Changing Hearts was on again recently on Lifetime, and it does have the draw you in tearjerker quality. Lauren Holly does a good job playing a woman with cancer who tries to retain her love for humanity and overall hopeful disposition. There is a striking scene when she tells another character (who falls in love with her) about her babies -- they only lived for an hour, but unlike her abusive husband, she made it clear that they truly existed for her.* One can also think of women who had a miscarriage. It is one of those moments where even t.v. docudramas truly can hit you.
The core message of this movie is open to debate. It might be seen as a religious sort of movie in which even a woman suffering from cancer and has her life cut off all too soon (the baseball playoffs reminds one of Cliff Floyd's sister dying in her twenties or Cory Lidle and his instructor dying in a crash, both leaving a wife and kid behind) finds meaning in her suffering -- is able, though have moments of doubt, to retain her faith. Thus, a sort of "pro-life" deal. Mandy Moore also has a movie shown repeatedly on basic cable where she plays a minister's daughter dying at an even younger age that takes a similar path.
The State has an interest in preserving and fostering the benefits that every human being may provide to the community--a community that thrives on the exchange of ideas, expressions of affection, shared memories and humorous incidents as well as on the material contributions that its members create and support. The value to others of a person's life is far too precious to allow the individual to claim a constitutional entitlement to complete autonomy in making a decision to end that life.
-- Justice Stevens
But, it is also about her "interest in choosing a final chapter that accords with her life story, rather than one that demeans her values and poisons memories of her." In fact, the personal beliefs involved here underline the importance of supplying some level of discretion to the person involved. And, this is why Justice Stevens -- hard as it might be for some "value" supporters to believe -- also wrote the latter. Or, to cite Justice Breyer's opinion, "personal control over the manner of death, professional medical assistance, and the avoidance of unnecessary and severe physical suffering--combined." See also, Stevens' dissenting opinion here.
I appreciate Stevens' views on the subject since he does a better job than most judges/justices to firmly show how many life and death issues are ultimately not just aspects of personal privacy/autonomy, but matters of individual religious faith with which the state only has limited right to interfere. One can firmly honor the choices made, including disagreeing with them in some fashion, without suddenly thinking the government has some right/obligation to prevent them.
The "right to die" or "die with dignity" (Breyer is correct there -- "dignity" is basically the core issue here; we all die; I disagree with Dr. House to the degree he thinks none can die with dignity) cases involved here raise many striking issues. Justice Souter took one as an opportunity to voice his views on "substantive due process," underlining why I like his style. He explains its long history, even in the face of those who think it is some sort of absurdity (even some liberals argue it to be).
This includes the reality that it is a sort of backdoor given that the Privileges and Immunity Clause (14A version) was castrated some time ago. But, water needs an outlet as does those basic liberties not expressly enumerated in the Constitution. As John Orth notes in his good little book on the Due Process Clause, there was always some substantive reach to "due process" (from the "law of the land" provision of the Magna Charta), some basic rights deemed "fundamental" -- or some other basic phraseology -- to English liberty. Or, natural liberty in general. There also is always the Ninth Amendment.
Justice Souter provides a defense of entrusting the judiciary with securing such rights via "reasoned judgment." This includes realizing the limitations of the institution, which was why he would not support a basic right to assisted euthanasia. The devil was in the details, and given his "common law Constitution" approach of case by case judging (my preference too), he could not say at this point in time that societal understanding is so clear-cut that a legislature would be unreasonable to deny such rights. A majority of justices probably would agree that forced treatment or unbearable pain would be quite different. But, the cases at hand were of a "summary judgment" nature that could avoid such more tricky questions.
As his ruling at the very least indirectly notes, this in no way means there is not some basic "right" to assisted euthanasia. Every right we have that is of some fundamental importance is not secured ultimately by the judiciary. The legislature, our representatives, are an essential security to our rights as well. And, I firmly want them ala Oregon to set up a regime in which assisted euthanasia (suicide if you like, though the path to death has started) is allowed. Also, I would argue for some basic "natural" right to do so in some overall view of justice. Again, see also Stevens' opinions (first citation).
I myself probably would be supportive of Judge Reinhardt's opinion (the New York case was a bit trickier), but the somewhat more middle of the road stance taken by several justices has much merit too. It suggests as well that the presence of rights is not always a slam dunk case. Sometimes, the regulations that are essential in applying them -- and yes, limiting them in some fashion -- should be left to the legislature. A right can make it clear that the courts should take special care before upholding the regulations, but there is a stopping point.
And, of course, some would give a lot of discretion to the legislature. This also depends on who's ox is being gored. Thus, many liberals want to leave chunks of state power to the elected branches, such as commerce matters, that affects our lives in any number of ways. And, many conservatives want to restrain such power -- by the courts if necessary -- while leaving other branches more discretion in other areas. The balance is a complex and somewhat arbitrary calculus, but ultimately, some important area is left to the legislature and executive.
Often, because it is deemed they are more able to settle the question. Deal with the details. But, even if they are given such power, we must remember their obligations to secure our welfare is not trivial. If anything, it is ever more important.
---
* I have a "six degrees of separation" view of life in which it is likely that in some pretty direct way (if only once or twice removed) that I am in some fashion like someone else in some significant fashion. This furthers my belief in equality and respect for others. And, yes, I know someone by let's say one degree of separation who lost a baby some years back, one she only knew for a tiny amount of time. This sort of thing, of course, remains all too prevalent in some parts of the world. And, in some cases, some parts of the country.
We must focus on a narrow focus personally speaking in some fashion, since the alternative is often just too hard, but sometimes it is a bit hard given reality. Likewise, some say "you cannot understand." Yes, probably not in many ways. But, if we cannot understand in some fashion, what good are we? Are we to pass laws and such only when we directly "understand" what is at stake in all ways?