Full Version: Supreme Court upholds Oregon assisted suicide law
The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law by a vote of 6-3 in a ruling recently announced.
Oral Arguments (pdf)
Majority Opinion
Scalia's Dissent
Thomas' Dissent
Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe the case was correctly or incorrectly decided based on the majority opinion and the dissents? Please cite relevant sections.
2. Will this cause other states to pass laws allowing assisted suicide in their state?
QUOTE
The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's law on physician-assisted suicide yesterday, ruling that the Justice Department may not punish doctors who help terminally ill patients end their lives.
By a vote of 6 to 3, the court ruled that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft exceeded his legal authority in 2001 when he threatened to prohibit doctors from prescribing federally controlled drugs if they authorized lethal doses of the medications under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.
The ruling struck down one of the administration's signature policies regarding what President Bush calls the "culture of life" and lifts the last legal cloud over the state's law, which is unique in the nation. It also frees other states to follow in Oregon's footsteps, unless Congress acts to the contrary.
By a vote of 6 to 3, the court ruled that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft exceeded his legal authority in 2001 when he threatened to prohibit doctors from prescribing federally controlled drugs if they authorized lethal doses of the medications under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.
The ruling struck down one of the administration's signature policies regarding what President Bush calls the "culture of life" and lifts the last legal cloud over the state's law, which is unique in the nation. It also frees other states to follow in Oregon's footsteps, unless Congress acts to the contrary.
Oral Arguments (pdf)
Majority Opinion
Scalia's Dissent
Thomas' Dissent
Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe the case was correctly or incorrectly decided based on the majority opinion and the dissents? Please cite relevant sections.
2. Will this cause other states to pass laws allowing assisted suicide in their state?
1. Do you believe the case was correctly or incorrectly decided based on the majority opinion and the dissents? Please cite relevant sections.Yes. Death at the time and place of ones choosing in cases of severe illness is IMO a legitimate medical use of any drug
2. Will this cause other states to pass laws allowing assisted suicide in their state?
Lets hope so
2. Will this cause other states to pass laws allowing assisted suicide in their state?
Lets hope so
Trying as best as I can to wade through the complex legalistic language of both opinions, I can see where both sides make a decent case. The key question here seems to be this:
How much power does the Controlled Substances Act grant the Attorney General of the United States to regulate medical practice?
Obviously, the Attorney General has a great deal of power; but is this power unlimited? This section of the majority opinion seems to suggest not:
The other issue at hand seems to be whether physician-assisted suicide can be considered a "legitimate medical purpose." Clearly this is a matter of opinion. It seems to me that the Attorney General has not been granted the power to determine this. Rather, this power would seem to lie with the legislature of the federal government and the states. (When these two are in conflict, the more restrictive law applies. Since there is not yet any federal law banning the use of controlled substances in physician-assisted suicide, the state of Oregon has the power to determine that it is legal within the state.)
Note that the Congress of the United States has the power, if it so chooses, to completely ban the use of controlled substances in physician-assisted suicide. I predict that this will be a hot topic of debate on Capitol Hill in the near future. I don't think that other states will rush to pass laws similar to that of Oregon, at least not for a while.
How much power does the Controlled Substances Act grant the Attorney General of the United States to regulate medical practice?
Obviously, the Attorney General has a great deal of power; but is this power unlimited? This section of the majority opinion seems to suggest not:
QUOTE
The CSA gives the Attorney General limited powers, to be exercised in specific ways. His rulemaking authority under the CSA is described in two provisions: (1) "The Attorney General is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations and to charge reasonable fees relating to the registration and control of the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of controlled substances and to listed chemicals," 21 U. S. C. A. §821 (Supp. 2005); and (2) "The Attorney General may promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures which he may deem necessary and appropriate for the efficient execution of his functions under this subchapter," 21 U. S. C. §871[B]. As is evident from these sections, Congress did not delegate to the Attorney General authority to carry out or effect all provisions of the CSA. Rather, he can promulgate rules relating only to "registration" and "control," and "for the efficient execution of his functions" under the statute.
The other issue at hand seems to be whether physician-assisted suicide can be considered a "legitimate medical purpose." Clearly this is a matter of opinion. It seems to me that the Attorney General has not been granted the power to determine this. Rather, this power would seem to lie with the legislature of the federal government and the states. (When these two are in conflict, the more restrictive law applies. Since there is not yet any federal law banning the use of controlled substances in physician-assisted suicide, the state of Oregon has the power to determine that it is legal within the state.)
Note that the Congress of the United States has the power, if it so chooses, to completely ban the use of controlled substances in physician-assisted suicide. I predict that this will be a hot topic of debate on Capitol Hill in the near future. I don't think that other states will rush to pass laws similar to that of Oregon, at least not for a while.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jan 17 2006, 10:16 PM)
Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe the case was correctly or incorrectly decided based on the majority opinion and the dissents? Please cite relevant sections.
I guess my reading of the opinion gives me another take on it. I see it more as an affirmation of state's rights (and perhaps a precursor to more strict interpretation of the Commerce Clause) than as being specific to euthanasia. I empathize for those in the dissent, and don't think their logic is flawed, just seeing the facts through a different set of "filters" that is ingrained in us all from our life's experiences and education.
Being the Libertarian type that I am, any time the Fed's power is reigned in is "a good thing"
As far as "assisted suicide", it's totally unnecessary. I was a Deputy Coroner for a few years and saw numerous cases of suicide by terminally ill. They didn't need a M.D. to help them. I specifically recall one case of a woman who took a large dose of pain killers and put a plastic bag over her head and went to sleep while her husband was tending the livestock. She also had a pistol on the nightstand,"just in case" I presumed. The husband understood why she did it, but that didn't stop it from being devastating to her husband of nearly 50 years.
