|
Contributor
John
Campbell
John
Campbell (R-Irvine) is a California State Senator representing
the 35th District
in Orange County. He represents the cities of Newport
Beach,
Laguna Beach, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Seal Beach
and Cypress. He can be reached through his Senate website
and through the website
for his California Senate campaign. [go to Campbell index]
 California's
Assisted Suicide Bill
More bad progressive legislation...
[John Campbell] 3/28/05
The news
last week and this week has been consumed with the Terry Schiavo
case taking place in Florida. The California legislature
will soon be grappling with a similar issue as the year continues.
Assemblyman Levine (D-Van Nuys) & Assemblywoman Berg (D-Eureka)
have introduced a bill (AB 654) which would allow physician-assisted
suicide in California for someone who is terminally ill and
is diagnosed to have less than 6 months to live. This law would
mirror a voter-approved initiative in 1997 which basically
placed doctors in the business of killing their patients.
I oppose this legislation. In my opinion, we should draw a very
stark line between "pulling the plug" on someone who
could not live without machines or drugs, and actively punishing
a hardened criminal through lethal injection. If a person's desire
is that they wish to not have their life sustained through artificial
means and if that desire is clearly articulated by them or by
clear proxy, so be it. But to actively kill someone whose life
is self-sustaining is another matter completely.
The only case in which society allows us to kill someone now
(other than in self defense or in times of war) is through the
death penalty. As one can see from the low number of executions
here in California, there are extensive and multiple judicial
reviews before a death penalty can be carried out. (In fact,
Scott Peterson may outlive us all.) I wonder, will executions
under an "assisted suicide" law undergo the same scrutiny?
Who's to say that the terminal diagnosis is correct? That a new
cure is not developed? That the mental state of the decision-maker
is sound? That the person's condition has not been trumped up
by a greedy heir or someone else who stands to benefit from the
death? Furthermore, is it wise to have a societal culture that
assists and hastens death?
Take a look at a conflicting proposal: Since its construction
in the 1937, about 1,300 people have committed suicide by jumping
off of the Golden Gate Bridge. There is now a proposal to raise
the toll on the bridge in order to raise $25 million to install
a fence along the entire length of the bridge to keep people
from jumping off. The irony is that while we are considering "assisting" suicide
with a bill, Democrats want to spend millions of dollars to prevent
it on a bridge. If we were to be intellectually consistent with
the culture of assisted suicide, they should instead be installing
diving boards along the Golden Gate Bridge to "assist" those
who have determined that they wish to end their lives. "Assisted
suicide" is functionally the same. And I don't think we
should support it.
...and
the Tax
of the week
Last week,
I mentioned the proposed toilet paper tax in Florida. Well,
California Democrats never want to
be out taxed by Democrats in other states. So, we have a number
of new tax proposals in the legislature this year. One of them
is a $7 proposed tax on bicycles (AB 1103 introduced by Assemblymember
Karnette, D-Long Beach). The justification for this new tax
is to provide recycling centers for bikes so that they don't
wind
up in landfills. Uh-huh. Lots and lots of constituents tell
me every day that one of the great problems of this state is
seeing
all of those bikes stacked up in trash cans and in landfills
everywhere. Not. The author says this is really not a "tax,” it
is a "fee.” If it walks like a duck, and quacks like
a duck..........well, you know the rest. CRO
§
|
