Posted on 01/17/2006 7:07:26 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
This law has been around for nearly 10 years. The facts seem to support the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Seriously, is there any one who can provide a case where this law has been abused?
I'm not a physician, but I believe the Hippocratic oath includes the following vow, " I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy."
As you can see by the last sentence of the quote, it isn't taken seriously by many doctors today.
this is a matter for the statesMatters of life and death are not just "matters for the states". If Oregon wanted to legalize contract killing, rape, and bank robbery, should SCOTUS say "None of our business"?
That was different. There it whether federal law could trump state law. This one is whether the uncontested (for this case) current federal law supported Ashcroft's interpretation of it, and the justices decided it didn't.
I particularly liked Thomas' dissent. He makes very clear that he disagrees with Raich, but that Raich--being what it is--compels a finding against the state of Oregon. Thomas also seems to have a sense of humor when he notes: "1The majority does not expressly address whether the ingestion of a quantity of drugs that is sufficient to cause death has an “abnormal effec[t] on the nervous system,” ante, at 25, though it implicitly rejects such a conclusion."
Wohoo! The nannies lose another one!<>
But what was Thomas doing siding against states' rights?
Here is the "classical" version of the oath:
"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot."
This has been a horrible day for life.
The CSA unconstitutionally overreaches. Nobody before the court in this case, however, seriously challenged the validity of the CSA. If the CSA were constitutionally completely valid, then Ashcroft would have under it the authority that he excercised. Since nobody here challenged its validity, it must be accepted.
LOL - you are trying to push my buttons, aren't you?!?
Wish I had the energy...alas, I won't bite. ;*)
Because an old person in the Netherlands may or may not be able to handle the responsibility of managing their own lives, I shouldn't be able to control my own life?
I'm sorry, but if you want a nanny state that controls every aspect of your life, move somewhere else. Don't work against those of us fighting for a limited government here in the U.S.
If you don't feel up to the challenge of being in charge of your own life and you absolutely must have someone telling you to what to do, fine, I'll send you a detailed set of instructions. However, I wish you would leave the rest of us that CAN run our own lives alone for God's sake.
And I suppose that you, and John Ashcroft, know what God's will is? No wonder this guy lost his Senate seat to a smoking corpse.
Because an old person in the Netherlands may or may not be able to handle the responsibility of managing their own lives, I shouldn't be able to control my own life?
I'm sorry, but if you want a nanny state that controls every aspect of your life, move somewhere else. Don't work against those of us fighting for a limited government here in the U.S.
If you don't feel up to the challenge of being in charge of your own life and you absolutely must have someone telling you to what to do, fine, I'll send you a detailed set of instructions. However, I wish you would leave the rest of us that CAN run our own lives alone for God's sake.
Haha! That's got to be the best post i've read all day. Huzzah for personal responsibility!
Have you read Thomas' dissent? He uses this case, in part, to continue his repudiation of Raich. Had he voted with Oregon on the basis of his dissent in Raich, his condemnation of Raich wouldn't be nearly as strong as it is here.
I can't see judging this as assisted "murder."
Not yet.
"Premeditated" means the decision to kill was formed in a cool mind before the killing act was carried out.
"Innocent" means lack of moral blame under the law sufficient to justify the death of the person killed.
There is also the concept of "aiding and abetting." An aidor and abettor intentionally assists in the killing act. An aidor and abettor is guilty as a principal to the crime aided and abetted.
Under these traditional definitions of first degree murder, a doctor who, in accordance with a decision he has formed in a cool mind, intentionally assists in administering a death-dealing substance to a patient lacking moral blame under the law sufficient to justify the patient's death, is guilty as a principal to first degree murder if the person dies as a direct and proximate consequence.
What prevents it from being first degree murder in Oregon is not any issue related to premeditation or innocence. Rather, it is the patient's supposed acquiscence to the act.
Do we really want to live in a society that "consensually" allows strong citizens to kill weak citizens who are guilty of no moral blame sufficient to justify their death?
Thomas' argument, which I find interesting, is that it is not proper for the Court to arbitrarily pick and choose, based upon their own ideology, what things are state powers; the Court should not be allowed to decide something is a federal power when convenient without having to also accept that other things with an even stronger "interstate commerce" are also federal powers.
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.
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.