Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

[tivodan1116]

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Bush administration's attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die, protecting Oregon's one-of-a-kind assisted-suicide law.
ADVERTISEMENT

It was the first loss for Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court's most conservative members —
Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas — in a long but restrained dissent.

The administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to pursue Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court said in a rebuke to former Attorney General
John Ashcroft.

The 6-3 ruling could encourage other states to consider copying Oregon's law, used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people in that state. The decision, one of the biggest expected from the court this year, also could set the stage for Congress to attempt to outlaw assisted suicide.

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority — himself, retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Stephen Breyer.

With this decision Kennedy showed signs of becoming a more influential swing voter after O'Connor departs. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins more liberal members on cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment.

In some ways, the decision was an anticlimactic end to the court's latest clash over assisted suicide.

The case was argued in October on Roberts' second day on the bench, and he strongly hinted that he would back the Bush administration. Some court watchers had expected O'Connor to be the decisive vote, which could have delayed the case until her successor was on the court. The Senate is set to vote soon on nominee Samuel Alito.

Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before, most recently in 1997 when the court unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die. That decision, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, left room for states to set their own rules.

The Tuesday ruling, and dissents, were tinged with an understanding about the delicate nature of the subject. The court itself is aging and the death of Rehnquist this past September after a yearlong fight with cancer was emotional for the justices.

Scalia said in his dissent that the court's ruling "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position."

At the same time, Scalia said federal officials have the power to regulate doctors in prescribing addictive drugs and "if the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death."

He was joined in the dissent by Thomas and Roberts. Roberts did not write separately to explain his vote. Thomas also wrote his own dissent.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life, a culture of life that is built on valuing life at all stages."

The court majority dealt harshly with Ashcroft, who in 2001 declared that Oregon doctors who helped people die would be violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. Lower courts prevented any punishment while Ashcroft's authority was contested by the state of Oregon, a physician, pharmacist and terminally ill patients.

Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

Oregon's law, which was passed by voters, covers only extremely sick people — those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind. At least two doctors must agree the ill have six months or less to live before they can use the law.

"For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions," said state Solicitor General Mary Williams.

The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."

The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws — only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it still could have ramifications outside of Oregon.

"This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration.

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

I say a great decision, both for states' rights and for individual liberties. How can a nation claim to give people the right to "life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness" and make it illegal for them to contract with a medical professional to end that life in any method they choose?

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Tivo.

[Rave7pt0]

The problem with assisted suicide isn't normative -- I think that people should have that liberty. The problem is that when applied, this opens the door for gross violations of liberty. People taking advantage of others for financial gain, or even petty revenge... it's just danergous. I think the problem deserves a lot of attention.

[Scribbler1]

I think we can determine the difference between assisted suicide and murder easily enough under present law. Further, we should use Jack Kevorkian as a standard for assisted suicide. He would often try to talk the person out of it, recommend counseling and other ways to determine how serious the person is about ending his/her life. The people he helped were unshakeable in their desire to die.

Is this another example of the right wing's warped example of "freedom?"

[Charon]

I don't like to term things as "right" or "left"-wing in cases such as this. Having worked in a large hospital for a number of years, and having watched people suffer (and I mean SUFFER) prior to dying, assisted suicide is the humane thing to provide them as an option.

Terminal patients should always have the right to chose a painless, and dignified death if they so desire it.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Charon I don't like to term things as "right" or "left"-wing in cases such as this. Having worked in a large hospital for a number of years, and having watched people suffer (and I mean SUFFER) prior to dying, assisted suicide is the humane thing to provide them as an option. Terminal patients should always have the right to chose a painless, and dignified death if they so desire it.

Ordinarily I would agree, but the Bush administration (the poster boys for Right Wing) has been quite zealous about denying people's right to die. ESPECIALLY John Ashcroft.

[leftcider]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 The problem with assisted suicide isn't normative -- I think that people should have that liberty. The problem is that when applied, this opens the door for gross violations of liberty. People taking advantage of others for financial gain, or even petty revenge... it's just danergous. I think the problem deserves a lot of attention.

I agree with the physician assisted suicide law, but I can see the potential pitfalls. Say, grandma is in the hospital, her bills are being racked up, and it is putting financial stress on the family. Is a situation where an unscrupulous family member pressures her to commit suicide for financial reasons likely? Remember, we are dealing with a terminally ill person, who is under a lot of distress and may be very suspectible to pressure. Could insurance companies, sick of paying expenses, find some way to encourage it through money pressure among patients who are not reaping them profits? On the whole, I would say the benefit gained from this law is greater than the pitfalls, but there are some potential drawbacks to it that need to be addressed.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: leftcider I agree with the physician assisted suicide law, but I can see the potential pitfalls. Say, grandma is in the hospital, her bills are being racked up, and it is putting financial stress on the family. Is a situation where an unscrupulous family member pressures her to commit suicide for financial reasons likely? Remember, we are dealing with a terminally ill person, who is under a lot of distress and may be very suspectible to pressure. Could insurance companies, sick of paying expenses, find some way to encourage it through money pressure among patients who are not reaping them profits? On the whole, I would say the benefit gained from this law is greater than the pitfalls, but there are some potential drawbacks to it that need to be addressed.

