This press release gives us a preview of his testimony.
In his testimony, Smith will "argue that there is a proper public policy role for the federal government against assisted suicide, such as prohibiting federally controlled substances from being used to intentionally end life."Update:Smith, named by the National Journal as one of the nation's top experts in bioethics, notes that: "In the thirty-plus years since euthanasia was redefined in the Netherlands as a legitimate tool of medical practice instead of a serious crime, ... rather than being rare, statistics show that euthanasia is now almost a matter of medical routine."
For those interested, testimony from the hearing can be found here.
In his lengthy comments, Smith stated:
There are two deep ideological beliefs asserted by advocates for legalizing assisted suicide. The first is radical individualism that perceives the right of personal autonomy as being virtually absolute. Accordingly, promoters of assisted suicide generally believe that the individuals right to self-determinationto control the time, place, and manner of death is a paramount liberty interest. The second ideological principle underlying assisted suicide advocacy is that killing (ending life) is an acceptable answer to the problem of human suffering.
Assisted suicide is usually couched in terms that would limit assisted suicide to those who are terminally ill. But given the philosophical/ideological principles that underlie the euthanasia movementthat autonomy is paramount and killing is a valid answer to human sufferingrestricting assisted suicide to the dying becomes utterly illogical. After all, many people experience far greater suffering and for a far longer period than people who are terminally ill. Thus, once the premises of assisted suicide advocacy become accepted by a broad swath of the medical professions and the public, there is little chance eligibility for permitted suicide will remain limited to the terminally ill.We need only look to the experience of the Netherlands to see the destructive force that the implacable logic of euthanasia ideology unleashes. The Dutch have permitted euthanasia and assisted suicide since 1973. Euthanasia became an integral part of Dutch medicine after a court ruling that refused to meaningfully punish a physician, Geetruida Postma, who had euthanized her mother. The court accepted the premisesupported by both the prosecution and the defensethat most Dutch doctors favored euthanasia in some cases. Accordingly, even though convicted of murder, Dr. Postma received only a one-week suspended sentence and a years probation.
To justify its action, the Court established the first boundaries for euthanasia practice in the Netherlands. Among these were the requirements that the patient be considered incurable, implying that the patient must suffer from a severe physical illness; that the patients suffering be subjectively unbearable; that the request for termination of life be in writing; and that there should be adequate consultation with other physicians before euthanasia could be carried out. Inclusion of these conditions in the courts decision became the basis for subsequent public and government acceptance of euthanasia in the Netherlands.
More at Marlowe's Shade
