In most states the law prohibits anyone from inheriting anything from those they intentionally kill or assist in committing suicide. Until now.

Terminally ill cancer victim Edward Schunk, 63, was taken out of the hospital on a one-day pass in 2006 by his wife, Linda, and youngest child, Megan. They drove him to the family cabin. He was left in the cabin alone with a loaded shotgun. When Linda and Megan returned, they found him dead from a gunshot wound.

Linda Schunk and Megan stood to inherit the bulk of Schunk’s estate, valued at $500,000, while Schunk’s six other children received very little. It was the six other children who contested the will and brought the case to the courts.

In the hearing, Linda Schunk admitted her husband was suicidal. But, she said, he told her that he wanted to go turkey hunting. The Wisconsin District 4 Court of Appeals, having a three-judge panel, ruled unanimously in favor of Linda and Megan inheriting the bulk of the estate."Providing (the man) with a loaded shotgun did not deprive him of his life: he deprived himself of life by shooting himself with the shotgun," Judge Margaret Vergeront wrote in the decision.

It’s difficult to imagine that one so weak and sick, who could only be signed out of the hospital on a day pass could seriously have been believed when he said he was going turkey hunting. And he probably could not have assembled the necessary equipment to take his own life either. The court acknowledges this, but it didn’t seem to have any bearing on their decision.

It’s not unusual for those who are suicidal to be put on a suicide watch. They still do this in prisons and mental health facilities routinely. It is to protect life, to keep someone from injuring themselves, and this makes the Wisconsin court’s decision even more puzzling.

Under Wisconsin law, assisting in a suicide is also punishable by up to six years in prison. The 4th Court of Appeals did not attempt to address this law, and no one has been charged in Schunk's death.

Funny how in a De Pere, Wisconsin, case a high school student was charged with three felonies, including first-degree reckless homicide, and two felony counts of delivering drugs, when he sold illegal drugs to a classmate who later died of an overdose.

What is the difference between the two cases?

The difference lies with one case being about drugs and the other about a form of euthanasia. The tolerance for euthanasia grows, as does our tolerance for abortion. In fact we are coming to not only tolerate it, but to embrace it as part of our culture.

Certainly, providing the means and necessary environment for someone to commit suicide is no different than providing the means for someone to commit any other crime.
 
The Wisconsin District 4 Court of Appeals has really muddied the waters, and has now set a precedent that those who assist in a suicide are not intentionally killing another person, and they can be rewarded for it, too.

Where will it go from here?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments