Supreme Court upholds Oregon Assisted Suicide Law

[evanft]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/assisted.suicide.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote in which chief justice John Roberts was on the losing side, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.

That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the federal government does, indeed, have the authority to go after drug dealers and pass rules for health and safety.

But Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people -- those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.

Tuesday's decision is a reprimand of sorts for Ashcroft. Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

"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.

Color me surprised. I didn't think they'd upheld the law, especially by a 6-3 majority.

 

[E-Z-B]

Yeah, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia all dissented? Not surprising at all. Hmmm...how will Scalito decide???

It's ridiculous that the federal government can intrude on personal decisions like this in the first place.

 

[E-Z-B]

It's also interesting that Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, all CONSERVATIVES, would not side with State rights, but instead voted for bigger federal government roles.

This shows exactly what Roberts true colors are, and why it's important for the democrats to filibuster Scalito.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='E-Z-B']how will Scalito decide???[/QUOTE]
Find a one-sided coin.

Flip it.

 

[mykevermin]

Can you think of the bumper stickers of religious conservatives?

"It's a three-year old recurring lymphoma, not a choice!"

 

[E-Z-B]

I thought those idiots learned their lesson from the Terri Schiavo circus. The religious right never know when to give up.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='E-Z-B']I thought those idiots learned their lesson from the Terri Schiavo circus. The religious right never know when to give up.[/QUOTE]

I think the difference is treatment was keeping her alive, where, in this case, treatment is required to end their life. There's also the issue of Schiavo not having a living will indicating her wishes, and having no way of making her choice known.

Though I'm suprised this passed, let alone 6-3.

 

[Kayden]

So dumb. Why do they need a doctors help? Solicit a crack head. Jump off a bridge. Play in traffic. Take a bath with a toaster. There are only a million ways to kill yourself.

I don't think doctors should be allowed to help kill patients, but thats only because of the Hippocratic oath...

However, I fail to see how anyone can advocate keeping someone alive that is in constant agony. "human life is sacred' "blah blah blah".

But then what did bitching on a message board ever really accomplish?

 

[chakan]

I'm just glad to see state's rights win over Federal mandates for once, even though I'm conflicted on the issue because of the Hippocratic oath. Suicide booths ala Futurama would work.

Maybe this decision will help the states with medical marijuana laws tell the feds to off.

 

[bmulligan]

I love how you've already passed judgement on the conservative judges without even reading the dissents. Yes, government shouldn't be involved in one's personal decisions, unless you don't want to hire a black or a jew or a woman. Then, of course, you want the government there to make sure everyone is making the right choices.

Way to go you broad generalizationers, you princes of hypocracy !

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Kayden']

So dumb. Why do they need a doctors help? Solicit a crack head. Jump off a bridge. Play in traffic. Take a bath with a toaster. There are only a million ways to kill yourself. [/quote]

Bath with toaster- painful
Play in traffic- possibly result in significant consequences legally to the person who hits you, not to mention the emotional toll
crack head- need to know where to go, need to engage in illegal activity, and (since people who don't know what to do are more likely to screw up) risk getting arrested)
jump off a bridge- kinda hard to do if you are already weak and dying, plus the risk of it not working instantly. Then again, there's the whole issue of emotional trauma to a passerby who sees you

There's also the whole aspect of dignity with every one of those mentioned.

I don't think doctors should be allowed to help kill patients, but thats only because of the Hippocratic oath...

However, I fail to see how anyone can advocate keeping someone alive that is in constant agony. "human life is sacred' "blah blah blah".

From the modern hippocratic oath:

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

Now it is not really therapeutic nihilism when you have multiple opinions, large amounts of evidence etc. indicating that the person has no realistic chance of survival. And it is certainly overtreatment when a person has nothing to look forward to but suffering and death, and has no wish to go through that and all the end will entail. Allowing them a cure for their suffering, the speeding up of death, is not overtreatment or therapeutic nihilism in any real sense, since it is not so much giving up but instead confronting reality.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug....

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

By forcing someone to stay alive isn't that overstepping the doctors boundaries? He is deciding that person should stay alive, ie. playing god, despite their wishes to the contrary and despite his capability to do otherwise, therefore granting the patient final say over their fate. Compassion, when there is no hope of a cure, should take center stage. It is nothing but cruelty when you force someone to endure the misery and agony that awaits them when there is an alternative that they very much desire and that would remove the burden of such a death.

