Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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
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 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/life_marijuana_dc) ballot measure is voted in.
-
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.
-
I am with ya SoB, asscroft sucks.
-
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!
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I am with ya SoB, asscroft sucks.
Ditto opinion here too, and SOB stole my "Asscroft" nickname. :p
-
A conservative mind is a scary thing
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0403/spongebob.html
-
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
-
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
-
RPM...
States' Rights only apply if the rights inquestion reflect your values/beliefs...
Silly rabbit.
:rolleyes:
-
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
-
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.
-
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.....
-
Your Tax Dollars At Work!
-
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?
-
Because drugs are bad, mmmmkay.
-SW
-
doctors agree to provide an overdose of narcotics
====
There you go.
-
astrotardnoma lols
-
I don't know which case is better but say that sob was misdiagnosed and was merely dehydrated from debauchery profuse crying..and while waiting to die he forgot he was dying and took a drink of what he thought was gin but was water.. his recovery was allmost instant...
"whew... glad I didn't take my poison that quack left" says sob.
like I said... I don't care how it comes out... we simply have to define if it is legal to commit suicide or not. We also need to define how much influence and "assistance" is considered depriveing somone of life.
lazs
-
so many ways to kill yourself why would you need a doctor?
so that the insurance company pays out or what?
-
Self inflicted suicide is a ticket straight to hell for catholics and christians IIRC.
Pain and suffering = honorable God fearing death?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Self inflicted suicide is a ticket straight to hell for catholics and christians IIRC.-SW
Yep, kinda like jumping out of a flaming 1400 story building.
Self inflicted suicide, they're all burning in hell, fer sure.
-
if your religious you can loophole yourself out of that scneario red tail. Sounds like an emotional sickness your dealing with to even conjure up such a statement.
-
Doctor's don't make the decision. You do. Then ask a doctor for assistance.
-
isn't your decision based on the advise you get from a bunch of incompetent doctors who can't even afford to pay their malpractice insurance?
say they do the autopsy and find that the person was sufering from acute acid reflux and not incurable esophagus cancer after all.... oops...
imagine that law suit.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Self inflicted suicide is a ticket straight to hell for catholics and christians IIRC.
Pain and suffering = honorable God fearing death?
-SW
for those that believe that, "assisted suicide" would result in the same "ticket" as the "self inflicted" flavor
all pain and suffering = karma payment
that said, its ones personal choice what to do next at that time - not mine, or yours or our wives :)
-
Originally posted by myelo
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?
I have a real problem with making the medical profession the official arbiters of death. Talk about yer silppery slope. Ever since there've been physicians their main credo has been to preserve life, period. I can't foretell the future with much accuracy, but I can well imagine this'd lead to something many of you proponents of A.S. never dreamed would come to pass.
Just my humble opinion.
-
Originally posted by myelo
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?
Because these idiots have no compassion for the suffering.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so many ways to kill yourself why would you need a doctor?
Maybe because you're paralyzed? As in unable to move.
-
Lazs, read the following quote from the article:
"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."
It requires a second opinion and the patient must be mentally competent. I'm not sure where you're getting the "don't trust the doctors" stuff.
-
And Myelo, you are a hillarious bastard! :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ditto opinion here too, and SOB stole my "Asscroft" nickname. :p
I knew I'd heard it before somewhere, and it fits so well, I just can't help but use it.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
if your religious you can loophole yourself out of that scneario red tail. Sounds like an emotional sickness your dealing with to even conjure up such a statement.
Ok...(scribbling furiously)...so suicide is sometimes OK? Seems like the fundamental christians can't even decide what is right or wrojng these days.
Bottom line is if people are going to start throwing bibles around and making these wild statements about suicide and hell, (and I don't propose they do) then be prepared to be hit by some in return :) :aok
PS Yeager, playing devils advocate is not an emotional sickness, but by reducing someone's argument using your strategy suggests maybe arguments are not your strong suit?
-
well then.... thanks sob! you have solved the whole health care expense problem!
since most of the cost is related to malpractice insurance then all we need to do to end the possibility of any malpractice suits in the future is to have....
2 doctors agree.
lazs
-
Originally posted by slimm50
I have a real problem with making the medical profession the official arbiters of death. Talk about yer silppery slope. Ever since there've been physicians their main credo has been to preserve life, period.
And eventually they always fail, period.
Most of the cardiologists I know exercise daily, don’t smoke, and are very careful about what they eat. Why? Because they see patients die from heart attacks every day and want to avoid that.
Several oncologists (cancer specialists) I know are overweight, never exercise, and eat bacon and eggs every morning. Why? Because they know a heart attack is not a bad way to go.
My point is we all have to die, but some ways of dying are a lot worse than others. Doctors can’t prevent dying so why not let them help patients die with the least amount of suffering and with as much dignity as possible.
...Anyway, nobody has yet explained to me the difference between the two situations I described.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ditto opinion here too, and SOB stole my "Asscroft" nickname. :p
We promise to stop calling SOB Asscroft and give it back to you.
Bad SOB!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well then.... thanks sob! you have solved the whole health care expense problem!
since most of the cost is related to malpractice insurance then all we need to do to end the possibility of any malpractice suits in the future is to have....
2 doctors agree.
lazs
LOL, I'm sensing some sarcasm. But I guess I'm missing your point - you think that because the patient may not be able to be 100% absolutely certain of the diagnosis, they should be denied this right?
-
Originally posted by myelo
Doctors can’t prevent dying so why not let them help patients die with the least amount of suffering and with as much dignity as possible.
One of the things that bothers me is that I'm afraid it's only a short step from that mindset to wanting to help others decide when and how they should die, and eventually usurping that decision altogether.
-
ok sob.. in some cases I suppose it is all for the best... hell, I guess if someone wants to commit suicide... Who am I to judge? thing is.. it's not legal.
no one is asking for suicide to be legal. They are asking for suicide with good reason to be legal.
I submit that anyone who commits suicide believes that there is no other way. they often change their mind latter but.. at the time, it seems the only way.
Now, you are asking me to condone them killing themselves (and even having help doing it) simply because they can find two doctors who think things are hopless.
lazs
-
Well, we're not talking about a depressed sod who just got fired, and is now standing on a ledge, or a teenager that hates his life. This is about terminally ill patients having an option apart from suffering. Someone who has had to take the time to get a second opinion and be deemed sane enough to make this kind of decision.
-
Everyone knows where this slippery slope leads. Not that I have a problem with soylents, but damn, only two flavors?:mad:
-
Don't worry, I hear there's a new brand called Dr. Soylent coming out soon! Unfortunately, I've heard it has more prune juice than people though. :(
-
The funniest thing about the hypothetical example myelo presented is that if he'd also implied that SOB was a horse or *dog no one would have a problem with ending it's suffering.
The thing is an animal can't even tell ya that it wants an end to it's suffering, however the Oregon assisted suicide has very specific guidelines that must be met, including the patient ASKING for release.
Amazing we have more compasssion for our pets than we do for a fellow man.
[*see Disney movie 'OL Yeller]
-
well.... I have been in hospitals on critical care wards... I have felt pretty low in spirit a couple of times....
We could solve all this tho and just have assisted suicide at indian casinos!
Yep, that's the ticket.... just like a vegas wedding only different! Little death chapels all over the casino property... some in the parking lots so you don't have to enter the casino at all... maybe some drive throughs?
simply have a couple of indian doctors (greenbaum and capone) on hand to pass out the old big sleep pills (for a price)
package plans... "consoltation" pills and resting place all in one package.
lazs