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.
Ping
the next step will be to force all doctors to do this or risk loosing their jobs or licenses, which they are already doing to doctors who refuse to give out prescriptions for abortion (morning after) pills.
"The authority desired by the government is inconsistent with the design of the statute in other fundamental respects. The attorney general does not have the sole delegated authority under the (law)," Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter, and
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and
Stephen Breyer.
Roberts and Justices
Clarence Thomas and
Antonin Scalia dissented.
Scalia, writing the dissent, 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.
The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."
Now, how does this make any sense?
So a Dr. can prescibe death for a patient, but not medical marijuana? How does that make ANY sense at all?
It doesn't. They both should be decided by the state, and its voters.
You may have it pegged. This may be setting up a repeal of Roe.
Yes, somehow leftists can't even kill themselves on their own, without government.
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)
Profound. Thank you.
As well you would agree they should. Hint: Look up "proscribe"
I sympathize with the states rights argument, but states can't do certain things. Taking a life really should be one of them. I further sympathize with the issues of pain and slow death, but the dangers the other direction are just way too great.
Now the difference between murder and legal "suicide" is nothing more than a legal document -- AND THE MOST IMPORTANT WITNESS IS DEAD!
Excellent ruling. This is a state issue. Let the states decide if they want physician-assisted suicide or legalized abortion. Those who don't like the law can fight for change via the state legislature. Get the feds out of these issues.
What the Supreme Court has just ruled is that the Federal government's authority is limited, just as our Christian Founding Fathers intended. The problem lies with the State of Oregon, not the United States, which has no business telling doctors what to do. Where in the Constitution do you see the "regulate doctors" clause?
Agree 100%. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd hear hundreds of FRino's screaming about judicial activism.
Just because we may not agree with any particular law, that does not make it the Federal Government's business.
And THAT IS WHY Roe V. Wade should have failed, not on a privacy basis, and not on a cooperative federalism 14th amendment type basis either.
then I guess you would be in total support of a state deciding to execute people based solely on race ... as long as two judges sign off on the idea?
Suicide isn't really a right to life issue. An individual does have the right to life, but that is his right. He owns it. If someone is committing suicide, no one is infringing on his right.
It's an awful law, and physicians should have no part in helping someone to kill themselves.
That said, I do not see where in the Constitution the federal government derives authority to overturn this law. I suspect, though, that this was an outcome-based decision on both sides. The Supreme Court is pretty much a political body these days...kind of a Super-Senate. I'll have to read the decision and dissent to see for sure.
The proper thing to do is to get the voters to undo this mess. They're the ones who voted it in. Personally, I voted against it, as it was and is an awful idea.
Unless of course bone cancer has rendered your entire bodies frail and made it impossible to leave the bed, not to mention rendered all movement excruciatingly painful. I don't think you can just order a handgun on Amazon.com (with your shattered wrists) and have on delivered to your sickbed.
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.