Extremely unlikely, and virtually impossible. Reading from the court's decision (and the court is quoting from the law, see the cites):

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 pretty reasonable to me.

[Austin_P]

I myself have to make some dissent. I myself fear that somebody could use this law to do what was described above, because stuff like that has happened before, and I don't want it to happen again.

[Scribbler1]

Because there is an exceedingly slim possibility of someone manipulating a situation to cause the death of another for personal gain does NOT mean assisted suicide should be kept illegal. If you are concerned about the possibility a few people may orchestrate the suicide of others you must also accept the fact that thousands may benefit.
If you feel the law is somehow lacking you could tell your lawmaker about it, but we can't go back to the days when that nitwit in Washington ran the Justice Department.

[brien]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Bush administration's attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die, protecting Oregon's one-of-a-kind assisted-suicide law. ADVERTISEMENT It was the first loss for Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court's most conservative members — Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — in a long but restrained dissent. The administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to pursue Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court said in a rebuke to former Attorney General John Ashcroft. The 6-3 ruling could encourage other states to consider copying Oregon's law, used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people in that state. The decision, one of the biggest expected from the court this year, also could set the stage for Congress to attempt to outlaw assisted suicide. "Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority — himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. With this decision Kennedy showed signs of becoming a more influential swing voter after O'Connor departs. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins more liberal members on cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment. In some ways, the decision was an anticlimactic end to the court's latest clash over assisted suicide. The case was argued in October on Roberts' second day on the bench, and he strongly hinted that he would back the Bush administration. Some court watchers had expected O'Connor to be the decisive vote, which could have delayed the case until her successor was on the court. The Senate is set to vote soon on nominee Samuel Alito. Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before, most recently in 1997 when the court unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die. That decision, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, left room for states to set their own rules. The Tuesday ruling, and dissents, were tinged with an understanding about the delicate nature of the subject. The court itself is aging and the death of Rehnquist this past September after a yearlong fight with cancer was emotional for the justices. Scalia said in his dissent that the court's ruling "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position." At the same time, Scalia said federal officials have the power to regulate doctors in prescribing addictive drugs and "if the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death." He was joined in the dissent by Thomas and Roberts. Roberts did not write separately to explain his vote. Thomas also wrote his own dissent. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life, a culture of life that is built on valuing life at all stages." The court majority dealt harshly with Ashcroft, who in 2001 declared that Oregon doctors who helped people die would be violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. Lower courts prevented any punishment while Ashcroft's authority was contested by the state of Oregon, a physician, pharmacist and terminally ill patients. Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design." Oregon's law, which was passed by voters, covers only extremely sick people — those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind. At least two doctors must agree the ill have six months or less to live before they can use the law. "For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions," said state Solicitor General Mary Williams. The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide." The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws — only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it still could have ramifications outside of Oregon. "This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration. The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623. I say a great decision, both for states' rights and for individual liberties. How can a nation claim to give people the right to "life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness" and make it illegal for them to contract with a medical professional to end that life in any method they choose?

I am a cancer survivor almost 5 years and I will tell you in no uncertain terms that if I get to a point where I no longer feel like my life has any quality, I don't need any laws to tell me what to do, or what not to do. The arrogance of the state to attempt to dictate to me what I can do with my body in my final moments on this planet is just plain overbearing.

The fact that the Federal governement even attempts to be so arrogant in this matter just magnifies the intensity of the elitist attitude this government has towards its citizens. This crap began with the New Deal, and was further legitimized in Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Well they can have it because it is neither new or great for me.

It is obvious this government has no compassion for me because it seeks to restrict a doctors aid to me in my time of need, when or if, it comes. I would like a bottle of something or a needle to overdose on, but if they don't provide it, hell, I'll figure another humane way. I can get it on the street. I don't need them to get done what I wish to do if I need to do it. What part of that don't they understand? Where is the compassion of their "Great Society"? It is in the crapper where Johnson lectured from anyway.

I am heartened that the Supreme Court is ruling the way it is, but this matter should be a given in our society.

This question is ultimately between myself and my maker.

