I think the Oregon law handles it adequately - two verbal requests and one written one over time within the last six months of a terminal patient's life, with two doctor's approval and proof of having a sound mind. Not fail-safe, but the law seems fairly resistant to abuse.

It is an issue of state's rights, personal dignity, and the medical community - not the federal government, which does not neccesarily have the expertise, or at least Ashcroft's team. I like the way Justice Kennedy summed it up--

Quote:

[This message has been edited by Chris Poietas (edited 01-17-2006 @ 10:48 PM).]

I find it terrible that anyone would want to end their life, and should spend their last moments as best as they can, but if someone really wants to commit suicide, not having pills to OD on isn't going to keep them from it. So I guess, as sad as it is, it's better to make it possible for them to die more easily if they're going to do it.

I think the court found correctly. From a civic stand point, assisted suicide does not represent any sort of threat to society that neccessitated people to surrender their rights, in this case regarding the privacy of their body and actions towards themselves, or, at the very least, the state's right to make laws of this nature. Furthermore, there is seemingly no constitutional basis for the law to be overturned, as the right to make such laws is certainly within the powers of states. Interesting, though, that Scalia, Thomas, and, surprise surprise, Roberts voted in favor of this shoddy attempt to legislate faith, given their supposed "constructionist" views

[This message has been edited by Gustav Adolf II (edited 01-17-2006 @ 11:33 PM).]

The link in the header post does not seem to be working.

Quote from Gustav Adolf II:

Furthermore, there is seemingly no constitutional basis for the law to be overturned, as the right to make such laws is certainly within the powers of states.

I have to agree with that even though I don't like the assisted suicide idea. Allowing the law is consistent with allowing states to allow the death penalty (which I also oppose). If an Elderly US killer is put to death against his will, then I cannot constitutitionally argue against allowing people to end their life IF that is what the patient wants AND it has absolute safeguard to prevent abuse.

It is merely a continuation of the supreme court trend toward states rights. US reviews minors' abortion law is another example of the trend towards allowing states to decide on what laws to have on emotional issues. Now those justices who voted to uphold the assisted suicide law would be consistent if they also vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling at some future date. Such a ruling would not ban abortion, it would only give the states the option to allow or ban it at their option just like they are allowed to do regarding the death penalty. If such a thing was to happen, I don't think any state except Utah would ban abortion.

Quote from Gustav Adolf II:

Interesting, though, that Scalia, Thomas, and, surprise surprise, Roberts voted in favor of this shoddy attempt to legislate faith, given their supposed "constructionist" views

I have to agree that they are not acting constitutionally consistent here. Either we interpret the constitution strictly by what is said in plain English or we don't. I don't like stretching meanings because all kind of abuses can happen. Those conservatives who want to interpret the 2nd amendment as protecting the right to keep and bear arms should not be attempting to reinterpret the 14th amendment which guarantees that all born in the U.S. can become U.S. citizens. Yep, I have heard some ultra right wingers wanting to interpret the 14th amendment as not meaning what it says. Unfortunately for we left wingers, the 2nd amendment is interpreted by normal readers as meaning what it says. The United States constitution, which was written over two hundred years ago, enshrines an individual's right to keep and bear arms. is an example of how we have to interpret the constitution if we use normal English.

Sorry about that, not sure why it didnt work, here's two:
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/orrpt7.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth_us1.htm

Quote:

My thoughts too. It is horrible to intentionally end a life, but if it will be about soon, then maybe it should be done in a less painful manner.

[This message has been edited by Stonewall J 1863 (edited 01-18-2006 @ 03:51 PM).]

I see no problem with this.
Before anyone comes in to make religious/moral points on value of life, this is one of the cases where most patients are fit to decide for themselves whether to die or not.
Also I heard suicide is illegal in the states, even though it is beyond my mental capacity to fathom exactly how this would work.

Well, I'm from the Netherlands (where euthanasia is legal), so probably biased, but just consider a situation where you yourself would be facing a slow painful death by a terminal disease. Would you not consider asking for a fast-killing drug like barbiturates rather than slowly withering away over the course of weeks with heaps of unnecessary suffering, like pain and body and mental functions being destroyed one by one?

I for one deem it a basic right to exert complete autonomy over my life, body and mind, noone else can tell me what to do with these, hence I would want to prevent such suffering in this case. And I would want the assistance of a medic to die in a proper way (and not face a painful or botched suicide attempt) by supplying a drug or actively administer it. These people are supposed to prevent suffering in others, is allowing a person to die without the aforementioned ordeal if he's going to die anyway not the right thing to do? Would preventing him to die when he desires this in such a case not be basically the same as forcing him to suffer?

I believe that the beef from Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts was not an "attempt to legislate faith" etc but rather an apparent inconsistency in federal policy concerning states and drug restrictions: Their argument was why allow the states to control assisted-suicide drugs (aka 'controlled substances') while not allowing them to control other drugs such as marijuana.

