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.

[Clinging Bitterly]

This is a horrible law, but I have long thought the way to overturn it is to take it to the voters again after a lengthy period of voter education.

This was voted on twice in Oregon. After the first passage, the legislature repealed it. Second time around the initiative passed again and the legislature has since left it alone.

I have mixed feelings about it. First, I think whether or not a person chooses to end his life is his business and none of the state or federal government's. Before this was passed, folks did themselves in with drug overdoses all the time. There is no need for this law, and the government should have been kept out of it.

Second, there is no such thing as assisted suicide. Having assistance sort of flies in the face of the definition of the word suicide if you ask me. The same sort of logic applies to gay marriage. In the real world, where words have well established and understood meanings, legislation that attempts to rewrite the dictionary is no less absurd than those that would try to rewrite history. I'd probably oppose such things less often if they were written using words that actually described what they are trying to do (of course those words would be uglier than the less appropriate ones they have chosen, it seems to me).

But the state has passed this law, not once but twice, so here is a states' rights issue that has been running in parallel with the similar issue of medical marijuana. And how the court could rule against that and for this, based upon assertion of the exact same power by the federal government (one which I don't believe is legitimate in any event) seems a tad fickle and inconsistent. Our nation's greatest legal minds seem to have goofed on one side or the other, if you ask me.

Now - some folks view this case as important as a "right to life" issue. Simply put, I don't. To be sure, there are issues with the possibility of coercion of the not entirely willing for economic or other reasons, but those issues existed even without this law.

I could go on but I'd be typing all night. As for myself, I can't imagine a scenario where I would not want to live and breathe each and every breath of air that I am able. Those who would choose otherwise, I say fine for them, it's their decision. But still and all, there is no reason for it to be any of the government's business. Can't un-ring that bell though, can we?

[epow]

I'm not sure but there is often a hint of hypocrisy on these threads.

Yeah, I'm a really big hypocrite on this issue. Here's my present situation.

My mother is 94. She is bedridden, she doesn't know where she is or who she is, she is totally incontinent, she wears diapers and lies on a waterproof pad over her mattress, she is almost blind, almost completely deaf, and suffers with advanced arthritis. She wakes up frequently at night and has to have constant surveillance to keep her from trying to climb out of the rented hospital bed and falling in the process. We hire sitters to sit with her several nights a week so my sister can get some sleep. My sister, my wife, and my daughter spend the rest of the time caring for her 24 hours a day. My wife and I live 90 miles away from my sisters house and drive there every other week to take our turn, and my daughter drives 120 miles round trip on weekends when she isn't working at her job. The bills keep mounting up and my mother's savings keep going down.

I didn't describe that situation hoping to cause anyone to feel sympathy for me and my family. I described it because we would not allow her to be treated like an aging pet dog by having her euthanized if our own lives were at risk if we refused. God gave my mother life, and only God can deliberately take it away without committing a crime. I know that my mother would rather have died before she came to this point, but that was not God's will. I don't know what he has in mind for her, but it isn't up to me to decide when she leaves this earth.

Beginning approximately 11 years ago we went through a similar ordeal when my dad's Alzheimer's disease reached a critical final stage. The last 10 months of his life were spent completely bedridden and receiving nourishment through an abdominal feeding tube. He was also totally incontinent and had to be bathed in bed and cared for like a newborn baby 24 hours a day. I quit my job before I had planned to and moved 600 miles away from my wife to live with my mother and care for my dad for those 10 months. He died a natural death during one of his increasingly frequent stays in the hospital near the end. At no time during these ordeals would we have considered for one minute having a doctor prescribe a fatal drug overdose for either one of my parents if that had been legally possible.

I'm sure that some people reading this thread are now undergoing similar ordeals or worse, or have in the past. You may feel the same as I do, or you may have wished for a law like the Oregon law. I don't claim to be holier than thou or anyone else, but I can't accept the idea that human life is subject to expiration at our own choice of time and manner of death.

If anyone here thinks that I have been posting hypocritical messages on this thread tonight, that's your right but you're dead wrong if you do.

