Oregon Ping
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
Posted on 10/05/2005 5:10:46 AM PDT by Brilliant
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will revisit the emotionally charged issue of physician-assisted suicide in a test of the federal government's power to block doctors from helping terminally ill patients end their lives.
Oregon is the only state that lets dying patients obtain lethal doses of medication from their doctors, although other states may pass laws of their own if the high court rules against the federal government. Voters in Oregon have twice endorsed doctor-assisted suicide, but the Bush administration has aggressively challenged the state law.
The case, the first major one to come before the new chief justice, John Roberts, will be heard by justices touched personally by illness. Three justices — Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens — have had cancer, and a fourth — Stephen Breyer — has a spouse who counsels young cancer patients who are dying.
Their longtime colleague, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who once wrote about the "earnest and profound debate" over doctor-assisted suicide, died a month ago after battling untreatable cancer for nearly a year.
In 1997 the court found that the terminally ill have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O'Connor provided a key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state experimentation.
O'Connor is retiring, and Bush on Monday named White House lawyer Harriet Miers to replace her. If Miers is confirmed before a ruling is announced, O'Connor's vote will not count. A 4-4 tie would probably require the court to schedule a new argument session.
The appeal is a turf battle of sorts, not a constitutional showdown. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's base of religious conservatives, decided in 2001 to pursue doctors who help people die.
Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned, an opposite conclusion than the one reached by Janet Reno, the Clinton administration attorney general.
Oregon filed a lawsuit to defend its law, which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the federal government can trump the state.
"It could be close," said Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke University and former Supreme Court clerk. "It is a wrenching issue. It's one of the most difficult decisions any family needs to make. There's a lot of discomfort with having the government at any level get involved."
Under Rehnquist's leadership the court had sought to embolden states to set their own rules. Roberts, who once served as a law clerk to Rehnquist and worked as a government lawyer, may be sympathetic to Bush administration arguments that the federal government needs ultimate authority to control drugs.
In this case, that would be at odds with the concept, popular among conservatives, of limiting federal interference.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's Supreme Court lawyer, told justices in a filing that 49 states, centuries of tradition, and doctors groups agree that "assisted suicide is 'fundamentally incompatible' with a physician's role as healer."
The administration lost at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, 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."
In Oregon, the first assisted-suicide law won narrow approval, just a 51 percent majority, in 1994. An effort to repeal it in 1997 was rejected by 60 percent of voters.
"There is a real human need" for control over one's life, said cancer patient Charlene Andrews of Salem, Ore. "We are terminal and we know when we have a few weeks left. We know when we're unconscious. We know when we're at the end."
The case before the Supreme Court is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
In reality, however, this issue will not be treated objectively.
In the medical marijuana case, just a few months ago, the court ruled that essentially *everything* is interstate commerce, so the federal government has jurisdiction over everything. Thomas and O'conner wrote wonderful dissents, and Scalia wrote a weak, stupid opinion, essentially saying, well, I want the federal government to be able to keep drugs illegal, so the commerce clause has to be all inclusive in this case.
I'm a big supporter of states rights in most of these social issues. I don't care if Minnesota legalizes same sex marriage, marijuana, or assisted suicide as long as they aren't imposed on my state. I want the right to vote against them but I don't want to impose my will on anyone else. If I'm unhappy with the laws of my state I should be able to go to a state with laws more to my liking.
Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. ...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
****
That doesn't foresee that a person might want to deprive themselves of life.
I admit there is a slippery slope on the commerce clause, and that has been a problem ever since Roosevelt stacked the Court. I think the Court will want to stay out of the assisted suicide issue as much as possible, but I guess when you think about it, there are two ways to do that.
1. It's a state's rights issue, and therefore, don't complain to us about it--complain to the states.
2. It's an issue for Congress, and so don't complain to us.
The only thing they could do that would really be a screw up is to say that there is an individual right under the Constitution to have an assisted suicide. That would be as divisive as Roe, but it ain't gonna happen.
Is not this statement somewhat conflicting? By voting on such a measure are you not attempting to impose your will on others?
The state is not acting to deprive an individual of life without due process in the case of assisted suicide but may be denying the individual of his libety to make such a decision.
I really hope the court doesn't use this as yet ANOTHER excuse to widen the Commerce Clause. Scalia's statist leanings in recent opinions are frightening.
Anyone else in the sense of any other states.
Of course, the Court could just say that assisted suicide is not commerce at all, or at least it's not if no one gets paid to do it, and so the feds have no way of banning it altogether under the Constitution. They can only regulate the business of assisted suicide.
Roger that. In the Med Marijuana case Scalia is willing to expand the CC so wide that it essentially swallows the concept of a limited Federal Government of enumerated powers. If one of those enumerated powers is interpreted to be "anything it wants", it just sort of kills the whole concept.
Agreed, but this is the same court that said that states can't regulate the use of medical marijuana.
Unfortunately judicial activism isn't the sole domain of the left. This is why we need as many strict constructionalists as possible on the court, I'm hopeful Roberts pulls the court toward an originalist viewpoint.
I don't think it's an issue for the Congress, a national ban on doctor assisted suicide should be unconstitutional IMHO.
It isn't an issue for Congress at all. Madison's original intent specifically states this would be an issue for the states. But I doubt that will stop social 'conservatives' from rallying for Washington to pass yet another unconstitutional law
Assisted suicide is a bogus issue. Those who request it do so because they are in pain. They are in pain because doctors fear prosecution if they relieve pain. The War On Drugs has created this nightmare.
.
Oregon Ping
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
I'm not so sure it's just the War On Drugs. Doctors just love to play God, and most of them are insufferably arrogant and think all of us mere mortals are too stupid to be trusted with any sort of self-medication. They'd arrogate to themselves the ability to prescribe every mouthful of food you eat if they could.
Now, they're "hoist with their own petard" - no one has access to "suicide drugs" except through a "Doctor", so the doctors are being forced to "Help" end people's lives. My heart bleeds for the poor dears.
However, regardless... the most important thing is, if we have to restrict assisted suicide, can't we at least leave it legal for liberals?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.