43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.I argue that the numbers are actually higher and are artificially low due to the massively biased and shoddy, but overwhelming media coverage.
A perhaps more important consideration is what this means for our court system. Judges are now being told that an "evolving national consensus" is the guide by which they are to rule. That is offensive enough anyway, but what about the dangers of divining this "consensus?" This poll certainly suggests that may be very tricky indeed. Yes, I know that is why the Court appealed to an "evolving" consensus, one that has developed over time so as to even out these kinds of things.
But, really, do you think that works? First, think about how much time went by concerning McCarthy. Certainly any judge would have been on safe ground assuming that the national consensus was that he was a raving lunatic who falsely accused people of conspiring with Communists. How about Julius Rosenberg? I was taught as a fact that he was falsely executed by our government. Surprise! Along came VENONA proving that Julius was a spy and that McCarthy was right; there were spies in the State department. Many people still think McCarthy was wrong (and basically evil.)
"National consensus" has nothing to do with truth or justice. Terri may very well have been killed because the judges who had the chance to stop this travesty felt that they were carrying out the national consensus. Surprise! There was no consensus.
This poll did not make me feel justified. It made me feel sick.
No comments:
Post a Comment