Posted on 01/17/2006 7:07:26 AM PST by 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.
Exactly. That's why I'd like to read the decision and the dissent, and I'm not going to say very much until I do.
"Oh absolutely. So long as YOU choose to kill yourself, meaning the mythical "you", then get a damn gun and do the deed. Again, I must ask, they gonna put you in jail?"
Not everyone has the luxury of being able to walk walk to a gun store, much less walk, much less leave their own bed, much less breath without being torn apart by agonizing pain.
Not really. Being on life support for years after a MVA is a lot more costly to insurance companies than suicide.
You mean the one that had this line: "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."
As I understand it, medical schools have for some years been redacting/rewriting the original oath to suit their tastes. Literally.
Guess I don't have to save all that much for retirement after all. I can be dispatched immediately upon retirement, once I am no longer economically viable/cost more than I produce.
I agree with your message, as well as this ruling. It particularly disturbs me that "our guys" were not in the majority.
The Declaration of Independence is not part of our law. Even if it were, it declares a right. But people do not have to exercise rights. For example, many people who support the right to keep and bear arms do not own a weapon. Should we force them to even though they do not wish to exercise that right? Should we force those arrested for crimes not to give confessions since they have a right to not incriminate themselves?
I do despise nanny-state attitudes. Nothing personal, just in general.
Still waiting to read the dissent opinion.
There are people arguing here that your life is your own to end as you wish. Then why, in Oregon, did the people put the responsibility for euthanasia onto doctors? It seems all too cowardly to me; if you believe in suicide, then do it unassisted. Don't get doctors and governments involved.
I also question how committed to states' rights, the majority opinion justices are...
This isn't the right to life. It's the right to self-determination, diminishing the nanny-state just a bit.
Because almost everyone - including myself - is hypocritical & inconsistent when it comes to states' rights.
That's why we see such wildly different opinions re: states' rights from the public when it comes to such issues as gay marriage, gun control, assisted suicide, medicinal marijuana, abortion, etc, etc
It is not in any way the purpose of the United States government or any of its states or protectorates, to get involved with any establishment of laws to discontinue a human life.
Since the constitution stipulates our peoples are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", it is this Court's opinion that any legislation involving the planned implementation of death is not legally a part of this country's governance oversight.We therefore strike down the Oregan law, somebody vs. someboy, as being an illegal law and not in that state's authority.
Then go find a good, sturdy gun aim it at your head, and pull the trigger. Putting this kind of crap in any kind of law is just dumb and the stuff of cowards.
With a 6-3 ruling on state sponsored assisted suicide I would say the LEFT LEANING on the COURT is solidly entrenched and the addition of Alito while pushing the COURT to the RIGHT doesn't make it the RIGHT WING MONSTER COURT so feared by the commies on the left.
We can only hope. I also despise seatbelt laws, although I always wear one and require all of my passengers to do so.
Thats why I think this issue is a social issue, not a political one. This is probably the closest, nearest and dearest decision a person could ever make, in their whole life. And being such a personal thing, it seems to me it is more up to him, himself, his family, his pastor, and his doctor.
Not some legislature or court 3000 miles away.
The protections you mention are in the DOI not the Constitution. Therefore they have no legal standing.
I guess the conflict is between the right to life versus states rights.
I have maintained for months that Roberts will roll back the states rights movement. He has begun.
Because.... the liberal leftist trend in this country is AWAY FROM personal responsbility ... and instead instituting heinous state laws that shift the responsbility for prematurely ending one's life onto doctors and onto government.
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.