[linskyjack]

Talk about a group of scoundrels who really want to total control over our bodies. THis is scarey stuff. So much for freedom of choice.


High Court to Review Assisted Suicide Law



By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will hear a challenge to the nation's only assisted suicide law, taking up the Bush administration's appeal to stop doctors from helping terminally ill patients die more quickly.



Justices will review a lower court ruling that said the U.S. government cannot sanction or hold doctors criminally liable for prescribing overdoses under Oregon's voter-approved Death with Dignity Act. Since 1998, more than 170 people — most with cancer — have used the law to end their lives.

Arguments will be heard in the court's next term, beginning in October.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) filed the appeal last November, on the day his resignation was announced by the White House. He argued that physician-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" and that doctors take an oath to heal patients, not help them die.

Oregon lawyers counter that regulation of doctors generally has been the sole responsibility of states. The U.S. attorney general has no authority under the federal Controlled Substances Act to punish doctors because Congress intended the law only to prevent illegal drug trafficking, they say.

A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) sided with Oregon last May.

"The attorney general's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide," wrote Judge Richard Tallman in the 2-1 opinion.

By agreeing to hear the Bush administration appeal, the Supreme Court again wades into the murky area of assisted suicide.

In 1997, the same justices now on the court unanimously ruled that individuals had no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. However, in an opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court suggested individual states could decide whether to permit or ban the practice.

The issue now before the high court is whether Congress could step in to prohibit assisted suicide if a state chose to allow it, and, if so, whether the federal Controlled Substances Act authorizes the Justice Department (news - web sites) to punish the doctors.

Oregon voters approved the law in 1994 and overwhelmingly affirmed it three years later when it was returned to the ballot following a failed legal challenge that stalled its implementation.

The law allows terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to request a lethal dose of drugs. Two doctors must confirm the diagnosis and determine the patient to be mentally competent to make the request.

The Oregon challenge is the second right-to-die case to come before the Supreme Court this year. Last month, justices rejected a legal challenge to Florida's "Terri's Law," a measure to keep Terri Schiavo, who is severely brain-damaged, on life support over the objections of her husband.

Schiavo, whose legal fight is continuing, was scheduled to be taken off life support as early as Tuesday.

In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive, but declined in the 1997 case to extend that constitutional right to obtaining medication that would put them to death.

The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

[LANMaster]

Who ever said you have a right to die ???


The thread title should instead read;

Leftist idiots trying to end our right to live !!!

[columbo]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Who ever said you have a right to die ???


The thread title should instead read;

Leftist idiots trying to end our right to live !!!

How is anyone trying to end your right to live?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by columbo

How is anyone trying to end your right to live?

Schiavo, whose legal fight is continuing, was scheduled to be taken off life support as early as Tuesday.

Try to keep up, okay?

[vanillag1rl]

LOL

If someone was in a coma, and was a vegtable, then ya

But just sick? I dont know about that.

There is too many kinds of illnesses. too many guidlines, and who should set those guidlines?

People who are diagnosed with an illness, and are expected to live no longer then 6 months could live up to 6 more years.

No one should play God..

Sorry to throw in the God card, but Ihad to.

[LANMaster]

Come on.
It's Terry's Husband that wants to pull the plug.
Her parents are fighting this.

What right does the Husband have to allow her to die. Terry never indicated in writing that she would want to be starved to death.

Why doesn't the Husband simply sign over full custody to the parents and let them keep her alive as long as they can.

So long as even one close relative wants to keep her alive, they should be allowed the opportunity and financial responsibility to try.

It's a no-brainer, folks.

[jcroix2002]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Talk about a group of scoundrels who really want to total control over our bodies. THis is scarey stuff. So much for freedom of choice.


High Court to Review Assisted Suicide Law



By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will hear a challenge to the nation's only assisted suicide law, taking up the Bush administration's appeal to stop doctors from helping terminally ill patients die more quickly.



Justices will review a lower court ruling that said the U.S. government cannot sanction or hold doctors criminally liable for prescribing overdoses under Oregon's voter-approved Death with Dignity Act. Since 1998, more than 170 people — most with cancer — have used the law to end their lives.

Arguments will be heard in the court's next term, beginning in October.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) filed the appeal last November, on the day his resignation was announced by the White House. He argued that physician-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" and that doctors take an oath to heal patients, not help them die.

Oregon lawyers counter that regulation of doctors generally has been the sole responsibility of states. The U.S. attorney general has no authority under the federal Controlled Substances Act to punish doctors because Congress intended the law only to prevent illegal drug trafficking, they say.

A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) sided with Oregon last May.

"The attorney general's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide," wrote Judge Richard Tallman in the 2-1 opinion.

By agreeing to hear the Bush administration appeal, the Supreme Court again wades into the murky area of assisted suicide.

In 1997, the same justices now on the court unanimously ruled that individuals had no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. However, in an opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court suggested individual states could decide whether to permit or ban the practice.

The issue now before the high court is whether Congress could step in to prohibit assisted suicide if a state chose to allow it, and, if so, whether the federal Controlled Substances Act authorizes the Justice Department (news - web sites) to punish the doctors.

Oregon voters approved the law in 1994 and overwhelmingly affirmed it three years later when it was returned to the ballot following a failed legal challenge that stalled its implementation.

