i thought i posted this earlier...

i kind of half want to argue that the court should reject the extension, and strike down the law, leaving assisted suicide unregulated - like abortion is.

on principle, decisions around when a person chooses to end their own life doesn't seem to me like something the government should really be very involved with. i would lean in the direction of as few restrictions as are possible.

but, i think there needs to be a requirement for a contract in law, at least - there has to be a way to actually prove that the individual seeks the end of their life. my own mother has said some eyebrow raising things to me about my grandmother, who owns a large amount of stocks. my mother, who is very poor, would benefit dramatically from my grandmother's death (or at least she thinks she would - i'm not sure she understands the law, there). as it is, my grandmother, who is 79 and suffering from dementia, would have probably written this into her will, if she had the option to, before she lost the ability to legally make decisions for herself. but, now that she doesn't have that ability, this decision surely can't be left to her daughters, who would drive her off the cliff themselves, if they could find a way to get away with it.

abortion doesn't have that dimension to it, it's more the opposite - people may abort because they can't afford to raise their kids, and that's something that's been accepted as a valid argument.

so, that's a false equivalency. there has to be a contract requirement, with this, it can't be left totally unregulated, even if the regulations ought to be as light as possible.