Author Topic: Asscroft & Bush On The Attack... (Read 1191 times)

SOB · « **on:** July 13, 2004, 01:16:26 AM »

Damned sick people, and the citizens of Oregon! Stand down, the feds know what's best for you.

http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=83464

Quote

Bush administration asks court to revisit assisted suicide

It wants the full appeals court to reverse an earlier decision backing Oregon's law

DAVID KRAVETS
The Associated Press
July 12, 2004 - 3:48 PM

SAN FRANCISCO — The Bush administration asked a federal appeals court here today to reconsider a May decision upholding Oregon’s assisted suicide law.

The administration wants the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside its ruling backing the nation’s only law allowing doctors to assist in hastening the death of patients. The Justice Department says the case, originally decided by a 2-1 vote, should be reheard with an 11-judge panel. Thirteen of the circuit’s 25 full-time judges must agree to a rehearing, and they are rarely granted.

The three-judge circuit panel in May ruled that, under the state’s voter-approved Death With Dignity Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot sanction or hold Oregon doctors criminally liable for prescribing overdoses.

The panel said the states were free to adopt such laws, while the administration claims federal drug laws, namely the Controlled Substances Act, prohibit doctors from dispensing medication to end a patient’s life.

“Under specified conditions, the CSA allows registered physicians to prescribe controlled substances for legitimate medical purposes in the usual course of professional practice,” the Justice Department said in its petition. “The attorney general recently issued an interpretive rule clarifying that assisting suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose under the CSA.”

The government added that assisting suicide violates the Hippocratic Oath.

Eli Stutsman, an attorney representing a pharmacist and doctor in the case, said the federal government has no authority over Oregon’s assisted suicide law. “There is simply no basis in the construct or intent of federal law that gives the federal government the authority to regulate the practice of medicine or establish the standard of care in the states.”

The latest legal wrangling stems from April 2002, when a federal judge in Portland blocked the Justice Department from threatening to punish doctors, for example by pressing criminal charges or stripping them of their federal licenses to dispense medication, if they assist suicides.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jones had ruled that the Controlled Substances Act — the federal law declaring what drugs doctors may prescribe — does not give the federal government the power to say what is a legitimate medical practice. The panel of the 9th Circuit agreed.

Oregon voters first approved the act in 1994 and overwhelmingly affirmed it again 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 after two doctors confirm the diagnosis and determine the patient to be mentally competent to make the request.

Since 1998, at least 171 people have used the law to end their lives, according to state records. Most of them suffered from cancer.

By circuit rules, there is no timeline for the court to respond to the government’s petition.

The case is Oregon v. Ashcroft, 02-35587.

So, is this another attempt to garner votes from the religious right, or just more of Asscroft's crusade to shove his morality down citizen's throats? Hell, I just can't wait to see what they'll do if this ballot measure is voted in.

rpm · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2004, 01:31:06 AM »

No SOB you misunderstand. The Bush Administration is a believer in state's rights. They don't want to impose fedreal government upon you at the local level. GWB is a uniter, not a divider.

Attorney General Ashcroft does not impose his personal religious beliefs upon a free nation. This is all a move to stop terrorism and make Oregonians safe from al-Queda. Those assisted suicides could easily become assisted suicide bombers.

Trust this administration. They would never ever lie to you. If you had just voted republican in the past the case would have been struck down by the lower court to begin with by properly appointed republican judges.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2004, 01:36:45 AM »

I am with ya SoB, asscroft sucks.

SOB · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2004, 01:38:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
This is all a move to stop terrorism and make Oregonians safe from al-Queda. Those assisted suicides could easily become assisted suicide bombers.

LOL!

Ripsnort · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2004, 07:38:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
I am with ya SoB, asscroft sucks.

Ditto opinion here too, and SOB stole my "Asscroft" nickname.

Sixpence · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2004, 10:30:30 AM »

A conservative mind is a scary thing

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0403/spongebob.html

lazs2 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2004, 10:47:30 AM »

I don't care one way or another but Bush is on firm ground here constitution wise.

One of the few duties that our government has is to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If someone loses their life at the hands of someone else because they were unable to make a reasoned decision then it would be up to the government to prevent that.

A person commits assisted suicide at the hands of the doctor who has told him that there is no other way... This could be complicated.

On the one hand most of you seem to think that doctors are incompetent buffons but now you feel that they are perfectly capable of decideing if a person should live or die based on their diagnosis..

lazs

Eagler · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2004, 10:56:40 AM »

no lazs its all about and only about religion and religious nutcases trying to ruin everyones fun - LOL

sorry to see that you've been sucked into slam the AG crowd rip

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2004, 11:53:48 AM »

RPM...

States' Rights only apply if the rights inquestion reflect your values/beliefs...

Silly rabbit.

lazs2 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2004, 12:44:38 PM »

No redtail... I beleive that life and liberty are above states rights. This is as it should be and was intended to be..

Now all we need to do is decide if suicide is legal or not or... if killing someone is depriving him of life or... if "assisting" someone to commit suicide is considered depriveing him of life.

I really don't care how it turns out but it needs to be made clear.

it would seem to be a federal matter tho and one to be decided by federal court.

lazs

DoctorYO · « **Reply #10 on:** July 13, 2004, 01:04:57 PM »

Anyone who loses their seat and election to a dead guy (Mel Carnahan) can't be all that good..

Enjoy..

DoctorYo

PS : Yeag, while your hearsay is noted.. the reasons for shoulda coulda woulda still dont give a whole alot of credibility to the man... while your remarks are noted. Give me facts.. not hearsay... He lost to a dead man.. Rebuttal of the facts for my clarification would be appreciated.

Yeager · « **Reply #11 on:** July 13, 2004, 01:10:05 PM »

Anyone who loses their seat and election to a dead guy (Mel Carnahan) can't be all that good..
====
I recall hearing that the female vote put the dead guy in office. Reasoning behind it was that the women voters were voting in force out of sympathy to the grieving family. Made sense to me and also made me wonder why women, as a group, were not allowed to vote until ratification of the 19th amendmant. Evolution is not always a good thing....maybe.

On topic:
I cannot decide whether I support state assisted suicide or not. I suspect Ashcroft challenging it is a good thing if it forces the idea to be fully reviewed in the nations courts. Perhaps.....

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2004, 02:25:22 PM »

Your Tax Dollars At Work!

myelo · « **Reply #13 on:** July 13, 2004, 02:30:58 PM »

Consider two situations:

1. Despite a lifetime of clean living, SOB develops a malignant astrotardnoma of the brain. There is not treatment and he will die from this within the year.

Currently he is paralyzed, in pain and unable to eat or drink. Being a competent adult (OK, so this is fiction) he declines any further medical treatment, as is his right. With no fluids he will die of dehydration within the week. The doctors comply and SOB goes to the great distillery in the sky.

(The FDBs consider a memorial mission but never actually get around to it).

Nobody has any problem with this, right?

2. Same situation … but SOB decides he really doesn’t like the idea of lying in a slack-jawed vegetative state for 5 days while he dies from dehydration. So the doctors agree to provide an overdose of narcotics and he slips peacefully and with dignity into the everafter.

Can someone please tell me why situation 2 is worse than 1?

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #14 on:** July 13, 2004, 02:35:46 PM »

Because drugs are bad, mmmmkay.
-SW