This is the kind of thing that opens the door to people accepting euthanasia murder as a legitimate action.
A man shot his wife in the hospital because she was despondent over becoming paralyzed in an accident. Yet, despite shooting a gun to kill someone in a hospital, the District Attorney [DA] has dismissed all charges.
From the Reno Gazette-Journal story:
In an interview, [DA Jason] Woodbury said his ultimate goal was to achieve a “just result.” “I didn’t view there being any component of evil to his act of killing,” Woodbury said. “We can talk about judgment, and morally whether it was a right or wrong decision, but I didn’t view any aspect of it as evil. That’s truly the component you need to have in a murder case is an evil motive and we didn’t have that.”
A lot of crimes don’t have “evil” intent, but are nonetheless prosecuted. Moreover, people despondent over becoming paralyzed often recover their emotional health if given time and proper care.
DA Woodbury lamely says he is not allowing assisted suicide:
Woodbury also said his decision to seek a dismissal should not be interpreted to mean assisted suicide is acceptable. Rather, the facts of this specific case justified the decision, he said.
Baloney. That is precisely what he is doing–whether he intends to or not! The DA could have filed a different charge based on the killer’s mental state, or accepted a plea bargain to a lesser charge, based on the killer’s age and other factors.
To do nothing about a blatant homicide devalues the lives of paralyzed people and sends a loud message that homicides of the elderly, sick, and disabled to relieve suffering are of less serious societal concern than the killings of other citizens.
But it does show that euthanasia is not really a “medical act” if it is okay for a husband to carry out such a killing with a gun.
LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism