Church ends taboo on mercy killings· Archbishop's aide signals new approach
· 'Compassionate case' for voluntary euthanasia
Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Sunday January 16, 2005
Observer
The
Church of England took a radical step towards backing 'mercy killing'
of terminally ill patients last night after one of its leading
authorities said that there was a 'strong compassionate case' for
voluntary euthanasia.
Canon
Professor Robin Gill, a chief adviser to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop
of Canterbury, said people should not be prosecuted for helping dying
relatives who are in pain end their lives. Last week Gill was sent by
Williams to give evidence to a parliamentary committee investigating
euthanasia.
Gill's
stance marks a major shift by the Church of England and was welcomed by
groups campaigning for a change in the law to allow for people to be
helped to die under strictly limited circumstances.
'There
is a very strong compassionate case for voluntary euthanasia,' Gill
told The Observer . 'In certain cases, such as that which involved
Diane Pretty [the woman who was terminally ill with motor neurone
disease and who campaigned for the right to be helped to die], there is
an overwhelming case for it.'
His
claims were last night seized on by pro-euthanasia groups as evidence
that the archbishop is prepared to engage in a debate on an issue that
has long divided the clergy.
They
described Williams's decision to send Gill to give evidence to the
committee hearing Lord Joffe's private member's bill on assisted dying
for the terminally ill as 'highly significant' and suggested that it
represented a softening of the Church's attitude to mercy killings.
'The
archbishop's choice of Gill represents a willingness to enter into a
more constructive dialogue than before about this important issue. We
hope it will encourage other members of the clergy to speak out openly
in support,' said Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the Voluntary
Euthanasia Society.
Gill's
comments come after Brian Blackburn, a retired policeman who killed his
terminally ill wife in a suicide pact, walked free from the Old Bailey
last Friday with a nine-month suspended sentence.
[To continue reading this piece, click here.]
Michael P.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
This item (thanks Maria) may be of interest to our readers.
*MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH*
Consumer Reports
advocates abortion
Trusted magazine analyzes condoms, refers readers to Planned Parenthood
to eliminate 'uterine contents'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 10, 2005
11:11 p.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Consumer Reports, the respected magazine that has advised Americans on
everything from new car purchases to which electric can opener to buy,
has published a list of birth-control options that includes abortion,
complete with a section describing how the procedure gets rid of a
pregnant mother's "uterine contents."
The main report, which is available in the February issue and online,
...analyzes various brands of condoms for strength and reliability.
Along with the condom report, Consumer Reports provides both a
comparative guide to other contraceptive methods and a page entitled
"Birth control: More and safer choices," ...which includes discussion of abortion.
... "There were no details of the risks of abortion like breast cancer or
mental anguish, no pro-life alternatives like adoption, nothing," reader
Marc Smulowitz commented to WND. "Just a soulless 'consumer report' as
if they were recommending the acquisition of the latest blender."
...
To see the full article, click here.
Here is a press release from the ACLU, praising a recent decision by Virginia's Supreme Court striking down that state's ban on fornication. The Richmond newspaper reports that, in that court's view, there is "no relevant distinction" between the Virginia statute outlawing fornication and the Texas sodomy law the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2003. Justice Elizabeth Lacy reasoned that the State's interest in "protection of public health and encouraging the birth of children to married couples" were, given Lawrence v. Texas, "insufficient to sustain the statute's constitutionality." Under the rationale adopted in the Texas case, "decisions by married or unmarried persons regarding their intimate physical relationship are elements of their personal relationship that are entitled to due process protection," Lacy said. (Here is the Washington Post story on the case).
Certainly, this decision cannot come as any surprise. And, it strikes me that there are plenty of prudential reasons for a conscientious legislator to vote against laws purporting to regulate fornication (or any other private sexual conduct). (Indeed, I would think that thoughtful legislators would almost certainly oppose such bans). Still, it does seem unfortunate that the constitutionalization of the matter in "liberty" terms, as in Lawrence, is producing constitutional doctrine under which courts are required to denigrate the public interest in, for example, "the encouragement of childbirth to married couples."
Rick
Friday, January 14, 2005
[From PBS's Religion & Ethics Newsweekly]
Just War and Just Peace
January 14, 2005 Episode no. 820
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week820/exclusive.html
Christian Ethicists Advocate Just Peacemaking as Corollary to Just War
by Alexandra Alter
Almost two years have passed since the start of the Iraq war, but war,
peace, and nation-building still dominated the debate among Christian
ethicists at their annual meeting this January.
In a significant shift, many scholars endorsed taking a proactive approach to peacemaking rather than merely shunning war.
At their 2003 meeting, two months prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq,
most ethicists criticized the impending conflict either by arguing that
a preemptive invasion did not meet standards of Christian "just war"
theory or by advocating pacifism. At their 46th annual gathering last
weekend in Miami, some members of the Society of Christian Ethics
proposed what they say is a powerful third alternative: the application
of "just peacemaking theory" as a method of defusing current conflicts
and preventing future wars.
[To continue reading this piece, click here.]
Michael P.
Here is a link to a debate / discussion, featuring Justices Breyer and Scalia, held recently at the Washington College of Law at American University. I thought this would be of interest to many MOJ-ers. My own view, for what it's worth, is that Justice Breyer makes some good points about the need for American lawyers and legal scholars to read, understand, and reflect upon the decisions of "foreign" courts, but Justice Scalia is correct to insist that -- except in the context of a few specialized areas -- American judges ought not to permit these decisions to inform their own rulings concerning the content of our own Constitution. Any thoughts?
Rick
UPDATE: Professor Kenneth Anderson (who teachers at American University and who has a blog of his own, focusing on just-war theory) has posted his own thoughts, and gathered links to the thoughts of others, about the debate.
Cumberland law prof David Smolin responds to my query on the right to privacy with some helpful resources:
First, there is an "originalist" theory of constitutional
privacy as an unenumerated right which has not been articulated by the
Court; this theory would be based specifically on the views of the
framers of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding slavery, the family, and
related questions. I outline some of this in the following article:
Fourteenth Amendment Unenumerated Rights Jurisprudence: An Essay in
Response to Stenberg v. Carhart, 24 Harvard Journal of Law & Public
Policy 815 (Summer 2001). More broadly, I think it is possible to
clearly separate the positive and negative strands of the doctrine: I
did this in another article: The Jurisprudence of Privacy in a
Splintered Supreme Court, 75 Marquette Law Review 975 (1992).