But then what did bitching on a message board ever really accomplish?

Like all forms of debate it gives you reason to look up more info, discover holes in your own logic or opinions, and learn more about opposing views.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='bmulligan']I love how you've already passed judgement on the conservative judges without even reading the dissents. Yes, government shouldn't be involved in one's personal decisions, unless you don't want to hire a black or a jew or a woman. Then, of course, you want the government there to make sure everyone is making the right choices.

Way to go you broad generalizationers, you princes of hypocracy ![/QUOTE]
Is there something that happens at work, or some days that you forget your meds that provides this dichotomous attitude?

Seriously. Some days you're willing to discuss things thoroughly, and some days you exist just to be a name-calling effete bastard. Perhaps you can explain this to me one day; the next time your other personality arises, perhaps.

 

[E-Z-B]

[quote name='bmulligan']I love how you've already passed judgement on the conservative judges without even reading the dissents. Yes, government shouldn't be involved in one's personal decisions, unless you don't want to hire a black or a jew or a woman. Then, of course, you want the government there to make sure everyone is making the right choices.

Way to go you broad generalizationers, you princes of hypocracy ![/QUOTE]


You're equating personal decisions with racism and bigotry?

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='E-Z-B']You're equating personal decisions with racism and bigotry?[/QUOTE]
He's just goading me. No worries.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='E-Z-B']You're equating personal decisions with racism and bigotry?[/QUOTE]


Yes, you have a right to kill yourself AND you have a right to be a biggot if you so choose. In your case, you have a right to be an idiot. I won't stop you. But there is this new government plan I'm working on that will make everyone smarter ....

And Myke, the comments weren't directed at YOU. Stop being so vein. It was an emotional response to everyone here who passed an emotional judgement on the dissenting judges without even reading the dissents. The OP even has a fundamental misunderstanding of the case and thinks a law was upheld. there was no law upheld. The case was about whether or not the attorney general had authority to prosecute under a federal statute.

The entire bias of the article through word choice and phrasing is touching as well:

...rejecting a Bush administration attempt

...chief justice John Roberts was on the losing side,

Tuesday's decision is a reprimand of sorts for Ashcroft

Then it ends with the fine print without a precis of the dissent:

Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the decision. I just have to point out that the name-calling effete bastards are the posters ascribing negative aspects to the "losing" judges without even knowing the facts of the case. Now you can go take your "wake up and smell the coffee" pill.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, you have a right to kill yourself AND you have a right to be a biggot if you so choose. In your case, you have a right to be an idiot. I won't stop you. But there is this new government plan I'm working on that will make everyone smarter ....

And Myke, the comments weren't directed at YOU. Stop being so vein.[/quote]
Vain. Spell correctly when talking about me.

The entire bias of the article through word choice and phrasing is touching as well

Given the involvement of the Bush administration in this (in particular the blanket notion of the "culture of life" and the post-decision revelation by Scott McClellan that some in the administration are looking into a federal law against assisted suicide), there's a pretty damned good reason the article talks about a "Bush administration attempt": because it exists.

As for Roberts, he's new. He popped his "controversial law" cherry, and I think people want to know what he's going to be like as the chief justice, since the hearings taught us -all about what he was going to be like. You know who people *don't* give a about? Kennedy, that's who.

And, considering the content of the law and its focus on the AG, it is a reprimand of Ashcroft. What in the hell else would you call it?

Then it ends with the fine print without a precis of the dissent:

If hyperlinks worked, then you'd have access to the whole article. It's a shame it's broken.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the decision. I just have to point out that the name-calling effete bastards are the posters ascribing negative aspects to the "losing" judges without even knowing the facts of the case. Now you can go take your "wake up and smell the coffee" pill.

Dude, you didn't even read the linked article before judging the inherent media bias in it. Way to go, champ!

 

[electrictroy]

[quote name='E-Z-B']It's also interesting that Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, all CONSERVATIVES, would not side with State rights, but instead voted for bigger federal government roles.[/QUOTE]
I thought the current balance of the court was?

