Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

Ping898

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
3,669
Reaction score
25
Location
Earth
CNN Article

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting, upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, 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."


I am glad it was upheld. I think it was the right thing to allow....
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
If the debate is one of 'State's Rights', as posited by Chief Justice Renqhuist, it is ironic to note the dissenting opinions are from the most conservative members of the high court; Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
486
Location
Not BC, Not DC
Oregon laws passed by the voters have an ironic way of being overturned. I'm glad the Supreme Court has upheld the Oregon State law.
 
OP
Ping898

Ping898

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
3,669
Reaction score
25
Location
Earth
shesulsa said:
Oregon laws passed by the voters have an ironic way of being overturned. I'm glad the Supreme Court has upheld the Oregon State law.

Especially when you look at the fact that I think voters affirmed the law like 2 or 3 times since it was intially passed.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Shirt Ripper said:
Seems to be a basic right as a living being. Simply; to not.

Agreed. There are many practical concerns here, but I don't think we're starting on the slippery slope to a Logan's Run world. People should be allowed this basic right.
 

evenflow1121

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
846
Reaction score
16
Location
Miami Beach, FL
Yeah it is not really a surprise, Ashcroft started the movement, this was not going anywhere from the start. I am glad it was upheld as well.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
I never realized that suicide was illegal. I think the only issue was whether doctor's should be involved in the process. Perhaps there should be a special class of doctor who specializes in killing their patients. I guess we could call them Necropaths. I don't think it will be a popular field, however, as it's very difficult to bill your patients.
 

punisher73

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
3,959
Reaction score
1,056
The concern I think most people have is that doctors would start making that choice for people. In the Netherlands (I believe or a country by there) they surveyed doctors about assisted suicide since it is legal there and a large percentage of them admitted that they terminated patients without consent because the doctors did not feel that they had a good quality of life.

Alot of people used to come here to Michigan because of Dr. Kevorkian thinking it was legal. He is still in prison because he wasn't just "assisting" (he used to hook up a machine/IV and tell the patient how to do it and let them) he was actually terminating the patient himself.

A few years ago Michigan had a proposal on the ballot to legalize this and it was voted down by a pretty good margin.
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,835
Reaction score
1,079
Location
Michigan
michaeledward said:
If the debate is one of 'State's Rights', as posited by Chief Justice Renqhuist, it is ironic to note the dissenting opinions are from the most conservative members of the high court; Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.

Personally I think there are two admenments that cover this issue.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
If the 10th Amendment guarantees the States have control over any "powers" not prohibited by the Constitution, or "powers" assigned the the federal government ... how is this case is before the United States Supreme Court to begin with?

I have read the Constitution very carefully ... no where in the Constitution are the words 'assisted suicide'.

Surely, Attorney General Ashcroft was not just pulling this argument out of thin air?

Of course, my reference to 'States Rights' goes directly to the former Chief Justices comments in two 1997 appeals. A 9-0 ruling did not find a 'right-to-die' in the Constitution, but Rehnquist apparently indicated that the matter might best be left to the States.
 

KenpoEMT

Brown Belt
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
462
Reaction score
9
If a person of sound mind wishes to end his/her existence, that's none of my business.
 

jdinca

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
11
Location
SF Bay Area
sgtmac_46 said:
I never realized that suicide was illegal. I think the only issue was whether doctor's should be involved in the process. Perhaps there should be a special class of doctor who specializes in killing their patients. I guess we could call them Necropaths. I don't think it will be a popular field, however, as it's very difficult to bill your patients.

It is illegal, but they make very few arrests.

I think everyone needs to look at this for what it is. Don't expect to see a new field of medicine, ala Kevorkianology. What this will allow is a terminally ill patient to talk with their family and their doctor and make a decision to end their suffering. This is already done in a different manner under the guise of "minimizing suffering" when someone is unplugged from life support. When the decision was made to take my father off oxygen a couple of years ago (it was all that was keeping him going) the doctor offered a bolus of morphine so that he wouldn't suffer his last few minutes from oxygen deprivation, an offer the family gladly accepted. This is not a unique practice.

