What's Wrong with Erwin Chemerinsky?
Erwin Chemerinsky is a rebel when discussing assisted suicide, obviously, the question remains, who demands on the assisted suicide? His father? Really? Unfortunately, his story remains one-sided.
Erwin Chemerinsky’s thoughts about Washington v. Glucksberg have been published at Michigan Law Review, and he chose to name his essay as Washington v. Glucksberg Was Tragically Wrong.
He began by narrating the story of his father, who suffered from lung cancer, and claiming he was there, seeing his father request to the doctor to administer drugs to end life. Then, he wrote:
“The prohibition of physician-assisted suicide affects those like my father who are not on life support and are physically too weak to commit suicide.”
At here, it is clear that, not his father who wanted to commit suicide. In other words, who wants his father to die?
He then proceeds with following statement:
“Thankfully, he only lingered for a few days after his request;”
He used the word ‘thankfully,’ and what does it represents? I would like to emphasize that all the words in the essay are coming from Erwin Chemerinsky, not his father.
He continues the essay by explaining the law that prohibiting assisted dying infringes the right of privacy, and it fails the strict scrutiny that you can read by yourself.
Shockingly, he started his writing telling us how sad he was seeing his father suffering, and now without any shyness, he thinks assisted suicide failed passing the political process as the same as why Americans do not have living wills:
“Why then has the political process not acted accordingly? I think that the answer is found in the same reason why the vast majority of Americans do not have living wills even though they have strong feelings about what they want done for them in a dire situation.
Then, he wrote “A living will is something easy to put off. Thankfully, there seems no urgency”. Does this imply his position that getting approval for individual to assisted suicide, a matter of life or death, as easy as rubber stamping? Again, he used the word ‘thankfully’.
Erwin Chemerinsky is a rebel when discussing assisted suicide, and obviously, the question remains, who demands on the assisted suicide? His father? Really? Unfortunately, his story remains one-sided.
In Washington v. Glucksberg, Justice O’Connor, in the concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg and Breyer, emphasized prohibition of assisted suicide is justifiable to prevent abuse:
“The difficulty in defining terminal illness and the risk that a dying patient's request for assistance in ending his or her life might not be truly voluntary justifies the prohibitions on assisted suicide we uphold here.”