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

[Toad]

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

Interesting article here on what the Founders understood the term "commerce" to mean.

[myelo]

The purpose of controlled substance laws is to prohibit nonmedical and nonscientific use of certain drugs. Aschcroft didn’t really care about the use of specific drugs in this case, he was just using this law to stop what he’s really opposed to – assisted suicide. It just happens that the most humane way of assisted suicide uses controlled substances.

This would be like someone who is apposed to birth control trying to ban hysterectomies because the patient is anesthetized with controlled drugs.

I think the outcome will hinge on whether the court will accept that assisted suicide is a medical use. And I think you should defer to the attending physician-patient relationship here. Doctors are allowed to use approved drugs for purposes other than that for which they were approved. This includes scheduled drugs except for Schedule I.

[lazs2]

It does not seem that a state should allow the murder of an inocent man by anyone, especially a doctor.

On the face of it.. we either allow sucicide or not.  

To me... "assisted suicide" should mean.... "hand me my 44 I'm too weak to get up"   or... doctor telling patient... "these are for pain.. here is a script that is refillable at any time no questions asked... if you take more that 10 of em you will die"

I am against government interferance in states rights unless the state is stepping on constitutional rights of it's citizens.   but...

I am not sure that murdering inocent citizens who are not dangerous to the state is the right of the state.

I am not even sure why the government feels that they can make suicide illegal or regulate the use of drugs tho.

lazs

[Gunslinger]

Crow this is what I read yesturday:

The key O’Connor vote
The Supreme Court eight years ago found that the dying have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O’Connor provided a key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state experimentation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9595961/

you guys can argue politics all you want but truth be told this is kind of a turf battle.  Oregon wants doctors to be allowed to prescribe lethal doeses of medicine.  The federal govt thinks this is their turf because it involves the use of drugs.

I think the article is referring to these two cases:

Vacco v. Quill
Washington v. Glucksberg

[myelo]

Originally posted by lazs2
It does not seem that a state should allow the murder of an inocent man by anyone, especially a doctor.

Murder is a legal concept. According to the law, assisted suicide is not murder.

[Mighty1]

I'm really confused! (I know no big suprise)

Bush is ok with executions but not ok with Doctor assisted suicide!

Why?

They are both assisted deaths.

[john9001]

the Commerce clause is a really, REALLY big brush, and needs to be revisited, the way it in interpeted now it gives the fed govt power over any thing it wants.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Mighty1
I'm really confused! (I know no big suprise)

Bush is ok with executions but not ok with Doctor assisted suicide!

Why?

They are both assisted deaths.

Due process?

[lazs2]

myelo... so if I were to leave out the word "murder" and substitute "the taking of an innocent life".... you would be ok with what I said?

mighty...  you make no sense... that is like saying it is hypocritical to be against abortion on the basis that it is the killing of an innocent human but not be against the death penalty because it is the killing of person who is guilty of killing others.

I don't even see the problem... the doctor gives the patient a refilable at any time pain killer script that is lethal at a certain dose... the patient then either od's or not.   It is not the decision of the doctor or... worse yet the state.

this is a stupid clash over semantics.

lazs

[myelo]

Originally posted by lazs2
myelo... so if I were to leave out the word "murder" and substitute "the taking of an innocent life".... you would be ok with what I said?

The doctor is not taking a life.  He or she is prescribing a lethal drug so the patient can take their own life. Under no circumstances is the doctor allowed to administer the medication. That would be euthanasia, not assisted suicide.

But remember, this case is not about whether assisted suicide is constitutional or not, it's about whether it's an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws.

[beet1e]

Funny that the state allows you to commit suicide, but won't let you pump your own gas - because Nanny has decreed that it's unsafe.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by john9001
the Commerce clause is a really, REALLY big brush, and needs to be revisited, the way it in interpeted now it gives the fed govt power over any thing it wants.

Pretty much right there. It does need top be restricted.

[Clifra Jones]

10th amendment to the Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by beet1e
Funny that the state allows you to commit suicide, but won't let you pump your own gas - because Nanny has decreed that it's unsafe.

Oregon voters said no when in 1982 we were asked if we wanted self-serve.  We also voted in DAS.