SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS OREGON'S SUICIDE LAW

ap ^

[SoFloFreeper]

BREAKING ON THE AP WIRE:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

[justshutupandtakeit]

This has nothing to do with the "right to life". Seems to be a state issue according to the Court.

[antiRepublicrat]

The whole point is not state rights, dispensing death should not be a medical procedure

That is the issue according to this case. The issue of whether or not it's right should be taken up with the state, but it already has, and has been settled.

[Sandy]

So a doctor can help a patient die with lethal drugs, but can't help a patient live with medical marijuana. Go figure.

There wasn't a constitutional question in this case though. The Court was just interpreting the statute/regulations (which rather clearly leave this matter to the state). Congress can (and probably will) rewrite the statute to remove the state's authority, and then the constitutional question will be at issue.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I doubt mm has allowed anyone to live. Not that I am against it but it is not a lifesaver.

[antiRepublicrat]

I sympathize with the states rights argument, but states can't do certain things. Taking a life really should be one of them.

I take it you're against the death penalty.

But aside from that, read the law. The state doesn't take the life, the terminall ill person does.

[La Enchiladita]

Putting the shoe on the other foot in another way...

Do the majority justices in this decision ALWAYS vote to uphold states' rights? I wonder...

[cvq3842]

Well said.

I am troubled by assisted suicide, but that's a policy argument.

We have to stick to our principles on the Constitutional arguments.

I will have to read the decisions for myself.

[little jeremiah]

Your statement, with all due respect, is total crap.

So the states should have the powers to enact laws that violate the basic constitutional protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Especially the life one? You really think that individual states have the right to allow people to be killed, as in abortion, or the fake suicide which is really euthanasia? Have you ever read about what goes on in the Netherlands since they started on the path of "compassionate death"?

[eyespysomething]

Exactly. If a state wishes to make abortion legal, their choice, the same with medical marijuana, and this.

I don't like it, but it would be my choice to move to a state where my beliefs are the same, or else work to change the state I live in.

As it is right now, there is no difference between the states, we are all one big federal state.

[antiRepublicrat]

That said, I do not see where in the Constitution the federal government derives authority to overturn this law.

They didn't try to actually overturn it, as that I guess would be too-blatant an intrusion. They did try to subvert it, prosecuting doctors who were doing something entirely legal according to their state law.

[ohioWfan]

This has nothing to do with the "right to life". Seems to be a state issue according to the Court.

Then why did the three conservative, originalist judges all side with the right to life?

Seems as though conservative originalists believe that the Constitutional right to life trumps Constitutional states rights............doesn't it?

It's a higher value within the Constitution, as I see it. And apparantly Roberts, Thomas and Scalia do too.

[Borges]

So the states should have the powers to enact laws that violate the basic constitutional protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I don't have a dog in this hunt but those protections are not in the Constitution.

[Brytani]

The issue to me, however, is that no doctor should be writing prescriptions to help someone kill themselves. It's a breach of medical ethics, and contributes to the culture of death.

But the fact that it's morally wrong doesn't give the federal government the authority to step in. This is quite different from the Terri Schiavo situation, where a woman was murdered (without her consent). I believe Congress could step in in that case, as it was a denial of her federal civil rights.

I agree, the feds should have stepped in with the Schiavo case and refused to allow her "husband" to make the decision for her. She was murdered.

However, doctors are faced with life and death decisions all the time. From the decision to remove life-support or the decision to perform a risky operation that could either leave the person dead or healed. To say that doctors have nothing to do with the death of a patient is factually wrong.

I believe the justices made the correct decision in that this should have been a states rights issue. Roe should have been ruled on the same way but wasn't. This decision could lead the way for overturning Roe and sending it back to the states.

[Sweetjustusnow]

"Across the country, everyday, elderly and sick patients are given "extra" morphine, which stops the heart. We have an informal system of euthanasia, which is used at the families and doctors discretion. When you are going out the door, I have little to no problem with easing the transition."

The administration of medication to keep one comfortable is fine and if that administration of medication has become increasingly larger doses that too is fine and the side effect of it contributing to death is one thing, but the actual deliberate attempt to snuff out a life is quite another. What happened to the Hippocratic oath of Doctors?

[FourtySeven]

Are you implying that suicide is illegal?

I do believe in many States, suicide is technically illegal, but they won't put you in jail for attempting it. Some will forcibly commit you to a psychiatric hospital for a time though.

[Sols]

"I am sure all you atheists are just fine with this however as the very nature of atheism is self centered its all about me me me"

You really seem like a joy to talk to, but I'm going to ignore you now.

[Wolfie]

Huck was being sarcastic (oh boy, was he bing sarcastic! ;) )

[djf]

I'm not sure. I know O'Connor delivered the opinion in NY V US, 505 US 144, which is probably the most important states rights/separation of powers decisions in decades.

I will have to read the decision. I am particularly interested in what Thomas said in dissent...

[marshmallow]

"Catholic" Kennedy strikes again. He consistently sides with the culture of death and can't be depended on for any pro-life cause.

He is the problem right now.

With O'Connor gone and Alito in, it would likely have been the same result except with a 5-4 margin.

Hopefully Stevens will be gone soon and then the real battle for the SC will begin.

[Pyro7480]

People in Oregon have the right to end their life if they want to.

That is more of a left-wing argument than a conservative one, in my opinion.