Getting Rid of Any Form of Assisted Suicide ...


Nascar_James
#1
Let's hope assisted suicide in Oregon will be no more. We surely don't need any Jack Kevorkians roaming around looking for people to kill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9503450/

Assisted suicide — who gets to decide?
Supreme Court to hear Bush administration's challenge to Oregon law
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., meeting with John Roberts (right) on Aug. 9, said he hopes the Supreme Court lets Oregon's assisted suicide law stand. The Court hears the case next week.

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 8:05 a.m. ET Sept. 28, 2005

WASHINGTON — You have an incurable illness. Your doctor estimates you have just a few months to live. You want to kill yourself.

Your doctor is willing to help: he’ll write a prescription for a drug that will kill you.

If you’re a resident of Oregon, state law allows you and your doctor to end your life. Since 1998, when Oregon became the only state to enact such a law, more than 200 people have killed themselves with the aid of their doctors.

Will the United States Supreme Court let the law stand?

In a case to be argued before the justices next Wednesday, Solicitor General Paul Clement will contend that a 1970 federal law, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), forbids a doctor from prescribing drugs such as Seconal for the purpose of helping a person kill himself, no matter what any state law says to the contrary.

What's a 'legitimate medical purpose'?
A 1971 federal regulation says that a prescription must be for a “legitimate medical purpose.” But who gets to decide whether assisting suicide is a legitimate medical purpose — the federal government or the state?

“The federal government, rather than the States, normally defines the terms in federal laws, giving them a single, nationwide definition,” Clement argued in his brief filed with the court.

Clement, however, suggested that doctors in Oregon could “dispense substances other than those regulated under the CSA to hasten their patients’ deaths.”

But in its argument to the justices next week, the state of Oregon will frame the issue as the people of a state having the right to govern themselves and to regulate how physicians in their state practice medicine.

Oregon argues that its voters, by enacting the Death with Dignity Act, have decided that the practice of medicine, at least in their state, now includes helping people die. And it is not up to former Attorney General John Ashcroft or his successor Alberto Gonzales to second-guess Oregon’s judgment, the state contends.

In 2001 Ashcroft threatened to remove Oregon doctors’ ability to prescribe controlled substances and to prosecute them if they assist suicide. The state of Oregon went to court to uphold its law.

The Supreme Court has confronted the issue of assisted suicide before. In a decision handed down eight years ago, the justices upheld state laws making assisted suicide a crime. In that case, a group of doctors had asked the high court to overturn Washington state’s ban on assisting suicide, but the court rebuffed them.

“For over 700 years, the Anglo-American common-law tradition has punished or otherwise disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist said in Washington v. Glucksberg.

In that same year, President Clinton signed into law a measure which banned the use of federal funds to support physician-assisted suicide.

Reaction from Oregon's senators
Even though he opposes his state’s assisted suicide law on moral grounds, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said Tuesday he thinks the law is working as intended. “I think Oregon has very responsibly administered this law. It has not, as I once feared, been subject to abuse.”

Oregon's law
— The patient must be mentally competent, diagnosed with a terminal disease and have less than six months of life expectancy.
— A second physician must verify the diagnosis.
— The patient must be advised of alternatives to suicide, including hospice care and pain management.
— The doctor may prescribe, but not administer the drug that ends the patient's life.
Sources: Briefs for state of Oregon and U.S. Department of Justice

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a strong supporter of the law, said, “if you look at the Tenth Amendment, matters that aren’t specifically designated for the federal government are left to the states. I’m very hopeful that the court will continue to give Oregon and other states a very wide berth in terms of medical practice.”

Wyden added, “No one could ever prove it, but my guess is that there are fewer assisted suicides in my state where there’s an assisted suicide law than in most parts of the country where there is no statute. We have seen in our state a dramatic increase in the number of individuals spending their last days at home, the utilization of hospice programs, comfort care and palliative care. I think it is a result of all the awareness generated in Oregon about these end-of-life services like hospice and comfort care.”

If John Roberts wins Senate confirmation this week as chief justice, the Oregon case will be only the third case he will hear in his new career on the high court. The court will hear two cases on Monday.

