Link

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.

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.

Scalia reminds us once again why we don't want ScALITO sitting on the bench with him. One of his kind is bad enough! Only a nice compassionate conservative would rather make a person that is going to die anyway SUFFER longer than needed rather than let him/her decide when to end their own life in dignity.

What ever happened to classic conservatism? Honestly, respect states rights to make their own laws that don't fall under federal jurisdiction.

Pluck O'Connor out and insert Alito, and this case would've been 5-4 toward the same decision.

It would have been 5-4 with ScAlito, but keep in mind that Anthony Kennedy is still a conservative, lifelong Republican jurist, and while he's ruled increasingly in recent years in favor of what could be either more socially libertarian or progressive decisions, he's still a conservative. Also, if anyone was surprised by Roberts's taking the W administration's position, they really need to get a grip.

I didn't point out Alito as to infer the decision would have been different, what I was talking about was that we didn't need another Scalia-thinking judge on the bench. wink

Finally. This is a victory for the voters of Oregon.

So you're in favor of states having the say-so here, huh? Why don't you support states in their desire to prohibit the killing of babies via abortion? Come now; you can't have it both ways.

It should be noted, but surprisingly isn't here, that this decision had nothing to do with the merits or constitutionality of assisted suicide itself; rather, it centered around what the states could do and what the federal government can do in terms of a specific medical practice (analyzing this shows how it flies in the face of Roe v. Wade).

I agree with the AMA and many doctors, who are very troubled by doctors becoming involved with the death of people. It's bad enough that doctors are killing babies to the tune of 1.5 million per year. Now we have them prescribing drugs to kill Grandma and Grandpa.

Despite this, I'm not going to be like so many liberals here who totally disregard a SCOTUS decision provided the end decision is something with which they agree (Lawrence, Roe, et. al.). Such line of thinking is illogical and ideological. This decision today was the correct one and a good one, emphasizing that such decisions belong to the states, which is as it should be.

I may not be a big fan of assisted suicide, but I'm not going to fault a constitutionally sound decision such as this one.

So what are you saying here, FT? That he can't be trusted? That there's no such thing as changing one's mind, or that only non-conservatives can do so? That there's something inherently wrong with being a conservative? What's your point? Despite all it doesn't say, this post reveals a lot, but not about anyone on or about to become part of SCOTUS.

Nice try for one who seems to take great pleasure in going off on the Dems. for them supposedly always bringing up the subject of abortion, as it relates to Supreme Court nominations, which by the way has nothing to do with this law. Oh, the hypocrisy! eek! This is about the right to die,with dignity, if one is facing a terminal illness. Has nothing to do with abortion.

More wrong you could not be, for if you had even a scintilla of legal and constitutional knowledge about the underpinnings of Roe, you'd understand how it is so relevant, and how this case is so incompatible with Roe.

SCOTUS's bizarre and contradictory rulings are simply insane, and are clearly indicative of how they come up with a decision based on personal desires then try to craft a ruling to achieve said desires.

MIB, if I were you, I'd reread Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) before telling others how much more they'd understand if only they had a "scintilla" of legal knowledge.


This case isn't nearly as incompatible with the Roe holding as you would like to believe, especially in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent heightened concern for state interests vis-a-vis individual liberty expressed in Cruzan.

And hockeyTom's initial observation is valid--you talk about abortion more than anyone on this board, and at least as much as Dems in a judicial nomination hearing. Not that I have a problem with it--I'm all for free discourse. But it seems a bit--dare I say--hypocritical for you to make this critique of the Dems.

I'd like to begin by saying how beautiful and precious life is. I pray I am never faced with a decision regarding whether or not I should go on living. I may have a different take on this subject. I am the grandson of a suicide victim. I wish my grandfather had a chance to go more peacefully instead of shooting himself in the head on the garage floor. He was dying of bone cancer, was breaking ribs in his sleep by simply rolling over in bed, and morphine no longer worked for him. I can't imagine the pain he was going through when he decided to end his life. I still have the utmost respect for this man, in my opinion, he made the hardest decision of his life. While I do not condone suicide, I have found the longer I live, the less "black" and "white" there is in this world. For this reason, I believe it should be legal to do so under a doctor's supervision. Also, a special note to MIB: I may dislike abortion, I think it is a sin, I think it is wrong, but I still think it should be legal. It should not be up to me to decide what a woman can or can't do with her body. Until men can grow ovaries, no man on this planet should make those kinds of decisions. Let God do that.

That's just it--it's not "her body." There are two separate, distinct, biologically different human beings about which we are talking. This is an irrefutable medical fact. To say so otherwise is nothing less than a denial of the facts, and it relegates a defenseless baby to a piece of property. How truly sad.

For argument's sake, let's say it was "her body." There are laws on the books nationwide that tell us what we can and cannot do with our body, so your argument fails this test as well.

Your first sentence also has so many logical holes in it that it can't hold any water. It's nothing more than an excuse for people to ignore a horrible evil.

I may dislike snorting cocaine, I think it is a sin, I think it is wrong, but I still think it should be legal. After all, it's "their body."

I totally agree with you.

Congrats to the voters of Oregon. I was glad to hear this outcome for them.

MIB, until the fetus can survive on it's own outside the mother's body, it's a parasite...no more, no less.

from MIB:
Then why don't pregnant woman ask for a table for 2 when going into a restaurant?
Why aren't fetuses (sorry, its not baby until its born) counted in the census?
Why can't pregnant women drive alone in the carpool/HOV lane?
Why can't women claim their fetus as a dependent when filing taxes?
And why don't you remind pregnant women in line for a movie ticket that she needs to buy 2?

