Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law
Muscletang
01-17-2006, 11:20 AM
SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_assisted_suicide_6;_ylt=Ap6Ly97QwnTbM4T3vWL oJBXdyl4A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting, upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.
Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.
That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the federal government does, indeed, have the authority to go after drug dealers and pass rules for health and safety.
But Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people — those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.
Tuesday's decision is a reprimand of sorts for Ashcroft. Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."
"The authority desired by the government is inconsistent with the design of the statute in other fundamental respects. The attorney general does not have the sole delegated authority under the (law)," Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.
Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.
"If the term `legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.
The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."
Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Scalia said the court's ruling "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position."
Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately.
Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice.
Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court.
The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
As I've said I've been split on this issue.
For starters I did a report on this for a debate in government class and found out several things. Assisted suicide has been pushed on patients, not used in a right way, and several other ways. There have been cases of families pushing for it even when a family member could live through the ordeal and didn't want it. I could go on but you can see where the problems arise and come from.
On the other side though I've been there. I've had several family members with cancer that weren't going to live. The family knew, they knew, and it was only a matter of time. I felt bad because of the pain they were in and how they were forced to live in the very end. This is where I could see assisted suicide being used. If I had the choice, I would of wanted my family to feel no pain and go easily. I didn't like them going in lots of pain and suffering until their last breath.
The thing is, how do you know the people who want the best for their family, and the people who want the best for them? It's not unheard of about families pushing this on a doctor so they can get that family members money. On the other side though, there are families who just want the best.
So how do you tell them apart and what side do you take on the issue?
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting, upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.
Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.
That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the federal government does, indeed, have the authority to go after drug dealers and pass rules for health and safety.
But Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people — those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.
Tuesday's decision is a reprimand of sorts for Ashcroft. Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."
"The authority desired by the government is inconsistent with the design of the statute in other fundamental respects. The attorney general does not have the sole delegated authority under the (law)," Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.
Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.
"If the term `legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.
The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."
Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Scalia said the court's ruling "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position."
Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately.
Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice.
Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court.
The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
As I've said I've been split on this issue.
For starters I did a report on this for a debate in government class and found out several things. Assisted suicide has been pushed on patients, not used in a right way, and several other ways. There have been cases of families pushing for it even when a family member could live through the ordeal and didn't want it. I could go on but you can see where the problems arise and come from.
On the other side though I've been there. I've had several family members with cancer that weren't going to live. The family knew, they knew, and it was only a matter of time. I felt bad because of the pain they were in and how they were forced to live in the very end. This is where I could see assisted suicide being used. If I had the choice, I would of wanted my family to feel no pain and go easily. I didn't like them going in lots of pain and suffering until their last breath.
The thing is, how do you know the people who want the best for their family, and the people who want the best for them? It's not unheard of about families pushing this on a doctor so they can get that family members money. On the other side though, there are families who just want the best.
So how do you tell them apart and what side do you take on the issue?
YogsVR4
01-17-2006, 11:40 AM
If someone is really serious about taking themselves out, they don't need a doctor to help them.
thrasher
01-17-2006, 11:47 AM
^^^Did you even read the article? This is only for patients with incurable terminal illnesses who are of sound mind. That doesn't imply they are able to actually kill themselves.
This whole issue is a no brainer. If somebody with a terminal illness would like to die and is able to make such a decision on their own, they should be able to. Physician assistance makes the process easier. Why should physicians not be allowed to help? It makes no sense that they could not.
This whole issue is a no brainer. If somebody with a terminal illness would like to die and is able to make such a decision on their own, they should be able to. Physician assistance makes the process easier. Why should physicians not be allowed to help? It makes no sense that they could not.
tenguzero
01-17-2006, 12:28 PM
It's the patient's life, they can do with it what they want. The physician assisting is just making it easier on everyone involved. If the patient is going to refuse to sign paperwork or whatnot to allow experimental treatments, heroic measures, etc., then they're giving the doctors the green light to let them die. So why not make it quick and painless if they so desire? I've heard others make a very strong case for the legalized use of substances like Heroine for medical purposes -- the person is going to die, so if they're going to let it happen naturally, then they should be allowed to accept the use of ANYTHING able to make their remaining time more pleasant for them physically, and more pleasant for those around them mentally. After all, it's not like there aren't counteless medical facilities in other countries that don't already perform this kind of service. Why not at least allow the family the ease of staying in the country?