Wyden said, “I spent a great deal of time discussing end of life care with Judge Roberts. Of course I did not get into the Oregon case.” But Wyden hopefully pointed to a comment Roberts made about Washington v. Glucksberg in 1997.

"The right that was protected in the assisted-suicide case was the right of the people through their legislatures to articulate their own views . . . and not to have the court interfering with those policy decisions," Roberts said in 1997. In that case Roberts was endorsing the right of a state to ban assisted suicide, not the right of a state to permit it.

“I am hopeful that Judge Roberts’s principle of limited government and his sense, as reflected in his comment on the Glucksberg case, will leave him open to letting Oregon voters decide this,” Wyden said.

What did Congress intend in 1970?
Oregon contends that when Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, it sought to deter drug trafficking and abuse, not to prevent doctors from helping patients commit suicide.

Solicitor General Clement, representing the Bush administration, counters that by saying, “the taking of drugs to commit suicide is a form of ‘drug abuse.’”

Even though the Supreme Court hasn’t recognized any right under the U.S. Constitution for a person to kill himself or to get a doctor’s help to do so, the justices left open the question of whether states could enact laws permitting assisted suicide.

By saying Oregon law must yield to federal law the Bush administration has taken too narrow a view of states right, Oregon argues. It's an "affront to the state's sovereignty," Oregon says.

“States’ rights” is a catchphrase that has been used to defend everything from California’s medicinal marijuana law (which was undercut by a Supreme Court decision last June), to a state’s ability to enact its own death penalty laws without having them overturned by the Supreme Court.

The concept is rooted in federalism, the Constitution’s division of authority between the national government and the state governments.

State as a 'laboratory'
Oregon’s brief in the assisted suicide case cites Justice Louis Brandeis, who in a 1932 case said “a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Oregon is the “laboratory” of doctor-assisted suicide. Depending on the court’s ruling in this case, other states may follow.

Currently, 47 states make assisted suicide a crime. The Vermont legislature is considering an assisted suicide law and a bill has been introduced in the Wisconsin legislature to allow individuals to make written requests for medication to kill themselves.

Edward Whelan, a former official in the Justice Department in the Bush administration, who is now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, said the Oregon case is really about neither ethics nor states’ rights.

Instead it is a matter of correctly interpreting a rule enacted by the Drug Enforcement Agency.

“Since 1971 the Drug Enforcement Agency has had in effect a regulation (implementing the Controlled Substances Act) that requires that a doctor’s prescription be for a ‘legitimate medical purpose,’” he said. “The narrow legal question is whether the longstanding regulation is lawful and whether DEA has correctly applied it. Under established principles, the courts owe substantial deference to the agency’s application of its own regulation.”

He added, “The federalism issue here is a false one. The DEA regulation is an essential part of a comprehensive federal scheme. If every state were free to define what a ‘legitimate medical purpose’ was, that scheme would be easily undermined. A libertarian state could, for example, authorize doctors to prescribe cocaine for the common cold and thereby negate federal controls over the flow of cocaine.”
 
annabattler
#2
Properly handled,responsibly handled, I think assisted suicide is a compassionate means of allowing someone to choose their own demise.
For those of us who have cared for the elderly,terminally ill, and watched their suffering and the suffering of their families and have heard them pray aloud for their suffering to end...there is something to be said for a more dignified exit from this world.
 
Jo Canadian
#3
I don't know, If I had an incurable disease, had 7 months to live but it would be in a constant state of pain, misery, and many things associated that I am loath to explain that one would go through, I would at least LIKE to have the option to end it all to avoid many problems associated with careing for me in my last few months, both practical and personal.

It's not an easy decision, many would take it many wouldn't but who are we to say "NO, you finish your suffering whether you like it or not!!"
 
mrmom2
#4
Who the feck do these people think they are .Nobodys going to tell me when i can get off this ride .Feck them
 
bevvyd
#5
I hope assisted suicide is here to stay. This is MY life, not yours, and I would like to leave this world how and when I chose, not you.
 
Reverend Blair
#6
It's kind of funny. f one of our pets is terminally ill and suffering, we put it down so that the animal is no longer in pain. When a person is terminally ill and suffering, some feel the need to impose their religious beliefs to make that person suffer for as long as possible.
 
PoisonPete2
#7
why is it that on just about every issue you are on the side of government imposing itself on the People? Interfering in the private decisions of individuals. I am quite willing to assist in the death of a loved one or have them aid me to my final end, and it is not your business.
 
neocon-hunter
#8
Dutch Set to Expand Euthanasia Guidelines
 
TenPenny
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Let's hope assisted suicide in Oregon will be no more. We surely don't need any Jack Kevorkians roaming around looking for people to kill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9503450/

Assisted suicide — who gets to decide?

If you are that set against assisted suicide, then I would suggest you don't understand medicine, disease, and suffering.

I sincerely hope you never get seriously ill from a terminal wasting disease. Usually, these strident opinions come from people who are, quite frankly, completely ignorant about what they are discussing.

It's fine to have a religious ideology, but we live in the real world. I suggest you stop trying to make everyone live according to your homophobic born again Christian rules, and experience life. It will open your eyes, if not your mind.
 
manda
#10
It's a tough call, I've never been in a situation that I have witnessed someone who would benifit from assisted suicide. When my grandmother fell ill, she left the instructions of not persuing "heroic measures" though, Is that not a form of deciding one's own death? Although it tore me to shreds to see her go, I am glad that she left on her own terms without all the tubes and wires.

If I was in a state of constant pain and suffering without hope of recuperating, i would hope that someone would let me die. It is understandable that we don't want to lose someone close to us, but do we really want to force them to live in a state of pure torture to placate ourselves? What kind of greed and selfishness is that. Even Christian beliefs say to put others needs before our own, and I think the Bible- Thumpers just choose to omit that fact, and twist the scriptures (altered to suit King James) to assert their beliefs
 
Twila
#11
I think it's a choice that should be allowed.
 
GL Schmitt
#12
At the very instant I read Nascar_James insensitive remarks, I immediately thought of the historical precedence for assisted suicide — the coup de grace. That was the giving of grace to a fallen comrade in those days when falling wounded upon the battlefield mean a certain, painful, lingering death.

For ages, doctors have quietly been assisting patients escape from the more dehumanizing agony of a terminal illness without interference from government.

Isn’t it odd how the political party which claims to desire less government involvement in citizens’ lives, is one again making controversial inroads into matters which they have neither the expertise to understand, nor the intellectual or humanitarian capacity to enact any sensible law.

People like Nauseating_James, who can unthinkingly make such arbitrary and all-encompassing pronouncements upon what everyone should do in each and every possible situation, is a form of egotism that is profound as it is lacking in grace.
 
Nascar_James
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by GL Schmitt

At the very instant I read Nascar_James insensitive remarks, I immediately thought of the historical precedence for assisted suicide — the coup de grace. That was the giving of grace to a fallen comrade in those days when falling wounded upon the battlefield mean a certain, painful, lingering death.

For ages, doctors have quietly been assisting patients escape from the more dehumanizing agony of a terminal illness without interference from government.

Isn’t it odd how the political party which claims to desire less government involvement in citizens’ lives, is one again making controversial inroads into matters which they have neither the expertise to understand, nor the intellectual or humanitarian capacity to enact any sensible law.

People like Nauseating_James, who can unthinkingly make such arbitrary and all-encompassing pronouncements upon what everyone should do in each and every possible situation, is a form of egotism that is profound as it is lacking in grace.

Well, unlike yourself Schmitt, I value INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.

Perhaps you should take a class on ethics....

Commiting suicide is illegal, as it should be. Why should we allow doctor assisted suicide? It will give folks an excuse to start lining up at the doctor's office so they can kill themselves legally. The President is doing the right thing here.
 
no1important
#14
Where is committing suicide illegal or attempting it illegal? Not here, but I guess America has some outdated laws. I know its against the law to help someone committ suicide (even though Svend Robinson never got convicted)
 
Nascar_James
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Where is committing suicide illegal or attempting it illegal? Not here, but I guess America has some outdated laws. I know its against the law to help someone committ suicide (even though Svend Robinson never got convicted)

That's true, he didn't. But Jack Kevorkian did. Teach him a lesson for assisting all those innocent folks to die. He had no right to make those decisions. As far as I'm concerned only one super power has that right, and he's not it.
 
GL Schmitt
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Well, unlike yourself Schmitt, I value INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.
Perhaps you should take a class on ethics....
Commiting suicide is illegal, as it should be. Why should we allow doctor assisted suicide? It will give folks an excuse to start lining up at the doctor's office so they can kill themselves legally. The President is doing the right thing here.

If your president is so all fired determined to protect life by upholding proper ethical standards, why didn’t he start by not lying his way into an illegal war which has assisted in the deaths of nearly 2000 Americans, more allies, and untold Iraqis?

If protecting life was weighing so heavily upon his compassionate heart, why did he not start by staying the execution of all those humans on death row --- some of which were undoubtedly innocent --- instead of pursuing and winning the title of State Governor with the most kills on his watch, ever?

And in what class on ethics does one learn that failing to relieve pain (as well as inducing pain) is a higher order of goodness than the relieving of pain, whether by commission through euthanasia, or by the omission of eschewing torture?

Please understand these questions are merely rhetorical. I have little desire left to actually communicate with you further on this subject.
 
no1important
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Where is committing suicide illegal or attempting it illegal? Not here, but I guess America has some outdated laws. I know its against the law to help someone committ suicide (even though Svend Robinson never got convicted)

That's true, he didn't. But Jack Kevorkian did. Teach him a lesson for assisting all those innocent folks to die. He had no right to make those decisions. As far as I'm concerned only one super power has that right, and he's not it.

Yes but how many times was he found not guilty before he was convicted though? and charges dropped or not even charging him? That should show you there are people that understand and "support" him, since it took so many deaths (over 100) he was responsible for before they convicted him? And yet he only got 10- 25 and could be out in 2007. So this "right to die" has a fair bit of supporters.
 
Nascar_James
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Where is committing suicide illegal or attempting it illegal? Not here, but I guess America has some outdated laws. I know its against the law to help someone committ suicide (even though Svend Robinson never got convicted)

That's true, he didn't. But Jack Kevorkian did. Teach him a lesson for assisting all those innocent folks to die. He had no right to make those decisions. As far as I'm concerned only one super power has that right, and he's not it.

Yes but how many times was he found not guilty before he was convicted though? and charges dropped or not even charging him? That should show you there are people that understand and "support" him, since it took so many deaths (over 100) he was responsible for before they convicted him? And yet he only got 10- 25 and could be out in 2007. So this "right to die" has a fair bit of supporters.

Dr. Death will be released in 2007? I am hoping the authorities can keep him locked up longer...unless he signs an agreement to not engage in any form of assisted suicide, otherwise it's back to the slammer.
 
peapod
#19
Oh blah! *snaps big bubble from wad of bubbleicious* uh huh, just the right hint of moral outrage, and dash of the same old same old I mean no disrespect for the trailer park boys, but they gots some serious competition here
 
peapod
#20
I also thought what schmitty and ten penny wrote was right on!!
 
Jo Canadian
#21
 
no1important
#22
Swiss hospital to allow suicide

A teaser:

A spokesman for the university hospital in Lausanne said the decision was taken after a long reflection.

He added that the conditions for permitting an assisted suicide remained very strict.

The practice is legal in Switzerland, but only for patients who are mentally competent and suffering from an incurable disease.

From the start of next year terminally ill patients in Lausanne's main hospital will be allowed to take their own lives on hospital premises, as long as they are of sound mind, are already too ill to return home, and have expressed a persistent wish to die. [/end of teaser]

Click above link for rest of article.

If the patient is of sound mind and really thought it over, I see no problem.
 
bhoour
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Where is committing suicide illegal or attempting it illegal? Not here, but I guess America has some outdated laws. I know its against the law to help someone committ suicide (even though Svend Robinson never got convicted)

That's true, he didn't. But Jack Kevorkian did. Teach him a lesson for assisting all those innocent folks to die. He had no right to make those decisions. As far as I'm concerned only one super power has that right, and he's not it.

Those 'innocent" people didn't want to suffer and asked for help. Jack did not make the decision to end their life, he was asked to assist them in a dignified death.
Which super power would that be?.....The American Government??
 

Similar Threads

18
euthanasia (Assisted Suicide)
by LuShes | Oct 10th, 2006