Quoted from The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics/politicsspecial1/18scotus.html

[This message has been edited by KnightErrant (edited 01-18-2006 @ 07:48 PM).]

States rights should hold sway, provided the state legislation does not adversely affect the USA as a whole.

People commit suicide all the time, but making a person have to live through a slow and painful death, is foolish. I say give them the drugs to end it at the time of their choosing.

Anyone that has seen somebody die from cancer, knows what I am talking about.

I don't have a problem with a terminally ill person committing suicide. I do have a problem with "assisted" suicide, which is a euphemism for euthenasia in my opinion. However, I'm not familiar with the practice in Oregon and should probably do a little more research before commenting further.

People should be allowed to destroy themselves if they so feel it necessary. Why, in fact, the only pretense that is missed in this thread is the one that dictates it is completely within our rights as American Citizens to pursue life, liberty, and, in this case, the pursuit of happiness. And, subjectively, death is far closer to happiness then to slowly die a death of vain struggle.

I, in fact, applaud these people; they not only reduce the amount of taxes the government will have to collect supplying them with medicine, but they help clear away the older, decrepit members of society who are nothing but a waxing weight upon society as a whole.

If someone wants to end there life, i say they should be alloud to do so. but, they should be checked by a phychologist, because they may just be feeling depressed and in a couple of years (sometimes weeks) they wont want to kill themselves.

Quote:

There are a number of differences though. For one thing, the drugs in question fall under the category of Section II drugs. This makes a big difference, as one of the strongest arguements for Federal authority in the issue stems from the interstate drug traffic and sale. No such issue exists with the Section II drugs, so the primary focus is put on the question of under what conditions the drug can be prescribed under, which puts the issue in the hands of the state.

Quote:

Not true. Roe v. Wade was not a ruling based upon the balance of power between the national government and the states, as this one was. Rather, it was on whether the state's bans violated the constitutional rights of the citizenry. The court applied the earlier ruling in "Griswold v. Connecticutt" that the right to privacy was one that was inferred in the constitution, and specified that the bans on abortion were an invasion of such privacy. Thus, under the supremecy clause, the abortion ban's could not exist as they violated a constitutional right.

[This message has been edited by Gustav Adolf II (edited 01-19-2006 @ 11:24 PM).]

Quote from Gustav Adolf II:

Not true. Roe v. Wade was not a ruling based upon the balance of power between the national government and the states, as this one was. Rather, it was on whether the state's bans violated the constitutional rights of the citizenry. The court applied the earlier ruling in "Griswold v. Connecticutt" that the right to privacy was one that was inferred in the constitution, and specified that the bans on abortion were an invasion of such privacy. Thus, under the supremecy clause, the abortion ban's could not exist as they violated a constitutional right.

Not true. In PLESSY V. FERGUSON the U.S. Supreme Court also blantantly reversed what was legal under the constitution by relying on inferences or stretching of definitions to justify changing constitutional meaning instead of going through the amendment process. We cannot go around claiming that the constitutional says something it does not say or means something different from what it does say.

In an 1878 case, the Supreme Court even ruled that the states could not prohibit segregation on common carriers, such as railroads, streetcars or steamboats. This was in line with the 13th and 14th amendments to the U.S. constitution. Then the court reversed itself in 1896 to allow segregation on public transportation (probably because they wanted to be popular). Only one Supreme Court justice at that time, Justice Harlan, had the cojones to point out that the emperor had no clothes. It took over half a century for the Supreme Court to finally acknowledge that.

What I am worried about is the weight this will have upon Church hospitals.

Will Catholic hosipitals be now compelled by the state to administer lethal doses to their patients, and forsake their religious convictions?

1) I highly doubt it
2) Even if they are, it's only if the patient asks for one.

Quote:

Like Russki said, it's VERY unlikely that this would ever happen. At the end of the day, you can't compel a doctor to assist in euthanasia. If the doctor in question should refuse then you can hardly take them to court and force them to kill somebody. It would be uneccessary in any case. The patient could simply transfer to another hospital which would agree to his/her request.

Quote:

That has nothing to do with Roe vs. Wade. Plessey v. Ferguson has nothing to do with the constitutional right to privacy, and it offers us nothing in the way of a precedent which is in any way relevent to Roe v. Wade. So there is nothing constructive we can discern from it.

You're just trying to expand this into a case against "judicial activism" by arguing that there is only one way to read the constitution, and anything else is just bending the words to fit some diabolical purpose. But there is no such singular reading, all that we really get out of the constitution is what we read out of it. The Plessey court and the Taney court definitely read something different out of the constitution, but they were both essentially drawing from the same source. The important question is not so much in whether something is in the constitution or whether it is not, but whether it is reasonable or practical.

Now i'm not going to argue this now, because you would come back and say that there is no way to read Plessey into the constitution. I would come back and point out that there are several ways to do so, you would deny them, and before too long we'd be quibbling over words. I have no interest in such a discussion

bump 4 truth