[Salvation]

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

Community and individuality are not opposites. People cannot survive on their own. When the odds are stacked against you, you must rally with the oppressed and hated.

When a growing oppressive regime is taking hold, you must act, otherwise you will soon face your enemy alone and hopeless.

Strength of community is a strength as much as individualism, as long you are willing to face weaknesses in your own community. Ignoring slacking values will mean that you will be rallied against by those you oppress.

Niemöller affirms we must rally against unhealthy organized regimes. We must also stay vigilant with those that appear to be good natured, as all organisation attracts corruption. Niemöller also warns us that if it is you who are corrupt, then you will face a stronger combined force of foe!
Vexen Crabtree

[epow]

I offer you my sympathy for your ordeal and my respect for your commendable attitude through your time of trial. Respect for human life seems to be in rather short supply on this thread tonight, and your comment is encouraging to those of us on this side of the issue.

[epow]

Only 43% vow to be accountable for their actions.

14% include a prohibition against euthanasia.

11% invoke a deity.

8% prohibit abortion.

Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients

If these are the best and the brightest among us, God help us.

I am personally acquainted with 3 physicians who attended the same church before we moved. One is now retired himself and I see him from time to time. I believe that all three of those fine men would be greatly disappointed if they are aware of those statistics.

[bybybill]

We lived 15 miles out of Portland when this all was going on, and my wife had her opinion. She hated it and was very troubled about the message it was sending to the kids.
No matter what they say, Oregon`s law is really saying that when you can`t cope with life, suicide is OK. It also say that, if you can kill your self, killing babies is no problem.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Thank God for a Doctor that knew what he was doing,and cared, and for those amazing people from Hospice.

We went through the same thing at our house a few years back when my beloved mother in law suffered primary liver cancer. She was gone only four months after diagnosis.

She had an unrelated surgery that led to the chance discovery of her cancer, and by then it was well advanced and everybody knew there was no chance of survival and they were honest about it. We brought her home with sound advice and everything we needed to keep her comfortable for her final months. There were a lot of good times and bad times in those few months, but every time we needed something, all we had to do was pick up the phone and Sacred Heart Hospice was right over with it.

She was alert and active up to about her final week. On this very day nine years ago she died about an hour after I gave her what was to be her final dose of morphine, which she could still take by mouth and swallow on her own.

Not many would have such kind words for their mother in law, but she was a treasure and a joy to be with. We are grateful for every day we had with her, and she was grateful for every day she lived. I can only hope that when my time comes the standard of care I saw in that experience will still be preferred over a hastened death.

[BagCamAddict]

I just want to say, for the record:

1. DEATH is not a right, it's a REQUIREMENT. We are all REQUIRED to die. Period. Why shouldn't we be able to choose when and how we die? And if you're going to respond to me, I'm not asking for the "Religion" answer.

2. There is no comparison between Assisted Suicide and Abortion. One is the choice of the dying, one is NOT by choice of the killed.

I haven't read the whole thread, just a few of the early replies. So maybe this has been covered already. If so, I apologize.

[bybybill]

Thanks for sharing that, I wish I had meet the lady.
I am very concerned about the quick to kill in Oregon. (I moved)
Oregon should pass a law that prohibits a lawyer from representing suicide victim and their estate

[garandgal]

We went through the same thing at our house a few years back when my beloved mother in law suffered primary liver cancer. She was gone only four months after diagnosis.

My Dad died from cholangiocarcinoma only four months after diagnosis. I wish that I could say that the rest of your experience was similar to mine.

He was initially relentlessly encouraged by Mayo to have "experimental" chemo; which had the predictable effect of killing him off a good two months before he would have died.

Then, our worthless "hospice" had him sign a "no extraordinary means" document...which they carefully explained would mean that he wouldn't be resuscitated. I actually asked if that meant removing hydration by I.V. They said "no."

Then, his Dr. removed the hydration anyway (without asking us)...about five days before he died; dehydrated, in excruciating pain, flailing about,....while we begged them to give him morphine and tried to "swab" his mouth with the sponge that they allowed us.