[brien]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 The problem with assisted suicide isn't normative -- I think that people should have that liberty. The problem is that when applied, this opens the door for gross violations of liberty. People taking advantage of others for financial gain, or even petty revenge... it's just danergous. I think the problem deserves a lot of attention.

This is an individual decision. That is where the true liberty lies. The government has no business in these personal matters whatsoever.

How in the name of decency can someone take advantage of me for financial gain when I am checking out to the big highway in the sky? I will punch my own ticket, thank you.

[Austin_P]

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

[brien]

Quote by: leftcider I agree with the physician assisted suicide law, but I can see the potential pitfalls. Say, grandma is in the hospital, her bills are being racked up, and it is putting financial stress on the family. Is a situation where an unscrupulous family member pressures her to commit suicide for financial reasons likely? Remember, we are dealing with a terminally ill person, who is under a lot of distress and may be very suspectible to pressure. Could insurance companies, sick of paying expenses, find some way to encourage it through money pressure among patients who are not reaping them profits? On the whole, I would say the benefit gained from this law is greater than the pitfalls, but there are some potential drawbacks to it that need to be addressed.

Lefty: You have raised some concerns but I don't think they are as serious as you make them out to be here. Grandma, or any of us for that matter, can write a last will and testament. Grandma can leave the hospital and go home.

I'll be damned if I will die in any hospital if I have anything to say about it. I plan to die at home in my own bed. I have stared my own mortality right in the face and I still made rational decisions. I have made clear my final wishes and if my disease takes me down a terminal road, I will go there knowing I can choose my desires without having to be concerned the government is going to get involved with me. And if a Doctor assists me, I will be the last to rat him out! Hell, the government has been on my back my entire life, I will surely shake them off in my dying days. I am seeking peace, nothing more and nothing less.

[brien]

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

Nahhh It is only because you believe they say it is the case.

[Scribbler1]

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

You have the role of government backwards. Through inaction they are NOT "condoning" anything. It is not their business and that's where it begins and ends.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: brien I am a cancer survivor almost 5 years and I will tell you in no uncertain terms that if I get to a point where I no longer feel like my life has any quality, I don't need any laws to tell me what to do, or what not to do. The arrogance of the state to attempt to dictate to me what I can do with my body in my final moments on this planet is just plain overbearing. The fact that the Federal governement even attempts to be so arrogant in this matter just magnifies the intensity of the elitist attitude this government has towards its citizens. This crap began with the New Deal, and was further legitimized in Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Well they can have it because it is neither new or great for me. It is obvious this government has no compassion for me because it seeks to restrict a doctors aid to me in my time of need, when or if, it comes. I would like a bottle of something or a needle to overdose on, but if they don't provide it, hell, I'll figure another humane way. I can get it on the street. I don't need them to get done what I wish to do if I need to do it. What part of that don't they understand? Where is the compassion of their "Great Society"? It is in the crapper where Johnson lectured from anyway. I am heartened that the Supreme Court is ruling the way it is, but this matter should be a given in our society. This question is ultimately between myself and my maker.

It's not about what you can do with your body, it's about what another person can do with your body.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Scribbler1 You have the role of government backwards. Through inaction they are NOT "condoning" anything. It is not their business and that's where it begins and ends.

It is indeed the "business" of our government, being the representatives of the collective we, the people, to establish a standard of conduct for society.

Hence, the entire list of local, state and federal statutes. All law is a limitation on the freedom of all of us.

Who can kill whom is certainly the business of the state to attend to.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Apeman81 It's not about what you can do with your body, it's about what another person can do with your body.

Who can kill whom is certainly the business of the state to attend to.

So let me get this straight: I can contract with another person to buy a house, i can contract with another person to have sexual relations with only them for the rest of my natural life and create new life (marriage), I can contract with another person to improve my health (doctor, gym), BUT I cannot contract with another person to prescribe me a substance that will allow me to choose when to end my life?

That's what we're talking about here - The Oregon law doesn't allow your doctor to come to your house and shoot you, or whack you with a baseball bat and bury you alive a la "Casino".

What we're talking about is a doctor giving you a prescription for a drug, and telling you a dose that would be lethal. How this is "another person" doing something to your body, or anything REMOTELY related to "whom can kill whom" is beyond me.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Apeman81 It is indeed the "business" of our government, being the representatives of the collective we, the people, to establish a standard of conduct for society.

Absolutely NOT when it comes to your own life and in ending that life you do not infringe on the rights of others. You can't attribute other "standards" that government or even society itself applies to anything else when you are talking about the sanctity of your own person.
I expect we should be elevated a little bit above farm animals when it comes to WHO owns and controls your own body/life.

Who can kill whom is certainly the business of the state to attend to.

It would be ME killing myself. Even Kevorkian had the patient push the button himself. You have no say in it whatsoever.