Death be not...
The Armchair Analyst
Josh Baer/Contributing Writer
Issue date: 1/25/06 Section: News
- Page 1 of 1
In a stunning display of legal acumen, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Oregon physicians may prescribe drugs to kill their patients. It would seem that Oregonians desire to be progressive both in life and death.
Opponents of the ruling argue that Death has been an ongoing problem for a number of years: that, despite our best efforts, the world mortality rate stands at a staggering 100 percent. These individuals contend that the government should advance such quaint policies as to protect the lives of its citizens.
Proponents, however, argue that the Supreme Court decision reflects our government's concern over the coming Social Security crisis. Our country's leaders realize that if their parents keep living much longer, there won't be any welfare state left for them. Further, the proponents of the ruling tout the numerous social benefits of physician-assisted suicide, including the advantages to the soon-to-be-terminal patient. Consider: with the new legalized suicide policy, cancer patients will no longer have to resort to dirty, dangerous back-alley suicides. Death-on-demand is a mark of a progressive society - like the ancient Romans.
Another upside to the ruling has been the expansion of the economy. Not only will there be an upswing in the market for prescription drugs, but other companies will see their market share expand. Inspired by the fact that life-saving drugs could legitimately be used to kill people, firearm manufacturers Smith & Wesson, Heckler & Koch, and Colt announced new guidelines for their products. Legitimate uses include: night-lights, door wedges, bookmarks, drink stirrers, or anti-depressants.
Remember, the irony won't bother you if you're dead.
Opponents of the ruling argue that Death has been an ongoing problem for a number of years: that, despite our best efforts, the world mortality rate stands at a staggering 100 percent. These individuals contend that the government should advance such quaint policies as to protect the lives of its citizens.
Proponents, however, argue that the Supreme Court decision reflects our government's concern over the coming Social Security crisis. Our country's leaders realize that if their parents keep living much longer, there won't be any welfare state left for them. Further, the proponents of the ruling tout the numerous social benefits of physician-assisted suicide, including the advantages to the soon-to-be-terminal patient. Consider: with the new legalized suicide policy, cancer patients will no longer have to resort to dirty, dangerous back-alley suicides. Death-on-demand is a mark of a progressive society - like the ancient Romans.
Another upside to the ruling has been the expansion of the economy. Not only will there be an upswing in the market for prescription drugs, but other companies will see their market share expand. Inspired by the fact that life-saving drugs could legitimately be used to kill people, firearm manufacturers Smith & Wesson, Heckler & Koch, and Colt announced new guidelines for their products. Legitimate uses include: night-lights, door wedges, bookmarks, drink stirrers, or anti-depressants.
Remember, the irony won't bother you if you're dead.