Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

[Powerboss]

Many of you are missing the point. Of course this doesn't come as a big surprise as the left believes that the courts should be the ones deciding social matters.

The issue before the court was whether the initial argument, whether the drug being used to kill these people, is being used for it's intended use. (which it isn't) because federal law clearly states that drugs are to be used for their specific purposes. Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts read the law correctly. The rest just engaged in judicial activism to advance the leftist agenda of legalizing assisted suicide.

As far as assisted suicide being legal, it shouldn't. However, there are times you have to run the red light. Despite it being illegal, sometimes it should be done.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Powerboss Many of you are missing the point. Of course this doesn't come as a big surprise as the left believes that the courts should be the ones deciding social matters. The issue before the court was whether the initial argument, whether the drug being used to kill these people, is being used for it's intended use. (which it isn't) because federal law clearly states that drugs are to be used for their specific purposes. Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts read the law correctly. The rest just engaged in judicial activism to advance the leftist agenda of legalizing assisted suicide. As far as assisted suicide being legal, it shouldn't. However, there are times you have to run the red light. Despite it being illegal, sometimes it should be done.

Indeed. Some activities fall into an area that should not be sanctioned by society. Ending the life of another because they asked you to is, in my opinion, one such area. Way too many ways for that to go wrong. (what physiological and psychological ailments would qualify for starters)

[Powerboss]

Indeed. If we made a law that said it was OK to run red lights in a medical emergency, we'd have chaos on our streets because huge numbers of people would be running red lights, justifying medical emergency's but I don't think anyone would criticise or want to punish a person for running a red light when there was no other traffic coming and breaking a law because their spouse was having a stroke.

This doesn't even begin to address the moral issue of what it says about a society that endorses assisted suicide laws. It's ghoulish.

[tusaki]

powerboss, have you even READ my post? I guess not. I happen to LIVE in a society which endorses assisted suicide... Also known as euthanasia. I've been close to some cases of euthanasia, and in every case it was mercy.. there is nothing ghoulish about it. Being able to choose your own time of death is a good thing. Sure, I hope you never ever have to go through what my family and friends have gone through, but you'll BEG for your life to be ended once you end up like those I know of who chose euthanasia. I really pity a society where such laws are not enacted just because the moral scrupulous of the well off cannott cope with it. Once you have, in your family, one of the cases I have been through, you will be standing on the streets to demand the right to die at your own convenience... instead of being on drugs for 3 more years of more suffering, both mentally and physically.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Apeman81 This assertion is ridiculous. You stated emphatically that “not YOU, nor the GOVERNEMNT, will tell me one god damned thing about how to behave.” I responded to you by demonstrating that we have, in several instances, by way of our representatives, allowed the government to regulate our behavior.

Some behavior, but not all. You can't stop a person from killing themselves anyway so why the stupid pretense of a law against it?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Some behavior, but not all. You can't stop a person from killing themselves anyway so why the stupid pretense of a law against it?

You can't stop a person from killing another, either. Laws are written enumerate behaviors we do not support. These proscribed behaviors may also carry with them as a punishment for having engaged in them a punishement of some sort of varying degrees.

[Osborn F Enready]

But it is the applied logic of the courts many like I have been questioning since the mid 1800's.

There have been changes, that should not have been allowed, in Constitutional interpretation.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Apeman81 You can't stop a person from killing another, either. Laws are written enumerate behaviors we do not support. These proscribed behaviors may also carry with them as a punishment for having engaged in them a punishment of some sort of varying degrees.

But you must realize how insane that sounds when you apply your argument to an individual deciding to terminate his own life.

What punishment would be sufficient for the heinous crime of suicide? I know, the DEATH PENALTY!! That'll learn the bastards.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Scribbler1 But you must realize how insane that sounds when you apply your argument to an individual deciding to terminate his own life. What punishment would be sufficient for the heinous crime of suicide? I know, the DEATH PENALTY!! That'll learn the bastards.

