Sometimes I think I’ve lost the capacity to be surprised by new developments. I tend to think I’ve grown so jaded that nothing that comes up can really surprise me. I think that in spite of the fact that I do get surprised on occasion.
This week’s collision with surrealism came in the form of two news stories – two days apart and in two different states. Both are stories on the “right to die,” but I can guarantee they’re nothing like what you would expect.
On May 10th, Delaware Online featured a story by reporter Sean O’Sullivan titled “Lawyers spar over killer’s right to die.”
On May 12th, WAFB.com in Louisiana featured a story by reporter Jim Shannon titled “Right to die bill passes through House committee.”
The stories both deal with the death penalty. Personally, I think that “right to be executed” would be a more accurate term for the stories, but I guess that doesn’t have the same comforting, compassionate tone as the “right to die.” Maybe that’s the point.
The Delaware story involves 26-year-old Shannon M. Johnson, convicted of murder for shooting the companion of an ex-girlfriend, whom he also shot at a later date. Johnson doesn’t want any appeals on his behalf and would like to “get his execution over with.”
The controversy involves maneuvers by a federal defense attorney to take the case over and appeal the death penalty over Johnson’s wishes – and contrary to the legal judgment of the local defense.
It gets a little complicated and you can read the whole story here. It’s worth noting that the “D” word – “dignity” comes into play as well, in this criticism from the local defense counsel:
“What they are really doing is basically being very disrespectful to his dignity by trying to draw this out,” he said. “While I don’t agree with the decision, I think they need to respect it.”
The Louisiana story is a little more straightforward. Here is the intro to what the reporter is calling a “right to die” bill:
BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) – A bill to expedite the right to die passed out of a Senate committee Tuesday. The bill provides notification to convicted death penalty defendants of their right to waive their appeals.
Sen. Dan Claitor, R-Baton Rouge, sponsored the bill. It now heads to the full Senate for debate. The case of Gerald Bordelon, a man convicted in the death of a young girl in Livingston Parish, made history when he effectively waived his rights to appeal and was executed this year.
There’s a link to the bill at the WAFB site and I’ve read it. There is no mention of a “right to die” in it. It can only – as far as I can tell – have originated from the fevered imagination of the reporter involved. The same is probably true of the Delaware story.
Still, I have to wonder if this will catch on. It really sets off my weird-o-meter to have two stories like this so close together in time. There is a certain grim logic to it and it could be carried even further, I guess.
In 2007, I engaged in a debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide with a professor at Washington State University. During the Q&A period, someone asked us about “involuntary euthanasia.” My worthy opponent gave a more-or-less textbook explanation about what it was and how it was unethical in “almost” all cases. While listening, I had one of those rare flashes of perverse inspiration and gave my own response: “Involuntary euthanasia,” I explained, was legal in many states and practiced pretty regularly in some of them. We just didn’t use that particular term – we usually refer to it as the “death penalty” – using painless lethal injections to put people to death. The good professor was at a loss for words – and any kind of response, since the grim logic was pretty solid.
Truthfully, I thought I was being a little fanciful at the time. But then again, I wouldn’t have dreamed of hearing or reading about death penalty issues under the framework of a “right to die.” How long will it be before people who decline appeals to their own executions are deemed to be subjects of voluntary euthanasia?
Certainly, it wouldn’t be too cynical of me to expect to stories like these framed as “end of life” stories.
Far-fetched? Maybe. But until this month, seeing the death penalty framed as a “right to die” issue was pretty far-fetched too. –Stephen Drake
And someone will make the argument that it is saving money in these “terrible” (unless you are very rich or a big corporation/Wall St.) economic times. You might have to move the arrow along to look at the prisoners who are ill/disabled/old and see some similarities to ill/disabled (all ages) and old in other kinds of institutions who are being “involuntarily euthanized”…
One anecdote: I had/have pen-pals in prison (from the late
“Grandpa” Al Lewis’ late radio show on WBAI). One pen-pal was a woman in federal prison (drug charge). During our 6 year correspondence, she went from athletic good health to severely ill nearing the end of her time
served. She reported to me that
severely ill prisoners were being asked to pay for their medical drugs and someone diagnosed with Lupus couldn’t pay and didn’t receive treatment. She was asked to pay in advance for treatment she would receive (the cost of the drugs for liver disease) to be let out 6 months early.