing people. If someone has a terminal, incurable disease (I know that woman didn’t, but try to follow me) then they should be able to end their life, lest they leave it to a loved one who makes his/herself a criminal through a loving act. I had thought it was clear through my post that I thought the man was a criminal, but only due to the illogic of another law. I think I’m justified in saying the your claim of it being “the worst case in all of history to use as a platform for reform” is not only ill-informed, but quite frankly stupid.
CJ: So what’s your excuse right now?
If all drugs were over the counter, I would walk around in a never-ending opiate haze, and nothing would be an issue.
If all drugs were over the counter this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Sorry, I should have specified that that was directed at Josh M.
I agree that the law is poorly written in regards to the 6 month death window, but this has got to be the worst case in all of history to use as a platform for reform even before the new information came to light. I had my suspicions and I’m glad they were realized (in a sick sort of way.)
It must be so hard for you to be a libertarian.
Well, new evidence has come to light that makes this thread moot (see my latest post), but whatever. You can consider my following argument to be based on a hypothetical situation.
Hey, “Not Drew”. You completely missed my point. I wasn’t advocating for “a counsel of elders to decide what crimes were committed in malice vs love.” (Ignoring that juries do, in fact, take intent into consideration. See also: hate crimes, degrees of murder/manslaughter, etc.)
My point was that, if his wife had been able to procure a doctor-assisted suicide, the situation wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
[…] The Oregonian ran a follow-up today on the strange case of John Roberts, who claims to have killed his wife out of mercy, saying she was suffering from AlS and did not want to wait for a doctor-assisted suicide. I wrote about the story here. […]
It’s pretty hard to be libertarian when you’re essentially advocating a counsel of elders to decide what crimes were committed in malice vs love. I’m also wary to say that “don’t kill people” is a bullshit law in need of review.
However, I think religion was the problem with this case. If you don’t have the cajones to kill yourself because you believe god thinks it’s bad then you should also understand the corollary that god wants you to live until he says otherwise.
Josh M = on the money.
That was the exact opposite of reality, but okay.
The truth is, when you criminalize things that aren’t real crimes, you still create real criminals. To me, that’s part of my personal libertarian mantra. Because the law failed this man, who clearly loved his wife – enough that he would end her life despite the pain, regret and grief that it will give him for the rest of his life – he had to take the law into his own hands.
Bullshit laws hurt people, not help. Just look at drug laws.
There is no conclusive medical test for ALS – only a post mortem autopsy of the brain will confirm this disease. Shooting his wife in the head, who by reports was not yet suffering, is suspicious and inexcusable. Mistakes can and are made