IN THEORY:Right to die a slippery slope -- or not

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, reportedly will try and block legislation that would outlaw physician-assisted suicide in his state — the only one in the union that allows such a measure, which the Supreme Court has upheld.

Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback's bill would prohibit doctors from prescribing drugs that would help a patient die.

Society's moral conventions become murky when the law allows death in the name of "medical treatment," Brownback argues. And the chronically ill and vulnerable may end up viewing such measures as acceptable, he added.

Wyden argues that the government should not intervene to override an individual's wishes and values.

What do you think?

Charleton Heston cries, "Soylent Green Is People!" in the 1973 movie "Soylent Green," where the infirm and aged are euthanized and converted into nutritional biscuits to feed the younger, more valued members of society.

After pre-Nazi Germany had already embraced euthanasia as morally acceptable, Hitler euthanized 275,000 handicapped citizens and began the extermination of 6 million Jews, labeling all as "useless eaters."

It's a slippery slope making the deliberate killing of individuals a societal good, whether they've personally expressed desire for it or not. If it's the belief that human existence is only as valuable as some cultural definition of "the good life," then none of us are safe, and God is surely flouted.

"What is the meaning of life?" That has been the perennial question. May I propose that the meaning is found in mere existence and in the One who provides it? Non-existence is of no value, whereas being alive lays open everlasting possibilities, whether they are personally or culturally experienced, and God alone possesses the prerogatives of life and death; not we. Everything is His, and He insists, "the world is mine, and all that is in it" (Psalm 50:12).

You remember "It's A Wonderful Life," where George Bailey wanted to commit suicide because life was too hard and his own had perceivably contributed nothing to the world? He was obviously wrong, was he not?