7 conservatives (nominated by Reagon, Bush, and Bush 2)
2 liberals (nominated by Clinton)

So that would mean that 4 conservatives voted IN FAVOR of assisted suicide.

Surprised?

Not me. As someone already pointed out, conservatives usually put States Rights' first & Oregon's law is purely a State-based issue.




[quote name='someone']I don't think doctors should be allowed to help kill patients, but thats only because of the Hippocratic oath...[/quote] Releasing a person from physical pain could be considered "healing". You've released them from several months worth of needless torture & have shown mercy. To needlessly extend a dying person's life IS "doing harm" and a violation of the oath.

 

[E-Z-B]

[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, you have a right to kill yourself AND you have a right to be a biggot if you so choose. In your case, you have a right to be an idiot. I won't stop you. But there is this new government plan I'm working on that will make everyone smarter ....[/QUOTE]

I hope that plan starts with you. As myke said, it's "vain", not "vein". And it's "hypocrisy", not "hypocracy", which is quite ironic.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='electrictroy']I thought the current balance of the court was?

7 conservatives (nominated by Reagon, Bush, and Bush 2)
2 liberals (nominated by Clinton)

So that would mean that 4 conservatives voted IN FAVOR of assisted suicide.

[/QUOTE]

No, there aren't 7 conservatives. Some previous appointments didn't work out as expected.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='mykevermin']Vain. Spell correctly when talking about me.[/quote]

ooohh, spelling mistakes. A last ditch effort of the lost cause (primarily directed at EZB, becuase, well, he's an idiot who can correct spelling mistakes, how ironic !).

Given the involvement of the Bush administration in this (in particular the blanket notion of the "culture of life" and the post-decision revelation by Scott McClellan that some in the administration are looking into a federal law against assisted suicide), there's a pretty damned good reason the article talks about a "Bush administration attempt": because it exists.

And, considering the content of the law and its focus on the AG, it is a reprimand of Ashcroft. What in the hell else would you call it?

How about "bush administrations position", or "bush administration's argument". Yes, it was a Bush administration initiative to jail doctors who violated federal drug laws, but there are a myriad of other words that could have been used to convey the content of the story without painting the conservatives in a negative light. But then again, you don't like conservatives, so you wouldn't notice subtle word choices and their connotations. When they demonize the people you hate, you consider it to be the god's honest truth.

I'm suprised they didn't write Ashcroft got spanked for his wrongdoings. They could have said he overstepped his boundry, went beyond the scope of his power, more clearly defined the limit of executive power, misused the law, but no, they used "reprimanded" as if he was being punished and the administration by association. Reading that must have given the liberal half-brain an uber-orgasm.

Dude, you didn't even read the linked article before judging the inherent media bias in it. Way to go, champ!

The funny thing is you never even question that there may be bias in it or any other article, you just take it at face value. I read the article, and there are many more word choices and inclusions that show the bias of the writer that I did not mention. There was no synopsis of the dissent and the 2 sentences quoted were chosen for their emotional value with no mention of the facts of the case, law that was being scrutinized, or the legality of the arguments. But immediately, as expected, the first response to the dissenting judges here was

Yeah, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia all dissented? Not surprising at all. Hmmm...how will Scalito decide???

This shows exactly what Roberts true colors are, and why it's important for the democrats to filibuster Scalito.

Find a one-sided coin.

There was no basis for those opinions save the dissenters were conservative. You have no clue as to the legality of the decision, but will gladly paint these judges as lackeys of the religious right and Bush even though you have no knowledge of the court opinions about the law or even the laws in question.

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='E-Z-B']I thought those idiots learned their lesson from the Terri Schiavo circus. The religious right never know when to give up.[/QUOTE]

Why would they? Each time they lose their followers become that more fevery and closed minded.

 

[electrictroy]

Repeating because the liberal conveniently ignored it: [quote name='electrictroy']I thought the current balance of the court was?

7 conservatives (nominated by Reagon, Bush, and Bush 2)
2 liberals (nominated by Clinton)

So that would mean that 4 conservatives voted IN FAVOR of letting Oregon keep its assisted suicide law.

Surprised?