The Hospice nurse kindly explained that they had to "watch" what they gave out with "those type of drugs."

They said he died "peacefully." Cretins.

After witnessing that, upon diagnosis I would immediately find the biggest drug dealer in town...stock up; take a nice vacation; say goodbye to my family; pray...and go to sleep.

If they ever bother to come up with any type of effective treatment for such cancers, I might actually change my mind. They haven't in 30 years....I won't hold my breath.

[old and tired]

Let's pray Alito will vote with them. But also, let's pray that Ginsburg and Stevens will resign before a death loving Dem takes the White House.

[papasmurf]

Kinda' blows a hole in the DUmmies assertions that Alito will make the Court a right wing talking head.

:O)

P

[papasmurf]

You can help with finding a cure by joining us FReepers on the "folding" thread. Search Folding.

ALL are invited to help, it's painless, costs nothing, is a for a great cause, and we have competition with the DUmmies for added comic relief.

:O)

P

[Bushbacker]

It has no legal standing whatsoever. And the legality (or rather the Constitutionality) of a SC decision is the subject of this thread.

_____The Constitution was the second attempt at setting up the rules and regulations for the US..the first was the Articles of Confederation...but the founding
document was the decision of the Continental Congress to declare an American republic..and that decision of was recorded in the Declaration...outlining the basic principles of the nation.

I was above all the law that followed...and it defined the rights listed in the Constitution as deriving from "nature and nature's God."

[Bushbacker]

Yes, a dreadful decision...Roberts prived himself a true conservative by voting against it...I believe Alito also would have done so...we still need one more justice nominated by Bush..

[arasina]

If you don't like Oregon's law move to Oregon and vote to overturn it. But your answer is bring in the feds and force Oregonians to do what you want because you say so...

My 'answer' was not that all. I gave my personal belief. I'm not asking or forcing others to share that belief. WHEN did I suggest 'bringing in the feds'? I didn't even IMPLY it.

Just curious...how do you feel about the gay marriage 'laws' in some states? Anything goes, right? The people decide...live and let live, eh?

[arasina]

I, personally, would never have had an abortion. I, personally, would never assist someone in their suicide. That's all and so there. (And I will always 'vote my conscience' when the opportunity arises --- don't you?)

Man, I stepped in it on this thread, didn't I. Sheesh.

[bvw]

Rights and duties are not seperable. They are distinct: there is a right to do this, that comes with a duty to do that. But you do not have a "right", without some associated and inseperable duty.

I put no beleifs into Jefferson's head as you seem to have done. The historical record, iirc and fwiw, shows that Jefferson was Christian at times and Diest at times. What I wrote of "godly" duties was not Christian, it is more fundamental.

The Declaration is signed by many, Jefferson may have been its editor and main author, he is not the sole author, the expressions and statements in it represent a consensus. They represent the consensus of legal, ethical and philosophical thought at the time of Revolution and the Constitution. The ideas of fidelity to and foundation in G-d's law is found in them and in such primal referenece sources of that time as Blackstone.

Those were times when hebrew was taught at the Colleges as a basic requirment. You live and speak from a later timte when there is no hebrew, nor even greek, nor even latin, were even the basic english of college graudates suffers from lack of teaching.

Your anger is found in that I think, you scream out of being tossed in with the fallen and ignorant in this generation.

[muawiyah]

THat's a very subjective judgment. The guys on the street around here sell stuff that's so good ......... well, need I say, modern science is truly incredible isn't it.

[F16Fighter]

"I, personally, would never have had an abortion. I, personally, would never assist someone in their suicide. That's all and so there. (And I will always 'vote my conscience' when the opportunity arises --- don't you?)"

You have tremendous integrity....

With respect to voting your "conscience," I happen to agree with you, but this is where "constitutionality" comes into play.

Some opine that President Bush is allowing illegal immigration to go on unimpeded because his "conscience" tells him it's "right." ITMT, we know he's engaging in an un-constitutional act.