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.

[B Knotts]

The majority seem basically to be saying "Congress can regulate this, but they didn't do so in this case." Even though it seems that they intended to do exactly that.

[IranIsNext]

so your arguing that all suicide jumpers should just be left alone?

Depends if there are kiddies nearby who might be traumatized by a man going "splat"

[tx_eggman]

I quote my own prior post. Guess you didn't choose the underlined part.

Sorry ... oh, and about this ...

I really am glad to know this, btw. And now that it was mentioned, give me a little credit, I do recall it was the first words in the DOI.

Actually the phrase you mistakenly attibuted to the Constitution doesn't appear until the second paragraph of the Declaration:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Color me smiling and saying

I'm glad to help

[conservative physics]

Again I state that anyone who wants to die isn't mentally sound and that no one is arguing against pain medication.

[IranIsNext]

"The right to control one's OWN life, including deciding when to end it, is alive and well in America. The government doesn't own individual citizens' lives, and Hillary's "village" doesn't own individual citizens' lives. Individual citizens own their own lives, and can dispose of those lives as they please."

I couldn't have said it better myself! 8-) ::Suck up mode turned off::

[Sols]

"Who's to say that given the chance they wouldn't snap out of their funk and try to live."

Try to live as what, bedridden masses of cancer and diseased bone, unable to relieve themselves, bathe themselves, or even move for fear of another bone snapping?

I would be depressed by that, yes, but it wouldn't be clinical depression. It would be my realization that any hope I had for leading any kind of life was over, and that I would much prefer an end to my pain. And that I couldn't.

[Siena Dreaming]

Let the individuals decide what they want to stand for.

Exactly. That's up to them to decide what they want their state policies to be.

I hope most states choose life. God touches hearts through the dying process and brings many souls to himself. Dealing with pain is actually a part of life.

If nanny states want to choose to social engineer who lives and dies that's up to them. But by far most states will choose life. The others should be shunned.

[Snoopers-868th]

The whole point is not state rights, dispensing death should not be a medical procedure if someone who is ill wants to die they can pick up a .45, get some pills, ect. There is no reason for a "MD" who swore an oath to protect life to kill people (but they seem to do it all the time)

Your concept is exactly correct. Seems a .45 is less desirable and pretty scary and you have to do it YOURSELF, which would be a real suicide and how could it be prosecuted? The alternative is the DR is the one in control doing the killing. I guess I agree with the poster who said in actuality it really is God who is in control. It would be interesting if the Dr's quit assisting. If death is really what the competent person wants let em do it. Where must I be missing the point?

[Fishtalk]

Thank you,

[right-wingin_It]

Oregon's law is highly regulated. You (or immediate family members) have to sign notarized documents if the patient has a terminal illness. There is no slippery slope here. It's not like anybody can just have the physician put them to death.

The Dutch once had a "highly regulated" system too with suposed safeguards in their euthanasia laws, but in time they all eroded. An article from The Lancet reports a whopping 8% of infant death in that country is now the result oif lethal injection

There's always a slippery slope.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I think parties other than the government are best equipped to determine whether someone's desire to commit suicide is the result of a passing mental disturbance, or a sincere, well thought out desire to die. The position of the nanny-state pseudo-conservatives, is that the government has the right to decree that anyone who wishes to die is by definition "depressed" or otherwise mentally ill and incompetent to make his/her own decisions. Alas, there is no evidence to support that claim, since a lot of people who are currently neither depressed nor suffering from any severe ailment, are eager to ensure that they will have the right to die when they want to. It is a hallmark of Communist China, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union, that the government legally defines anyone who disagrees with it as "mentally ill", and thus eligible for forced "treatment".

[balch3]

This bodes well for abortion then. The laws of life and death should remain with the various states.

---

Just the opposite. If this had gone the other way, the Justice Department could have challenged abortion in states where it was legal once Roe is overturned

[FredZarguna]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A completely unremarkable decision, except to the extent that the usually clear-thinking Scalia and Thomas dissented.

[IranIsNext]

I find it ironic as well that the justices who typically fight for states rights are saying that the federal government has the authority to pass laws regarding suicide"

And in this case the dissenting side usually for state's rights was against it. The point is, everyone on the Supreme Court is a hypocrite now and then, just some are more so then others.

[IranIsNext]

I find it ironic as well that the justices who typically fight for states rights are saying that the federal government has the authority to pass laws regarding suicide"

And in this case the dissenting side usually for state's rights was against it. The point is, everyone on the Supreme Court is a hypocrite now and then, just some are more so then others.

[jw777]

Then, you have the the Golden Gate Bridge commission trying to approve a $35million dollar or so, suicide barrier. This after all the people who thought Schiavo should have been "allowed" to die (a great number of which are concentrated in tolerant, diverse and inclusive S.F.)

So, in one breath, they want to prevent you from doing it and in the other, don't want you to be prevented from doing it.

[Zack Nguyen]

Yes, the same rational will probably at some point be used for abortion, and that is a shame. Life and death, which is what we are dealing with here, is a legitimate province of the federal government.

[Constitution Day]

Bravo!

The opinions of both Hillary's 'village' and certain wackaloons on this site are completely irrelevant.

[La Enchiladita]

The ruling was a reprimand to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in 2001 said that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" and that Oregon physicians would be punished for helping people die under the law.

Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

"If the term `legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.

I guess Ashcroft should have kept his mouth shut, huh?

Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

How well did Gonzales prosecute this case? And would better prosecution have yielded a different result, since the decision seems political, as confirmed in the opening line of the AP article?

Last... I am relieved to see Roberts's first decision but would like to know his basis for it ... so far, I agree with the minority but need to read more.

According to Rehnquist, states can decide to ban euthanasia or to legalize it. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

[Sols]

After the tolerance makes the morphine useless to dull your pain, as a happy circumstance of all opioid tolerance your pain sensitivity will actually increase. Then maybe you can get some ketamine or N20, after which you'll be so screwed out of your mind you won't be able to communicate or act in any meaningful way!