Okay, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (so far) has said "No" as far as a reprieve for the old, sick guy on death row. But what I wonder is why do certain groups shout, "No! You can't put him to death because he's old and sick!" Yet, if someone else is old and sick and wants to commit suicide/assisted suicide, the same group will cry that it's that person's right, and he/she should be able to do it for the very same reason (because they're old and sick). I mean, if the old convict's going to die anyway (not to mention that the law of the land has prescribed the death penalty for him anyway), then what's the big deal? And why the inconsistency?

Because in the first case it is a punishment, the state telling him when he will die. In the second case it would be his own decision, with him controlling when he dies. That's the difference IMHO.

If somneone is old and sick and they want assisted suicide, it is against the law. This does not apply to issues where someone wants them to "pull the plug" so to speak, which is merely the refusal to allow heroic and futile efforts to keep someone alive.

As for the death penalty, as you point out, it is also the law of the land, and because it is, being old and sick should not be a reason to stay execution. I suspect some lawyer thought this one up for the guy in California as a last ditch way to save him. Obviously it didn't work.

So overall there is no real conflict here.

All I'm pointing out is the reasoning: because someone is "old and sick." Why is the quality of life in the sucide-minded person somehow more diminished than that in the convict? In other words, how can you use the same reasoning in direct opposition with itself? To me, that is a conflict. (Although I do appreciate dontommaso's observation about suicide being illegal.)

Here's an even better question:

An inmate is on death row. He goes into cardiac arrest, but is successfully revived, but the doctor says he will need a heart transplant.

Did you know that the death row inmate will bypass every single person on the transplant waiting list to receive his new heart? A man who may be convicted of slaughtering dozens of people will be awarded a new heart before a regular, every day Joe. Prison inmates are the only citizens of this nation that are guaranteed health care, and its FREE!! That is the most asinine policy that the United States of America has, IMO. Let's save this man that we're gonna kill eventually, because he's dying on OUR terms.

I say make the inmate as comfortable as possible in the prison infirmary, and let him die. That'll save the state money, and it'll save the people money.

That's absolutely outrageous. I wish I could say it surprises me.

Why save someone else? Another person will also die eventually. And probably that won't take so long, people with a new heart live very short after they got their new heart.

I agree, healthcare should be free for everyone, like it is over here.

Yeah. I have always wondered why they bother to sterilize the needle just before they give a lethal injection.

That doesn't sound possible to me.

Where did you hear this?

That must be an insider joke for the executioners

Reader's Digest.