Ashcroft asks court to bar Oregon suicide law

[Fausto]

Story link.

WASHINGTON ? Seeking to void the nation's only right-to-die law, outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft asked the Supreme Court yesterday to give federal agents the authority to punish Oregon doctors who help dying patients end their lives.
The Bush administration's top legal officer said federal drug laws trump states' traditional control over the practice of medicine. Ashcroft is appealing the rulings of two lower courts, which held that Oregon has the right to regulate its doctors.

Oregon's law, known as the Death With Dignity Act, lets patients with less than six months to live request a lethal dose of drugs after two doctors confirm the diagnosis and determine the person is mentally competent.

Oregon voters approved the law, which has popular support but is rarely used. Since 1997, 171 people have used medication to end their lives, an average of fewer than 25 a year, the state reported. Most had cancer.

Social conservatives opposed to the law sought federal intervention. They said using medication to bring about death, rather than to save lives, violated the federal Controlled Substances Act. Doctors who prescribe drugs for such a purpose should lose their licenses to write prescriptions, they said.

This law passed in 1997 by a 60/40 margin.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This is another reminder of how the Bush administration departs from the traditional conservative values of individual liberties and states' rights IMO.

 

[conjur]

You'd think the social conservatives would be pleased with this. Fewer people using up costly healthcare services.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Would he leave already! Sheesh.. did he ask the Justices to wash and wax his car, too?

 

[tnitsuj]

For once I agree with Ashcroft. Allowing assisted suicide opens up a whole can of worms..I can't imagine how you would prevent abuse..and the whole idea of giving up on life bothers me.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
For once I agree with Ashcroft. Allowing assisted suicide opens up a whole can of worms..I can't imagine how you would prevent abuse..and the whole idea of giving up on life bothers me.

The idea of giving up on life bothers me as well... but since it's not my life or that of someone unable to speak for themselves, it's none of my damn business, now is it?

 

[teiresias]

Flip-flop.

So in terms of gay marriage we can't have "activist" judges subverting the will of the people?

But in terms of this the administration is hoping these same judges subvert the will of the people?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
For once I agree with Ashcroft. Allowing assisted suicide opens up a whole can of worms..I can't imagine how you would prevent abuse

This is a slippery slope argument. You could make a similar point regarding almost any law really.

..and the whole idea of giving up on life bothers me.

Fine, but it's not your life. Would you really want an extra six months to live if you're just going to be in agony every day? There's absolutely no point in keeping someone else alive and suffering in order to make yourself feel better.

 

[ElFenix]

why is it humane to euthanize pets but not people?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: teiresias
Flip-flop.

So in terms of gay marriage we can't have "activist" judges subverting the will of the people?

But in terms of this the administration is hoping these same judges subvert the will of the people?

the will of the people was already expressed through the controlled substances act

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: teiresias
Flip-flop.

So in terms of gay marriage we can't have "activist" judges subverting the will of the people?

But in terms of this the administration is hoping these same judges subvert the will of the people?

the will of the people was already expressed through the controlled substances act

I don't think that was quite the intent of the CSA. Besides, there are plenty of ways to die that wouldn't potentially conflict with federal law. 😉

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
For once I agree with Ashcroft. Allowing assisted suicide opens up a whole can of worms..I can't imagine how you would prevent abuse..and the whole idea of giving up on life bothers me.

This is not euthanasia. The only "assistance" the doctor provides is in prescribing the lethal dose. And I would not describe these people as giving up on life. They are people who have been kept alive by modern medical means, and wish to no longer be kept alive in order to avoid pain, excessive medical costs on their family, and to retain their dignity.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
why is it humane to euthanize pets but not people?

When vets begin to profit outrageously by keeping old, dying pets alive, even in great pain, and when such methods become socially acceptable, then it will no longer be considered humane to euthanize pets. I'd said we're within 10 years of that point.
Less than 100 years ago, dying people would refuse heroic medical treatment in order to "die with Christian hope." Now, it's the hardcore Christians would claim that refusing heroic medical treatment is suicide...

 

[teiresias]

And technically they're not "giving up on life" since the law states there has to be agreement that the patient has 6 months or less to live anyway. It's more a matter of someone choosing when to go within that timeframe and in which manner (basically to nullify the chance of going in a very painful way I'd guess).