I quit practicing law, I now realize many years later, because I got into the profession to help promote justice. But even back then (circa early 1980s), society didn’t really know what “justice” was. So, law became primarily about process. All that bureaucracy was killing my soul.
I bring that up because in the UK, a lawyer arguing for a new right allowing suicidal disabled patients who can’t commit suicide on their own to be killed, denied that the question should be decided on the moral question of right vs. wrong. From the Telegraph story:
“The question is not one of right or wrong,” [the lawyer] said . . . He acknowledged that the right to die raises “very strong moral and ethical views” but added: “The question of whether the restriction interferes with the appellants’ rights is a legal issue. “Moreover we submit that the court is not required to resolve those moral and ethical arguments.”
As he continued his opening address, Lord Sumption interrupted to ask: “Are you going to address ‘protection of morals’ or are you going to assume that that is off the agenda? Because it might not be off everybody’s agenda”. Mr Bowen said that the issue had not been addressed in other relevant cases but the judge persisted: “We maybe entitled to address it for ourselves whether it has been addressed by other courts or not.”
Ah, but here’s the irony and the hypocrisy of the pro euthanasia side: Law not only reflects our values, but in these confusing days of amorality, it teaches society right vs. wrong. So on one hand, they say morality is irrelevant. Then, they claim killing is OK because it is the law.
That’s why proponents so badly want court decisions favoring euthanasia/assisted suicide: It will teach society that killing to end suffering is morally right!