The right to die laws take this one step farther. Instead of waiting until the patient can no longer ask for themselves, they are able to do so when they are still conscious, or have it spelled out in a living will. The doctor provides a perscription for a lethal dosage of medication which the patient, or their family administer. I haven't read the specific law to see if direct physician assistance is part of it. Either way, don't expect to see traveling vans full of meds and carbon monoxide tanks anytime soon.

The moral dilemma arises for those whose religion considers suicide to be a sin. For them, beliefs must be weighed against the suffering, or quality of life the individual is experiencing. It's a difficult decision, to say the least.

Need I remind everyone that a living will that spells out exactly what type of care you want is of utmost importance? Unless of course, you want to risk the potential of going through a Terry Schiavo type of situation. In addition, if your health and beliefs, or those of elderly/infirm family members warrant this step, make sure there are clearly spelled out Do Not Resuscitate orders that are in accordance with your local laws. Keep them where they can be found and retrieved quickly if needed. I can't tell you the number of times I've been involved in unnecessary resuscitation attempts because the paperwork was not there, or not filled out properly.
 

KenpoEMT

Brown Belt
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
462
Reaction score
9
jdinca said:
...I can't tell you the number of times I've been involved in unnecessary resuscitation attempts because the paperwork was not there, or not filled out properly.
Yup. That happened over here last month.

The other side of that situation happened too. DNR was in place, but the family flipped out and demanded full measures. They ran the code (wasn't my crew).

It's an easy topic to debate; however, it becomes more difficult when you are faced with the reality.
 

jdinca

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
11
Location
SF Bay Area
Theban_Legion said:
Yup. That happened over here last month.

The other side of that situation happened too. DNR was in place, but the family flipped out and demanded full measures. They ran the code (wasn't my crew).

It's an easy topic to debate; however, it becomes more difficult when you are faced with the reality.

For many the idea of just "letting them go" is far different from the reality. I've also been in the situation many times that the family couldn't deal with the decision and called us. All we can do is be as compassionate as we can and comply with their wishes. Quite often, all they're looking for is someone to tell them that the person is gone and that it's okay. They need someone to take charge because emotions won't allow them do it.
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,835
Reaction score
1,079
Location
Michigan
michaeledward said:
If the 10th Amendment guarantees the States have control over any "powers" not prohibited by the Constitution, or "powers" assigned the the federal government ... how is this case is before the United States Supreme Court to begin with?

I have read the Constitution very carefully ... no where in the Constitution are the words 'assisted suicide'.

Surely, Attorney General Ashcroft was not just pulling this argument out of thin air?

Of course, my reference to 'States Rights' goes directly to the former Chief Justices comments in two 1997 appeals. A 9-0 ruling did not find a 'right-to-die' in the Constitution, but Rehnquist apparently indicated that the matter might best be left to the States.

Because The Supreme Court of the USA is the highest court of the land and is called out as such in the US Constitution, to handle any issues of "power" and or Constitutionality.

It is part of the checks and balances and review system that is in place.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Rich Parsons said:
Because The Supreme Court of the USA is the highest court of the land and is called out as such in the US Constitution, to handle any issues of "power" and or Constitutionality.

It is part of the checks and balances and review system that is in place.

If the Supreme court is the highest court in the land, why then do we need a 10th Amendment? Is the issue of 'assisted suicide' a state issue, or a federal issue? Didn't you say earlier the 10th Amendment gives the states powers to decide items not specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Is 'assisted suicide' specifically enumerated in the Constitution? If it is not, doesn't that mean the state court should decide the issue?
 

Ray

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
53
Location
Creston, IA
Questions: Do liberals support euthanasia but are against the death penalty? While conservatives are against euthanasia but support the death penalty?

I might have it all wrong...
 

Latest Discussions

Top