I think it's unbelievably selfish of those who want to drag others into their act, as if to look for approval. Like the ad says "Just do it", if that's what you want.
2. Will this cause other states to pass laws allowing assisted suicide in their state?
Undoubtedly. This decision was being anxiously watched in the more liberal states.
I am only glad that I don't live in one of them. Since I turn 50 soon, I really question how long it would be before I would be considered "obsolete" in Washington, Mass, etc. Liberals have no qualms offing babies that are not considered desirable, and now the old. How long will it be before there is some sort of merit-based system... Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode about the Librarian...
QUOTE(Yogurt @ Jan 24 2006, 07:58 AM)
Liberals have no qualms offing babies that are not considered desirable, and now the old.
Let's avoid inflammatory, blanket generalizations, please. They are not constructive.
TOPICS:
1. Do you believe the case was correctly or incorrectly decided based on the majority opinion and the dissents? Please cite relevant sections.
2. Will this cause other states to pass laws allowing assisted suicide in their state?
QUOTE(yogurt)
As far as "assisted suicide", it's totally unnecessary. I was a Deputy Coroner for a few years and saw numerous cases of suicide by terminally ill. They didn't need a M.D. to help them. I specifically recall one case of a woman who took a large dose of pain killers and put a plastic bag over her head and went to sleep while her husband was tending the livestock. She also had a pistol on the nightstand,"just in case" I presumed. The husband understood why she did it, but that didn't stop it from being devastating to her husband of nearly 50 years.
I think it's unbelievably selfish of those who want to drag others into their act, as if to look for approval. Like the ad says "Just do it", if that's what you want.
I think it's unbelievably selfish of those who want to drag others into their act, as if to look for approval. Like the ad says "Just do it", if that's what you want.
That sounds fine for people who are ambulatory, but not everyone who might want to make this decision will be physically able to do so. In my field (emergency medical services) we sometimes encounter elderly, terminally ill patients who have DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders posted beside their beds. If they go into cardiac arrest, when we arrive with the ambulance we do not attempt to revive them. Like a DNR, why would it be so wrong for someone to decide that, should they become afflicted with conditions A, B, or C, they want an assisted suicide? Such a decision could be made while the patient is conscious and of sound mind, against the possibility that when the moment comes, they may not be physically capable of doing the deed themselves. Your idea is not wrong, but the real world is messier than that. Many people don't think about these choices until it is too late - until they are incapacitated and cannot physically carry out what may well be their wish.
QUOTE
Undoubtedly. This decision was being anxiously watched in the more liberal states.
I am only glad that I don't live in one of them. Since I turn 50 soon, I really question how long it would be before I would be considered "obsolete" in Washington, Mass, etc. Liberals have no qualms offing babies that are not considered desirable, and now the old. How long will it be before there is some sort of merit-based system... Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode about the Librarian...
I am only glad that I don't live in one of them. Since I turn 50 soon, I really question how long it would be before I would be considered "obsolete" in Washington, Mass, etc. Liberals have no qualms offing babies that are not considered desirable, and now the old. How long will it be before there is some sort of merit-based system... Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode about the Librarian...
You are way off base here. You are interpreting a law which allows people to take responsibility for their own lives (surely a conservative and a liberal value) as a law which allows some liberal star chamber to maliciously decide some sort of elderly eugenics program.
If we want to get partisan about this (though it is hard to imagine how, since we do not have 6 liberal Supreme Court justices), we might point out that Ashcroft was a prototypical Bush conservative: keep the government off my back when I am making money, but stick a camera and a biometric scanner in my bedroom to monitor my private moral choices. We can be trusted to be wise spenders, we just can't be trusted to make life decisions...
...
As far as I know, laws that allow assisted suicide do not also require doctors to carry them out. The moral choices here are two - the patient deciding what is best for themselves, and the practitioner deciding whether or not they wish to do it. Remember, just like with abortion, this isn't something all practitioners will do. It would require specialty training. Like a DNR, it cannot be something a family member decides - it has to come from the patients themselves.
1. Do you believe the case was correctly or incorrectly decided based on the majority opinion and the dissents? Please cite relevant sections.
I believe it was correctly decided. However, to be frank, I have trouble understanding all the legalese in this opinion, and base my answer more on my own opinion that assisted suicide laws make sense, just like DNRs make sense.
2. Will this cause other states to pass laws allowing assisted suicide in their state?
Let's hope so!
(1) Once again, Clarence Thomas to the rescue. He is entirely correct in his analysis of both the case before him and the prior one involving the medicinal use of marijuana in California. And he understands, as do I, that the greatest danger is not what the general public might make of this decision and the prior one, but what the officers of the court[s] might make of this decision and the prior one. Which is to say that unless Gonzales v. Raich was wrongly decided, then the majority wrongly decided this case. And since in a nation of law and not of men, we adhere to the prior analysis absent some compelling reason for departing from the same, Clarence knows, as do I, that more than a few officers of the court now have just that much more reason to think that we are a nation of men and not of law, with all the negatives that such entails [oh, and funny how stare decisis is all the rage when it comes to Roe v. Wade, but not when it comes to Gonzales v. Raich]. As a final note, there is that other thread about legalizing prostitution. Isn't it already? But for consolation to the criminalized, at the least the "professional" can separate mind from body and otherwise take a bath and get clean, but what are the 6 in the majority to do?
(2) Cause? Not sure that this will "cause" any particular result, but it does remove one less roadblock in the way of those who wish to drive off the cliff...
(2) Cause? Not sure that this will "cause" any particular result, but it does remove one less roadblock in the way of those who wish to drive off the cliff...
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.