[Atlas Sneezed]

Actually, this all seems pretty stupid when you consider that Oregon doctors do not need to use federally regulated drugs to assist in suicide.

The who Bush Admin objection flies out the window if the doctor uses Carbon Monoxide, ethanol poisoning via an IV, or a host of other non-regulated substances that would end life. One could simply insert a needle for a large, final "blood donation" and the AG's flimsy excuse to object to this state policy would be irrelevant.

Sorry folks, but even if you had all "conservatives" on the court, you couldn't stop a state that whose people were determined that people had the right to have a doctor help them end their own lives.

Once you acknowledge that, the CSA objection becomes pretty meaningless, and more of an apparent political ploy, and not a legitimate legal objection.

[supercat]

Once you acknowledge that, the CSA objection becomes pretty meaningless, and more of an apparent political ploy, and not a legitimate legal objection.

I do not think it much of a stretch to say that deliberately causing a person's death (as opposed to alleviating pain in such fashion as may as a side-effect hasten death) is not a legitimate medical function. It is certainly contrary to the Hippocratic Oath which is supposed to underly the practice of medicine.

That isn't to suggest that people should suffer in agony. Alleviating pain is a legitimate medical function, even when doing so may shorten a person's life. Very large doses of pain killers may cause a person to die in minutes who would otherwise have lasted days, but if they allow the person to have a few minutes of quality time free from pain, that would be fine. But there's a difference between prescribing painkillers in a situation like that, and prescribing drugs whose specific purpose is to cause death.

Too bad the government seems wont to go after the doctors who prescribe pain killers when they serve a legitimate medical purpose, but can't go after doctors who prescribe poisons.