Not me. As someone already pointed out, conservatives usually put States Rights' first & Oregon's law is purely a State-based issue.[/quote]




I'm a conservative (non-religious), and I have no qualms about assisted suicide. Releasing a person from physical pain could be considered "healing". You've released them from several months worth of needless torture & have shown mercy. To needlessly extend a dying person's life IS "doing harm" and a violation of the oath.

 

[mykevermin]

Who in the shit is "THE" liberal here? If you hadn't noticed, most of the people here are very left wing, and very few right wing (and fewer articulate on either side).

It's a shame that alonzomourning doesn't exist in your universe; maybe he's my virtual imaginary pal. I see his posts and you don't, and that must mean he doesn't exist. Well, let me see if I can conjure up my imaginary pal's post from this same goddamned thread.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']No, there aren't 7 conservatives. Some previous appointments didn't work out as expected.[/QUOTE]

There, much better. I hope it works for you. So, as you can see, it was answered. 7 of them were nominated by Republican presidents, but not all of them are dyed-in-the-wool-hardline conservatives.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='mykevermin']Who in the shit is "THE" liberal here? If you hadn't noticed, most of the people here are very left wing, and very few right wing (and fewer articulate on either side).

It's a shame that alonzomourning doesn't exist in your universe; maybe he's my virtual imaginary pal. I see his posts and you don't, and that must mean he doesn't exist. Well, let me see if I can conjure up my imaginary pal's post from this same goddamned thread.[/quote]

As Descartes said: "I think, therefore I am," sometimes I don't see alonzo doing much "thinking" before he types.



That oughta conjure up something...

 

[mykevermin]

Did Descartes say it first? I always hear the Latin phrase "cogito ergo sum" (or perhaps it's cognito, I haven't studied Latin since 1997), so I naturally assumed that it originated far before Descartes' time.

 

[bmulligan]

It is 'cogito' as far as i can remember my Latin. And descartes said it, but in french in his Discourse on Method. I think it's always related in Latin becuase he's not actually the first philosopher to coin the phrase. I'd google it but it seems rather pointless at this point.

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='bmulligan']I love how you've already passed judgement on the conservative judges without even reading the dissents.[/QUOTE]
Roberts didn't write an opinion, so we can pass judgement all we want:lol:

 

[bmulligan]

Fundamental misunderstanding of the case as perfectly described by the Post. [quote name='washington post']Although frequently described as a "right to die" case, Gonzales v. Oregon , No. 04-623, was not, strictly speaking, about the constitutional right to end one's own life. The court has already ruled, in 1997, that there is no such right and did not revisit that holding yesterday.

Instead, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in the majority opinion that the question was whether Ashcroft acted in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act when he issued an "interpretive rule" in 2001...[/QUOTE]

Scalia wrote the dissent joined by Roberts, Thomas also wrote a separate brief with a different basis.

If you read Scalia's dissent, he cites all the SC precedents that back his position that the AG was withing the bounds of his office and power based on existing federal law. His 'legitimate medical purpose' argument with the AG actions are based on a federally controlled substance which by statute is within the realm of tha AG's jurisdiction according to law. Logically, if these doctors had prescribed other medicines that were not federally controlled, the AG would have had no basis for his actions and Scalia would have sided with the majority.

The more important line to quote from the dissent would be this:

...our unanimous decision in Auer makes clear that broadly drawn regulations are entitled to no less respect than narrow ones. “A rule requiring the Secretary to construe his own regulations narrowly would make little sense, since he is free to write the regulations as broadly as he wishes, subject only to the limits imposed by the statute

But that isn't catchy enough for news copy, I guess.

 

[Metal Boss]

I don't see whats so bad about letting someone who is in imeasurable pain utilize this law, instead of seeing it the way the terminally ill people who want to use this law view it, they go ahead and take a "moral" standpoint and assume that this is wrong, probably because of christian belief...

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Metal Boss']I don't see whats so bad about letting someone who is in imeasurable pain utilize this law, instead of seeing it the way the terminally ill people who want to use this law view it, they go ahead and take a "moral" standpoint and assume that this is wrong, probably because of christian belief...[/QUOTE]

Neither did 6 of the justices. Nor did they consider the precedents they had already set, or the federal law in question. They acted in a compelling interest of doctors and the public instead of the law. What they should have done was rule the federal statutes on controlled substances illegal and forced congress to create a law to focus the scope of the statutes. They copped out if you ask me.