During the elections of this past Novem ber, many deep changes took place, not only in who is in office and who is not, but also in the area of what is accepted and rejected by a majority of our society.
Particularly in the pro-life arena, both positive and negative changes came to light.
One of the most remarkable stories of the elections in November which has been deliberately ignored and played down is the overwhelming evidence they provided to demonstrate that the United States is turning against abortion. As Ray Kerrison noted, "If the results had been reversed, they would have been Page One news across the country." However, this has not been and will not be reported on the front page of any "mainstream" newspaper in the country.
Regardless of what some may say, this is not because of the O.J. Simpson trial. Whatever the reasons, this is the news story that was ignored:
Not one single pro-life incumbent senator, member of the House or governor of either party was defeated by a pro-choice challenger. At the same time, pro-life challengers defeated nearly 30 hard-core pro-choice incumbents. These results are concrete evidence of a shift in public opinion regarding abortion and the dignity of human life in its earliest stages.
However, voters in Oregon approved a law that permitted physicians to prescribe lethal medication for terminally ill people. In other words, life during its latest stages is now under attack in the guise of "mercy". In addition, restrictions against physician-assisted suicide in the other 49 states may be done away with as a result of pending constitutional challenges.
There are many problems that the approval of this law raises. In a new York Times Op-Ed column last Nov. 16, Robert Burt highlighted some of the complexities and flaws with such a law. "Even if the right to assisted suicide were restricted to terminally ill people, it seems likely that some -- the poor, elderly, unassertive, clinically depressed, members of disfavored minorities or some combination of all of these -- would be especially vulnerable to subtle or not-so-subtle promptings to choose a quick, easy (and inexpensive) exit . . . as a general prescription for everyone it looks suspiciously like abandoning the dying rather than offering to stay with them and comfort them throughout."
The problem in so many areas of society today is that we fail to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of each individual which is the same regardless of size, location, health or usefulness. Once we being to blur the distinctions between who is worthy to live and who is not, what is the limit? At what point can one see something as wrong or dangerous when it is okay to end life in its earliest and latest stages, when we as a society fail to protect the weakest and most vulnerable.
There is a difference between being willing to cause death and recognizing and accepting it as inevitable; this is where one of the crucial distinctions lies in the debate over euthanasia. Supporters of physician-assisted suicide point out that the decision would be placed in the hands of the individual -- the way it ought to be. Comparing terminally ill people to ourselves we can see that there are expectations placed on each of us -- whether it is getting a good paying job for ourselves when we graduate, or for the terminally ill person to simply end his life in order to preserve assets to pass down through the family.
Keep an eye on the discussion over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as it continues, and do not forget the worth of each individual and the necessity of respecting the right to life whether it be in the earliest or latest stages of development.