I don't know if your second sentence is supposed to be mocking him, but that makes total sense to me. I really don't care if someone does drugs until they're stupid, it isn't my life. (note: the applies to people I don't know)

As for abortion, I really agree with the original post. I disagree with it, I think adoption is always an option (and I think there are many people in our community that would be happy to adopt the child if given the chance) but I don't want this to be illegal. Honestly, this is the grayest of gray areas. People have different opinions on whether a fetus has controling rights over a mother. This is such a complicated ethical issue that honestly, every woman should have the right to decide for themselves what is right. Relative morality is a major issue in this country , as most people only see issues in black and white, right and wrong.

MIB - Truly, this is a question, not a try at flaming!

Abortion is one of those topics I've avoided as too likely to ignite something, and as it's never been an issue that has directly touched my life.

On the whole, I guess I'm somewhat opposed to it, in that I believe it to be a very serious issue with very serious ramifications on all concerned - but I'm trying to find a position.

Do you believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases? Or? And why?

At the moment, I'd like to find a way to make it less common, less in demand, less "necessary" - but still legal. I'm looking for a non-Bible, coherent, non-emotional position - and you are both articulate and generally from the other side of my leanings - so it would be interesting to hear from you.

But tell me what you think & why. I promise I won't flame!

Nat

and as if to prove neptune's point, this discussion about assisted suicide has become one about abortion......

back to the topic anyone?

while i'm not a lawyer (or judge), nor do i play one on the internet, i see no philosophical contradiction between roe and the upholding of the oregon assisted suicide law. in neither case is the government allowed to presume itself between a doctor and patient. squaring that with constitutional arguments may be another matter, but philosophically, there is an elegant consistency in the two decisions.

I'm with you, Thersis, I see the similarity completely. It's about my right as a citizen to live my life (or not) as I see fit, not for the Government to decide.

And for the question above about why the conservatives are no longer about less government, it's because they joined up with the religious zealots. They have never been the same group since they linked up with the proselytizers.

Not supporting your fellow citizens' rights and freedoms is UNPATRIOTIC.

Although I don't live in Oregon, I have an opinion on the law.

Congratulation to Oregon, and I wish Ontario had a similar law. Here the reason why.

On thanksgiving weekend 1998, I went to Ottawa to visit my father, who was at home, and my mother, who was in the hospital. My father was clearly going downhill, (he was 80) and was in constant, unending, throbbing pain. He had been on time-release morphine for about 2 years, and about 1 month previously, had been switched over to heroin, (yes, it is legally prescribed to terminal patients).

Even the heroin, which has to be given in the hospital, and only by a doctor, did nothing to dull the pain.

My sisters and I did not find out about him being switched to heroin until after he passed.

My father and I sat down and had a talk, and I told him that only HE would know when the pain became too much, and only HE could decide his course of action, but I also told him that no matter what he chose, I would be there beside him, and no matter what, I would help him.

Of course my fathers reaction was that he would not put me at legal risk, but my reply was "damn the risk. You're my father and I love you".

Trust me, for me to say that to him, took a lot out of me. This was a man who had helped his best friend commit his son in the late 1960's because he was gay, and was proud of it. This was the same man that I walked away from Christmas eve of 1980, and had no contact with ANY member of my family until Sept of 1988 because of him.

I actually talked to a lawyer the next week to find out what might happen to me, and I was told point blank that it would be manslaughter, minimum 5 years. (no, I didn't tell my Dad that part).

My father only lived another 10 days, and they were, according to my sister, 10 days of unending, unceasing screaming pain. The last day he was alive, he checked himself into the hospital, and my sister was administering his morphine orally every 15 minutes, all to no avail.

Here was a man who had survived TB, being used as a drug guinea pig during his hospital stay, being used as a weapons tester also during his stay in the hospital (he had been told it was fatal, so according to my Aunt, the gov't decreed that it would be his "war effort". He had no choice).

He left school at 14 to support a family during the depression, and not only caught up, but ended up with 2 PHD's in genetics and chemistry. He hunted, fished, was independant to a fault.

For such a man to die like that is wrong. He should have had the option to leave this world LONG before the pain got to the level it did.

I don't know if he would have, but he should have had that choice.

I congratulate Oregon.

Damn, thats good.

GO OREGON!

What a sickening, disgusting belief!

So, using your logic, a 6-month-old is a parasite. As is a 1-year-old, etc. After all, they cannot live on their own outside the mother's body.

Nice try. Thanks for playing.

A simple answer, thanks to SCOTUS's classifying a fetus as a nonperson (a la an infamous German government that unilaterally declared several groups of people as "subhuman" and therefore expendable). As Justice Brennan explained to Blackmun (it's related in The Brethren), and I'm paraphrasing Brennan, "In order to justify our decision we will have to declare that the fetus is not a person."

It's a brilliant example of legal hair splitting and tap dancing if there ever was.

Despite what you, that inhuman, evil dfwaggie, or others say, it is an irrefutable, indisputable fact that a fetus (do you know what that Latin term means, BTW?) is a living, breathing, feeling, thinking human being, no different from you or me (other than the typical age-related factors like size, maturity, etc.).

Because of this, the little one is deserving of our protection, or the Declaration's guarantee of the unalienable right to life is completely meaningless.

[ January 20, 2006, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]