When discussing one's own life, you're correct in stating that punishment is problematic. Even when the suicide is unsuccessful, no real punishment is meted out. The most imposed is counseling

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 Thank you for the reasoned debate. (and the qoute dings) We all possess (in my belief, as a result of God's design) free will. Each of us can decide to abide by or defy the will of the people. We must only recognize that the people can and sometimes will react to our defiance. While I would not employ suicide, because as Mark Twain once said, " I do see that there is an argument against suicide: the grief of the worshipers left behind, the awful famine in their hearts, these are too costly terms for the release." , I can see myself being sorely tempted to help another to achieve that goal under extreme circumstances. Good luck (and prayers, with hope they do not offend) in that your affliction never put you in the circumstance to make that decision. Thanks again

Thanks. I am not worried for myself. I take every day as a gift. I make the best of it and when the time comes, I will go forward knowing that I did the best I could with the cards that life dealt me. Besides, the Doctors say I will be around for a while yet. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. And prayers don't offend me. Thank you.

Mark Twain also wrote:

"Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry."

"Death is the only immortal who treats us all alike, whose pity and whose peace and whose refuge are for all - the soiled and the pure, the rich and the poor, the loved and the unloved."

"Pity is for the living, envy is for the dead."

And finally Tom Hooker, his character in Simon Wheeler, Detective, said the following in 1878:

"A suicide's a prime thing in its way, but don't begin with 'n' assassination. You got to be mighty reserved and respectful about a suicide, or you'll have the surviving relatives in your hair. You can't spread, you know - family won't stand it. You've got to cramp your item down to a short quarter column - and you've always got to say it's temporary abberation. Temporary abberation! - and half these suicides haven't got anytingto abberate!... But you let a man be assassinated once, and you string him out to five columns......Yes, a suicide's leans stuff for literature...."

"Heaven for climate, hell for society."

[Logjam]

Quote by: tusaki We've had legal euthanasia here since 2002 and tolerated euthanasia here for over 20 years. (tolerated as in: unlikely to be punished.. heh.. it's a dutch thing I guess...). And I've been close to a couple of cases. Truly, it is mercy. I cannot state that enough. Here you must have 3 doctors agreeing that the person is inhumanely suffering and has no hope of improvement. Also, the person him/herself must request the eathanasia and do so repeatedly over a period of time. I've not ever heard of no abuses by family members nor have I heard of the law being abused for organ harvesting. I believe such extreme cases are just hypothetical and only used by opponents of eutanesia as a scare tactic. For the cases which I have witnessed, it was mercy and I feel it was the right choice those persons made. Dieing in dignity must be worth something.

I live in Oregon, so we have legalized euthanasia too.

I can live with it.......hopefully.

[SteveA]

The world won't ever be perfect but this:

For Oregon residents to be eligible to request a prescription under ODWDA, they must receive a diagnosis from their attending physician that they have an incurable and irreversible disease that, within reasonable medical judgment, will cause death within six months. Ore.Rev.Stat. §§ 127.815, 127.800(12) (2003). Attending physicians must also determine whether a patient has made a voluntary request, ensure a patient's choice is informed, and refer patients to counseling if they might be suffering from a psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment. §§ 127.815, 127.825. A second "consulting" physician must examine the patient and the medical record and confirm the attending physician's conclusions. § 127.800(8). Oregon physicians may dispense or issue a prescription for the requested drug, but may not administer it. §§ 127.815(L), 127.880. The reviewing physicians must keep detailed medical records of the process leading to the final prescription, § 127.855, records that Oregon's Department of Human Services reviews, § 127.865. Physicians who dispense medication pursuant to ODWDA must also be registered with both the State's Board of Medical Examiners and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). § 127.815(1)(L).

Seems to be a good idea to limit abuse of it.

The truth is that no matter what the laws are, people are going to live and die. I don't think anyone has a right to force someone else to live or deny them an ability to seek help from someone else if they don't want to live. The laws should simply protect people from being coerced by others into a an attempt at suicide and assuming there aren't a lot of hidden details, this law seems reasonable in doing this.

The only thing I'd caution against is viewing assisted suicide as an entitlement. Government shouldn't have a proactive role in assuring someone has an ability to kill themself. It should only defend a persons natural ability to seek this on their own, if truly desired. So the government shouldn't be involved in helping assisted suicides but simply there to assure there was no coercion involved and the person has a full understanding of likely consequences.

[Athena]

Quote by: Austin_P You can always just kill yourself with pills or a gun, but government condoning suicide is the same as encouraging.

We all die sooner of later, and what is wrong with being okay with that?