This is the consequence of legislators writing laws based on headlines. Reacting to Jack Kevorkian’s assisted suicide of the 1990s, the Georgia Legislature passed a law — not banning assisted suicide — but, in essence, banning advertising assisted-suicide services. The statute now declared unconstitutional stated in part (my emphasis):
Any person who publicly advertises, offers, or holds himself or herself out as offering that he or she will intentionally and actively assist another person in the commission of suicide and commits any overt act to further that purpose is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.
The Georgia court noted that the state could have just declared assisted suicide against the criminal law, as most other states have done. Had it done so, I have no doubt the law would have been upheld as constitutional — like laws outlawing the practice have been in Florida, Alaska, California, and unanimously in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Georgia’s legislature had better remedy this fast or Georgia could become known as the Assisted Suicide State — all comers welcome — because as of now, anyone would seem to be able to assist any suicide, in any manner, for any reason in Georgia, and for compensation. That’s the consequence of incompetence in legislating.
"Georgia’s legislature had better remedy this fast or Georgia could become known as the Assisted Suicide State..."
Why should this be of any concern to us? If a Georgian readily wishes to end his life and requests the services of another consenting adult to assist him in the act who am I to oppose?
A lot of people claim to oppose the so-called "Nanny State" but when it comes to a person's choice to exercise his free-will by ending his life it's amazing how quickly those who fear the Nanny State want to give it power to control such fundamental decisions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen, Scooter. The Georgia General Assembly did not make a mistake. They opelnly said they wanted to illegalize Kevorkian-type conduct, but did not want to illegalize assistance in suicide. They were freedom-oriented. Now that their silly law against "acting like Dr. Kevorkian in Georgia" has been voided, they are not going to enact a law making assistance in suicide a crime. They know such a law would interfere with peoples' private lives far more than it would help protect the vulnerable. The only people who would support Smith's position are those who believe it is the role of government to impose one body of religious views on everybody.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse