Supreme Court to Consider Oregan Law on Assisted Suicides

New York Times ^ | 2/22/05 | By DAVID STOUT

[Arnold Zephel]

ASHINGTON, Feb. 22 - The United States Supreme Court announced today that it would hear arguments on Oregon's law authorizing doctors to help their terminally ill patients commit suicide, the only such state law in the country.

The justices will hear arguments in the court term that begins this October. They will decide whether to overturn a ruling last May by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the law. The Bush administration has tried to overturn the law in the courts.

Oregon is one of the few places in the world where people are allowed to kill themselves with a doctor's prescription. Since the so-called Death With Dignity Act took effect in 1997, three years after a voter initiative backed it, about 30 people a year have used it to end their lives, according to state health records.

In a separate announcement, the Supreme Court declined a request today from Norma McCorvey, the Texas woman once known as "Jane Roe," to reconsider its 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision that upheld a woman's right to choose abortion. Ms. McCorvey has changed her position on abortion in recent years and has lost several appeals in the courts.

The Oregon assisted-suicide law was intended to help adults with incurable diseases who are likely to die in six months. They can obtain lethal drugs from their doctors, who may prescribe but not administer them. Doctors are granted immunity from liability.

In a 2-to-1 decision last May, a panel of the Ninth Circuit declared that the states, not the federal government, bear primary responsibility for evaluating doctor-assisted suicide.

"We express no opinion on whether the practice is inconsistent with the public interest or constitutes illegitimate medical care," Judge Richard C. Tallman wrote for the majority. "This case is simply about who gets to decide."

From a strictly legal standpoint, that may be so. But it also involves personal concepts of morality. Social and religious conservatives have long sought to undermine or abolish the Oregon law, contending that any official sanction of suicide is immoral.

In 1997, the Clinton administration's attorney general, Janet Reno, said individual states should be able to regulate their own doctors, as she rejected a request to declare that physician-assisted suicide violated federal law.

That request came from John Ashcroft, who was then a Republican senator from Missouri. As President Bush's attorney general, Mr. Ashcroft reversed Ms. Reno's position and tried to get the courts to nullify the Oregon law.

[Arnold Zephel]

In a 2-to-1 decision last May, a panel of the Ninth Circuit declared that the states, not the federal government, bear primary responsibility for evaluating doctor-assisted suicide.

Wow, the ninth circuit actually advocating state's rights.

[jonlane]

ok, i'm sure this will start an interesting discussion, since i bet there's no one out there who agress with me, but here goes...

how can people who call themselves conservatives so valiantly want to deny people their personal liberty to end their own life, especially when they are in constant, indescribable, and permanent pain? I understand the religious implications, but how can anyone be so sure in their ideology that they are prepared to make someone continue to live against his or her will in such misery? assuming there are proper checks in place to make sure the patient is of sound mental capacity, and they are not being put up to this by some ill-intentioned third party, why should someone not have the right to end their own life?

There is a clear distinction between this issue and abortion. Someone is not choosing to MURDER someone else. A person living in misery is choosing to end their own life (since they are physically incapable, they must enlist the help of their physician).

I am currently a medical student, and I have seen a number of terminally i'll patients who just want the pain to end. Would any of you who are opposed physician-assisted suicide be prepared to look these poor souls in the eye, and say that because of YOUR values, they must continue to live in agony?

I hope we can have an informed, respectful discussion about this. I truly am curious about your opinions.

thanks..

[Trinity_Tx]

Well, for what it's worth, I agree with you 100%.

Well said, too.

[supercat]

Too bad the court won't consider Florida's assisted non-voluntary "suicide" non-law.

[crazyhorse691]

OK. I will play for awhile.
I could throw the arguements of the Hippocratic Oath at you about MDs to save life and ease suffering, but, I prefer to point out that less than two generations ago(twice back on the genealogy chart) there was no treatment for diabetes, t.b., heart disease, and a whole host of mental disorders. There are treatments now. Suicide is a defeatist final act that assumes everything is at its darkest right now. I am being brief, of course.

[jonlane]

thanks, i was starting to worry that no one would challenge me...

first off, as for the hippocratic oath, it says "do no harm." i would argue that forcing people to continue to live in misery is doing them tremendous harm.

as for the point you chose to make, sure, it is possible, extremely unlikely, that there will be a cure for these terrible diseases, but these people do not want to wait. if it is a decision a patient makes with due consideration, and with a sound mind, then why do they not have the right to end THEIR pain and suffering?

Like i said in my first post, would you feel comfortable telling a person who is living in misery that they must, legally, continue to live on the off chance that a cure will be discovered, tested, and approved in the near future?

[crazyhorse691]

Like i said in my first post, would you feel comfortable telling a person who is living in misery that they must, legally, continue to live on the off chance that a cure will be discovered, tested, and approved in the near future?

---

So, we are back to feelings. I don't feel comfortable doing some things, but, if they have to be done, you chuck your feelings and do what has to be done. And if you carry your logic one step further, since there is no treatment in the pipeline therefore the only alternative is state imposed euthanasia. Because I guarantee that government will step in at some point and issue directives. Heck, hospitals already do that when it comes to some cancer treatments. And triage.

[Trinity_Tx]

Calling them "feelings" does not change anything, or justify taking away a competent person's right to make their own decisions about when they want their own life to end. It's a matter of self determination.

And the slippery slope argument you use goes both ways... carrying your argument one step further, the only alternative is state-imposed medical treatment.

So I think we should judge what is right or wrong on the particular merits - not slippery slopes.

[jonlane]

come on, there is a world of difference between the right-to-die and state imposed euthanasia! that "one step" is a pretty damn big step. My argument rests on the idea of personal liberties. To justify state imposed euthanasia, or MURDER, you would need a completely different logical basis

[crazyhorse691]

Its a slippery slope judging things on an individual basis because our laws don't always leave wriggle room. And if it is a persons right to selfdetermination, why judge it at all? That would be interfering. And define competent to include the feelings of the patient under the influence of medication.
Your name Trinity-Tx, is that like east texas near Lake Livingston?

[crazyhorse691]

right to die, capitol punishment is murder, you conservatives; one thing missing, abortion.

[jonlane]

"right to die, capitol punishment is murder, you conservatives; one thing missing, abortion."

huh? im confused...

[Trinity_Tx]

It's even more a slippery slope to judge things according to slippery slopes. ; )

If I understand your next question, "And if it is a persons right to selfdetermination, why judge it at all?" ... Well, you have a right to do many things that *could* be taken too far, and often are. But those rights aren't taken away *until* you directly encroach upon someone else's rights.

As for medication... the way Oregon does it, I think that's accounted for, as it should be. Note also that only thirty or so people have even taken advantage of it.

I chose this nick for other reasons - sorry for the confusion. You aren't the first. : )

[Wicket]

Here's the problem. Briefly, my background includes care for seniors (adult foster care) and I live in Oregon.

There is a current Oregon case where the daughter thought the ill mother should participate in assisted suicide. The original doctor said he thought the mother was depressed (could be since the daughter wanted her dead, soonest). Daughter went doctor shopping, and found one who thought that assisted suicide made sense and the lady is dead. Fellow Oregonians who have better details or the names involved, please chime in.

In another case a number of years ago, not involving Oregon's assisted suicide law, an elderly gentleman was held captive in the basement of his own house and nearly starved to death. His children wanted the house and the estate for themselves. Since they are dumb, as well as evil and lazy, they sent the dad out to get the mail and the gentleman asked for help from the postman, who knew him before.

After months in a foster care, away from his wonderful? children, he made a full recovery and was able to live independently again. If assisted suicide were available at that time, I have no doubt that there would have been coercion by his relatives. I was not involved directly, but know someone who was.

The Netherlands, a classic example of slippery slope results, is now killing infants and people who the doctor thinks shouldn't want to live (the doctor never having spoken to the patient.) Then there's Terri Schiavo (sp?)

So, quiz questions. Do you think that those who want to commit suicide can do so without government approval or doctor assistance? I understand that a plastic bag over the head works pretty well based on Derek Humphrey's information. Do you think that those who have a financial interest may want to encourage and/or coerce assisted suicide? In an era of extremely costly medical care, where much of the cost is weighted toward the end of life, would there be a financial interest for the HMO's (or for that matter government funded insurance like Medicare and Medicaid) and/or the physicians to encourage assisted suicide for those who are less able to make their own decisions?

Those are just some of the problems. If someone wants to croak themselves, I disagree with that based on the God- given sactity of all human life, but I certainly wouldn't interfere(except on the basis of friendship, if I was involved in the circumstances). I would also hope that they would do it in a way that doesn't injury someone else.

However, government and medical approval for the same is a very, very bad idea. By the way, it turns out that most of the Oregon cases have not involved intractable pain, but fear of loss of autonomy.

That said, undertreatment of pain, particularly in the terminally ill, is a disgrace. There are organizations that will work with the individual - hospice, Physician's for Compassionate Care - to make sure that does not happen. I had an aunt who died in severe pain that was completely unnecessary because no one intervened to be sure she was medicated enough. My Dad died recently of cancer and heart disease and with the assistance of hospice and we kids, he stayed comfortable and at home til the end.

And, folks who talk about suicide often choose to live once the underlying pain problem and depression are addressed.

So, that's my take. Not arguing for arguing's sake, but there is another side to the problems you mention.

Blessings,

[jonlane]

yeah, you make some excellent points. I mentioned in my original post, "...provided there are checks to make sure the person is of sound mind, and that no one third partyu is trying to take advantage of them..."

Obviously, these are not simple feats to achieve, and the issues with care providers possibly encouraging assisted-suicide is downright terrifying. if we could come up with solutions to these problems, which are seperate from the underlying ethical issue at hand, then I firmly believe the people have the inherent liberty to die if they so choose.

My point, essentially, is that while the problems you discussed are by no means trivial, they are still simply ABUSES of the system.

thanks, i enjoyed reading your post

[Wicket]

Glad you enjoyed it.

I think your caveat regarding controlling the abuses of the system is good. However, coming from my observations of humankind in general, abuses are difficult to control, as gaming the system is what we tend to do. Fallen man and all that.

I also think that personal autonomy is not necessarily the highest good, particularly in areas where others could be harmed. Your right to drive your car where and how you choose ends at the stop sign, because you might hit mine. Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. Your right to accumulate money ends when the money you accumulate was wrongfully taken from someone else.

Suicide impacts more than the individual who chooses it - just ask a lady I know who came home to her son hanging in the garage. Suicide, like other unfortunate behaviors, also tends to encourage others to the same decision - notably in clusters that occur in high schools once one has occurred. And then there's the coercion aspect.

I generally think the government should pretty much keep its nose out of things. That is not the same as encouraging, by legislating, something with as much potential for problems as the right to assisted suicide.

Having observed treatment of the elderly by their relatives, insurance carriers,and the medical profession, I think abuse is guaranteed, particularly as that population grows and our existing systems and finances have difficulty handling them.

Blessings,

[festus]

Wow, the ninth circuit actually advocating state's rights.

The bong was loaded with a bit more wacky tabacky than usual. Once the smoke clears they'll revert back to their old tricks of declaring the constitution unconstitutional again.