The law allows terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to request a lethal dose of drugs. Two doctors must confirm the diagnosis and determine the patient to be mentally competent to make the request.

The Oregon challenge is the second right-to-die case to come before the Supreme Court this year. Last month, justices rejected a legal challenge to Florida's "Terri's Law," a measure to keep Terri Schiavo, who is severely brain-damaged, on life support over the objections of her husband.

Schiavo, whose legal fight is continuing, was scheduled to be taken off life support as early as Tuesday.

In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive, but declined in the 1997 case to extend that constitutional right to obtaining medication that would put them to death.

The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

Interesting that the issue with Oregon is STATES rights while the doctor's issue is that of PATIENTS rights.Which trumps what?I looked at the Bill of Rights..where is the right to die?or does this fall under the "pursuit of happiness?"(or lack thereof)

If assisted suicide passes,then Kervorkian should be set free.Doctors are supposed to relieve pain and sufferring,so I suppose this is the ultimate relief.

jc2002

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by jcroix2002

If assisted suicide passes,then Kervorkian should be set free.Doctors are supposed to relieve pain and sufferring,so I suppose this is the ultimate relief.

jc2002

Ever hear of the hypocratic oath? Doctors are supposed to cause no harm.
It is their Prime Directive!

Kevorkian broke the law and was convicted. Changing the law doesn't exhonorate him from breaking it.

[jcroix2002]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Ever hear of the hypocratic oath? Doctors are supposed to cause no harm.
It is their Prime Directive!

Kevorkian broke the law and was convicted. Changing the law doesn't exhonorate him from breaking it.

I agree,and backtrack on Kervorkian. ,he did break the law.
As for doctors, they should cause no harm but also relieve pain and sufferring.As for the Hippocratic oath..I believe it also states / mentions something about abortions...pls correct me if this is not the case.Any MD's out there?

The question is who has control of one's life.The State of Oregon is apparently looking at it as a state's right issue,while the doctors are looking at it as a patients right issue.Again..which trumps what?Is that the question the Supreme Court is going to settle?

jc2002

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by jcroix2002

I agree,and backtrack on Kervorkian. ,he did break the law.
As for doctors, they should cause no harm but also relieve pain and sufferring.As for the Hippocratic oath..I believe it also states / mentions something about abortions...pls correct me if this is not the case.Any MD's out there?

The question is who has control of one's life.The State of Oregon is apparently looking at it as a state's right issue,while the doctors are looking at it as a patients right issue.Again..which trumps what?Is that the question the Supreme Court is going to settle?

jc2002

Cool.

I do not know how old you are, or if you have children who are adults.
I'm 42 and my kids are 22 (Daughter) and 20 (Son).

If you had a daughter who got married and suddenly collapsed and there was any hope - in your heart - that she might re-gain her mental state, and her Husband wanted to starve her to death, then what would be your position?

I can imagine you'd see this in a whole different light.

[jcroix2002]

Personal tragedies always put things in a different light.
The sum total of all personal tragedies should have some effect on lawmaking.


jc2002

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Ever hear of the hypocratic oath? Doctors are supposed to cause no harm.
It is their Prime Directive!

Kevorkian broke the law and was convicted. Changing the law doesn't exhonorate him from breaking it.

Are you suggesting that all people should kept "alive" by machines, even if disapproved of by the the next of kin, or the victim themselves?.
People in vegetive state?.
I believe the laws are correct in this instance, but only opinion.
Please explain your ideas >f

[LANMaster]

I'm suggesting that if my Daughter's Husband wants to allow MY OFFSPRING to die by starvation, and as her Father, I choose to keep her alive in the hopes of a cure, and I'm willing to pay for it, then the State should consider me the primary next of kin, because I obviously have my Daughter's best interests in mind.

I hope that explains it.

Originally Posted by Fidelista

Are you suggesting that all people should kept "alive" by machines, even if disapproved of by the the next of kin, or the victim themselves?.
People in vegetive state?.
I believe the laws are correct in this instance, but only opinion.
Please explain your ideas >f

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

Are you suggesting that all people should kept "alive" by machines, even if disapproved of by the the next of kin, or the victim themselves?.
People in vegetive state?.
I believe the laws are correct in this instance, but only opinion.
Please explain your ideas >f

That's not assisted suicide--that's a totally different issue. You have trouble focusing on the issues, don't you Fidelista?

Note to Fidelista and other brain dead liberals--the situation addressed in this thread is different than the situation where a person is being kept alive by life support only--someone else has to decide whether life support should be removed. It is NOT suicude (because someone else is making the decision for the person), and it is NOT assisted death either. All you are doing is letting nature take its course by not keeping up life support systems going. That's is very different than taking a life that can exist on its own without life support.

[linskyjack]

Mulder, the problem is that for many people "allowing life to take its course" is considered assisted suicide. The law in Oregon, allows TERMINAL patients to chose death---it's that simple. If we don't have control of our own being, what do we have control of. Lets see what the Supreme Court makes of this. Lets pose a hypothetical. Lets say that Mulder has terminal cancer that has metasized throughout his body. Lets say he has at best three months to live. Lets say, that the only way he could remain pain free is through the use of narcotics, that dull his senses an keep him in a stupor all the time. Should he have the right to pick the time of his death? Should he be able to get a doctor, who is WILLING to help him from the horror that fate has dealt him? Should the Federal Government be the business of making this decision?