Oyez, Oyez The AH Supreme Court is now in session: Gonzales v. Oregon

[Toad]

Oregon's Physician Assisted Suicide Law

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft did not exceed his legal authority in 2001 when he said the federal Controlled Substances Act supersedes an Oregon law that allows physician-assisted suicide, attorneys for the Bush administration argued on Wednesday in opening arguments in the Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Oregon, the Washington Post reports (Lane, Washington Post, 10/6).

The Death With Dignity Act, which became law in 1997, allows physicians to prescribe, but not administer, a lethal dose of prescription drugs to a terminally ill patient after two physicians agree that the patient has less than six months to live, has decided to die voluntarily and can make health care decisions (Greenhouse, New York Times, 10/6).

In 2001, Ashcroft issued a directive that said assisted suicide serves "no legitimate medical purpose" and warned physicians who prescribe controlled narcotics to assist in patient suicides under the Oregon law that they could face criminal penalties and license suspension or revocation.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jones in 2003 ruled that the federal government did not have the authority to overturn the law -- a decision upheld in May 2004 by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2004, Ashcroft asked the Supreme Court to reverse the decision (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 10/3)....

...Oregon Attorney
Atkinson argued that congressional intent in the passage of CSA was to regulate recreational use of prescription drugs (Savage, Boston Globe, 10/6). He said, "They left the question of legitimate use to the state," adding, "What they had in mind was the traditional regulation of medicine by the states" (Henderson, Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/6). He said that Ashcroft had exceeded his authority as attorney general because states regulate the practice of medicine (Boston Globe, 10/6).

 

What's your verdict? Cross examinations are allowable.

[midnight Target]

I'm all for States Rights and the government staying out of things.



this time.

[Seagoon]

Hi Toad,

Thought I might add some fuel to the fire by posting links to three interesting commentaries on the ethical and social problems raised by Medical Euthanasia. ( I believe I may have linked to one or more before)

Life Unworthy of Life
No Deposit, No Return
The Nazi Doctors

- SEAGOON

[ChickenHawk]

I voted for the Death With Dignity Act in 97 and am proud that it passed.

The Feds need to get their noses out of State business.

[Mighty1]

Doctor assisted no.

I'm all for letting people kill themselfs( I know a few I would recommend it:D ) without Govt interference.

[Toad]

Personal opinion is good but what I was actually looking for was your "Constitutional" view.

Which side of this case do you think is on the correct Constitutional track?

Do the Feds have the right to regulate this and punish Doctors? Or is it none of the Feds business Constitutionally?

[Yeager]

Lets think on this:
On the one hand, Suicide is painless

But....on the other hand, I will simply die naturally.  

I want to exist every single moment that I can, surrounded by the love of family and friends while I exist in this universe.  

If I develope a fatal illness, then drugs will be made available in the final days and hours of my life to allow my body to die naturally with no pain.

I will not speed up my death by commiting suicide when there are drugs that can free me of my pain while my body dies.

I hope the feds throw out oregon suiciders just on principle.  No one who is ill needs to kill themselves.

[midnight Target]

I see this case as no different than the idiot decision by Ashcroft to outlaw the medical marijuana statute in California or the mindless idiocy of the Congress regarding the Schaivo case.

All are just hypocritical stances by the conservative right to pander to the christian coalition that helped elect them. All three are patently illegal and just plain wrong. Maybe we need some judges to legislate brains from the bench.

[Toad]

Yeager, that post doesn't really address the Constitutionality of the issue.

MT, interesting that you bring "medical marijuana" into it. You know the SC split but Fed intervention was upheld under the Commerce clause.

Here, the Feds defend their action under the same clause. The CSA cites the impact of intrastate drug offences on "interstate commerce" and the "general welfare" of the American people.

So, is this a replay of "medical marijana"? If so, is there any reason to believe the Fed position will not be upheld? Roberts replaces Rhenquist but otherwise the cast is the same and "med marijuana" is fresh in their memories.

[Munkii]

Are we a Negative Liberal society or a Positive Liberal Society?  Personally I feel that we are a negative liberal society governed by a Constitution.  No where in the Constitution does it regulate medicine and the practice there of.  

The Government doesn't have a leg to stand on in the case, as all Drug statue's that allow the prescription of drugs does not regulate the amount prescribed by the doctor.  What is stopping the doctor's from prescribing Morphine, and "letting it slip" that ODing by a certain amount would kill you?

That being said, the law will be struck down, and more states rights will be kicked out the window.

[StarOfAfrica2]

MT, interesting that you bring "medical marijuana" into it. You know the SC split but Fed intervention was upheld under the Commerce clause.  

Here, the Feds defend their action under the same clause. The CSA cites the impact of intrastate drug offences on "interstate commerce" and the "general welfare" of the American people.

I'll give them that one, even though its a rather convoluted way of looking at it.  However, I fail to see how the "offences" of these doctors in prescribing these medications affects "interstate commerce" in any way shape or form?  Since none of the bordering states allow this to happen, are there any cases of people who live outside Oregon being treated by a doctor IN Oregon?  If so, could that person receive these drugs?  Then maybe I could see them having an "interstate commerce" argument.  A stretch still, but theres an argument.  As long as all patients are residents of Oregon though, the Feds have no case.

[Furious]

federal vs. state rights?  I don't care.

It seems to me it's an individual's right to die with what ever dignity they can muster.

Tired of feeling like we, as individual citizens, have to beg our rights back from the government.

[Delirium]

I not only support medically assisted suicide, but it should not be the business of the government to get involved.

If you have a terminal illness, or are in chronic umanagleable pain you should be allowed to ask your doctor for the only release available. They should not be given, however, without your primary MD's authorization, a secondary reviewing MD (someone who has not been involved in your healthcare), with a short period of review by the applicable State's Medical Review Board.

This is one of the things that really disappoints me with the Bush administation, heck, they never even offered any apologies when the autopsy for Terri Shiavo was released, even though the weight of her brain was far below the normal even when compared to someone who had been in a persistive vegatative state.

[Yeager]

well, unless the federal contsitution expressely allows a thing or forbids a thing then its left up to the state to decide its own laws.

But the federal controlled substance act appears to allow a lperson the opportunity to challenge oregon state based on existing law.  I hope the oregonians can be brought back to their senses.

Suicide should not be allowed by law, imo.  Of course you can go kill yourself, freewill.  Doesn't mean its the right thing to do under the law.

just my opinion.

[Sandman]

Which leads to the question, "Is the Federal Controlled Substance Act itself constitutional?"

IMHO, there should be no laws restricting suicide whatsoever. It's my life to do with as I see fit.