For a long time now we have been subjected to a barrage of pro-death propaganda by left-liberals, and by their cheering squad, left, or modal, Libertarians. The "right to die," the "right to die with dignity" (whatever that means), the right to get someone to assist you in suicide, the "right to euthanasia," etc. Up till now, left-liberals have at least appeared to be scrupulous in stressing the crucial importance of consent by the killed victim, because otherwise the right to die with dignity looks very much like the right to commit murder. For what is compulsory euthanasia but murder, pure and simple?

But now the mask has begun to slip. One of the great enthusiasms of the right-to-die forces has long been the Living Will, in which the prospective candidate for euthanasia signs a form requesting his family, medical authorities, etc., to pull the plug under specified conditions. I have long been queasy about the consensual bona fides of the right-to-diers and have wondered what would happen if somebody wrote a Living Will that was spunky instead of spineless, that insistently favored his own life as against his death.

Now we know, and the answer to say the least, is not good. Helga Wanglie, an elderly lady in Minneapolis, wrote a Living Will, but she opted for being kept alive if she lapsed into a vegetative state. Now 87, she is indeed in such a state, and her husband, respecting Helga's wishes in realizing that only while there is life can there be hope, is anxious to respect Helga's wishes and keep her alive. Note, too, that Helga's medical cost is being covered privately, by private health insurance; Helga is no burden on the taxpayer.

So what's the problem? The problem is that the medical authorities, in their wisdom, have decided that since Helga's case is hopeless, they should have the right to pull the plug, overriding the wishes of Helga on this issue. But what are the medical authorities, whose very profession pledges them to keep patients alive to the best of their ability, advocating here if it is not mere murder? The Minnesota doctors having decided that Helga Wanglie is not fit to live, propose to murder her, and they, and other liberals, are sneering at the Wanglies for being backward Neanderthals in trying to affirm her life. Will somebody explain to me how this attitude differs from that of Nazi doctors, with their zeal to exterminate people whose lives they considered unfit?

The right to kill seems to be the established medical position. Thus, Minnesota "medical ethicist" Dr. Steven Miles: "We are certain this person cannot change from her present condition. Shouldn't we be making sure that we're responsible in allocating the resources...to keep costs down for everybody?" Notice the paramount consideration given to the collective "we," with individuals not allowed to decide their own costs, and with the Doctor, long professionally accustomed to playing God, now playing Satan.

Maryland University professor Oliver Childs declaims, "Despite the feelings of the family...the final decision should be made by the medical authorities. Prolonging life creates a burden on family and friends...It can also be very expensive." Expenses which the burdened family is not to be allowed to shoulder.

No social-medical problem is complete without a pronouncement from neoconservative medical economist Harry Schwartz, for three decades an editorial writer for the New York Times. Schwartz sneers at the "values of individual autonomy and the sanctity of human life" which have to give way to more important values, such as that health resources are limited, and that health care must be allocated rationally. Schwartz is nothing if not hard-nosed: "the harsh truth is that most of these people will never wake up. So, the basic problem is why we let so many vegetables receive useless care for so long." The problem, opines Schwartz, is that our health insurance systems, private as well as public, are "too mindlessly generous." Schwartz concludes: "The time to end this idiocy is now." (USA Today, May 30)

Our final specimen is Derek Humphry, head of the Hemlock Society, the most venerable of the right to suicide groups, and careful up to now to stress consent. Where does he stand on the case of Helga Wanglie? Humphry begins by saying that patients "should always have the right of choice to live or die," and if they are in a persistent vegetative state, their families should decide. OK, so what about Helga Wanglie? Here is Humphry's new and contradictory position: "If overwhelming medical opinion says treatment is pointless, courts should arbitrate disputes between doctors and families." Now just a minute, where do courts get the right to decide life or death? Does government have more of a right to commit murder than doctors, or what? And on what principles are the courts supposed to decide that "arbitration"?

No, the mask is off, and Doctor Assisted Death and Mr. Liberal Death With Dignity, and all the rest of the crew turn out to be simply Doctor and Mister Murder. Watch out Mr. and Ms. America: liberal humanists, lay and medical, are not only out to regulate your lives, and to fleece your wallets and pocketbooks. They're out to kill you! Libertarians, as embodied in the sainted "Nolan Chart," have always assumed that conservatives are in favor of economic liberty, whereas liberals are in favor of civil, or personal liberty. This is "personal liberty"?

The excuses of these killers is that far more important than prolonging life is the "quality of life." But what if a key part of preserving and enhancing that quality is getting rid of this crew of murdering liberals, people whom Isabel Paterson, with wonderful perception and prophetic insight termed "the humanitarian with the guillotine"? What then? So where do we sign up to assist their death?