It's a shame that so many aspects of this country are still at the mercy of the ill-conceived philosophies of bible-thumpers and the otherwise self-righteous, decades of misguided and convoluted drug policies, and an all-consuming abhorrence to the mere talk of death -- never mind being able to govern it to some degree (despite the fact that it is one of the few things in this world that we cannot dispute the presence and innevitability of.)
It's a shame that so many aspects of this country are still at the mercy of the ill-conceived philosophies of bible-thumpers and the otherwise self-righteous, decades of misguided and convoluted drug policies, and an all-consuming abhorrence to the mere talk of death -- never mind being able to govern it to some degree (despite the fact that it is one of the few things in this world that we cannot dispute the presence and innevitability of.)
sivic02
01-17-2006, 12:36 PM
Doesnt "patient with incurable terminal illness" and "sound mind" contradict eachother? The undue stress of dying is going to cloud your judgement. No one, especially a doctor whos job is to save lives, should encourage someone to end their life.
YogsVR4
01-17-2006, 02:13 PM
^^^Did you even read the article? This is only for patients with incurable terminal illnesses who are of sound mind. That doesn't imply they are able to actually kill themselves.
This whole issue is a no brainer. If somebody with a terminal illness would like to die and is able to make such a decision on their own, they should be able to. Physician assistance makes the process easier. Why should physicians not be allowed to help? It makes no sense that they could not.
Did you actually read the law? Or are you claiming that this is for patients with incurable terminal (I note the redundancy) illness who are of sound mind because of one sentence in the article? Though that approaches the law, let me help out http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml (http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml) What the law doesn’t say or refer to is any minimum time till the disease is terminal. One week, ten years, it doesn’t say. It also says nothing about pain and misery that I often hear bandied about. It’s a vague law that exists to make it easier for people to check themselves out and not negate insurance policies, annuities and wills.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’ve never said doctors shouldn’t be able to help out, but I do think the law is poorly written and restricting it to just doctors isn’t leaving enough options for the patient. Change the law so anyone can help someone else kick off. A whole cottage industry could be made out of this. Make an official form, sign it with witnesses (so far this is exactly the same with the doctor) then go out and buy your “do-me-in” kit.
This whole issue is a no brainer. If somebody with a terminal illness would like to die and is able to make such a decision on their own, they should be able to. Physician assistance makes the process easier. Why should physicians not be allowed to help? It makes no sense that they could not.
Did you actually read the law? Or are you claiming that this is for patients with incurable terminal (I note the redundancy) illness who are of sound mind because of one sentence in the article? Though that approaches the law, let me help out http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml (http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml) What the law doesn’t say or refer to is any minimum time till the disease is terminal. One week, ten years, it doesn’t say. It also says nothing about pain and misery that I often hear bandied about. It’s a vague law that exists to make it easier for people to check themselves out and not negate insurance policies, annuities and wills.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’ve never said doctors shouldn’t be able to help out, but I do think the law is poorly written and restricting it to just doctors isn’t leaving enough options for the patient. Change the law so anyone can help someone else kick off. A whole cottage industry could be made out of this. Make an official form, sign it with witnesses (so far this is exactly the same with the doctor) then go out and buy your “do-me-in” kit.
RSX-S777
01-17-2006, 02:28 PM
I've seen 2 close relatives and one close friend die absolutely agonizing deaths due to cancer. Toward the end 2 of them were sent home, couldn't eat, couldn't speak, couldn't move- were given MASSIVE amounts of painkillers to make waiting for death a tiny bit more bearable. At that point, who the hell wants to be alive? And what family wants to see that and remember their loved ones in that state? I'm all for assisted suicide in these cases. I don't think there's any rational argument that could have been made for keeping them alive at the end. Fuck politicians. If I'm ever going to agree with Muscletang about anything ever, it's this.
Muscletang
01-17-2006, 09:32 PM
If I'm ever going to agree with Muscletang about anything ever, it's this.
Holy shit stop the presses.
Holy shit stop the presses.
RSX-S777
01-19-2006, 06:56 PM
:evillol:
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025