I tend to side with the missuse of medication on this one, so I can see how Roberts would be against this.

___________________
Lost Souls

Sigh....

All legalizing physician assisted suicide does is make it safer for patients and doctors. If they strike down the law, the doctors who are doing this now legally will still do this under the radar. They feel very strongly that it is part of their duty as physicians to preserve the quality of life.

Oh well.....we shall see.

Hopefully the Miers process will drag out indefinitely because no one has any idea what her judicial doctrine would be.


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider In what way does this compare with allowing states to set their own drug laws??? Does assissted death in some way violate the commerce clause .

Well obviously as mentioned in the article assisted sucide is clearly not a constitutional matter.


However the line of reasoning for those against assisted suicide is probably based around this found or unfounded reasoning:

quote:

Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001

If it does violate federal drug laws, then it violates the commerce clause. If it doesn't, it doesn't, and Oregon can do what it wants.

I don't understand why this would be a "hard case".

BTW: I am for assisted suicide.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Well obviously as mentioned in the article assisted sucide is clearly not a constitutional matter.

Exactly. As a matter of fact the Supreme court ruled that in 1997 when it overturned arguments that Washington state's ban on assissted suicide conflicted with the 14th amendment. It instead said that it was a state's right issue.

http://www.gwu.edu/~cicd/scdiewas.htm

quote:

However the line of reasoning for those against assisted suicide is probably based around this found or unfounded reasoning: If it does violate federal drug laws, then it violates the commerce clause. If it doesn't, it doesn't, and Oregon can do what it wants. I don't understand why this would be a "hard case". BTW: I am for assisted suicide.

Well now you have the federal government trying to play the other side of the dice. The Controlled Substance Act has absolutely nothing to do with assissted suicide, and Congress did not pass it with the intent of affecting the right to die issue at all. The Act says that regulated drugs may be prescribed by a physician only "in the course of professional practice." This phrase, in turn, has been interpreted by courts and agencies to mean that drugs may be prescribed only with a "legitimate medical purpose."

Dispensing drugs outside the course of professional practice--without a "legitimate medical purpose"--subjects a physician to revocation of their DEA license and a possible felony conviction as well. The obvious target of the Act is a physician's knowing prescription of a regulated drug to a drug dealer or drug addict who lacks a medical reason for using the drug, and is motivated instead by profit or addiction.

It is also questionable in light of the fact that federal law has traditionally left the regulation of medical practice to the states. The drug law specifies that it is not intended to override state law unless there is a direct conflict between the two.

The state of Oregon has legalized the practice of assisted suicide in narrow circumstances: where a terminally ill, mentally competent adult has been examined and interviewed by two independent physicians. Thus, the state has determined that assisting in a suicide, in strictly defined circumstances, is part of the "course of professional practice," and can be legitimate as a medical practice.

Yet Aschroft views this as an opportunity to regulate assissted suicide simply because he doesn't agree that it doesn't constitute a "legitimate medical purpose" despite whatever the state thinks. It’s a deliberate distortion of the law to take advantage of a loophole in a law congress created for an entirely different purpose.

Not only is such a law nonsensical from a legal standpoint, but it defies common sense as well. If the federal government has jurisdiction over what constitutes “legitimate medical purposes” what’s to stop the federal government from intruding upon ANY medical procedure???? Abortion? Plastic surgery? Any medical procedure to do with stem cells? The implications alone on terminally ill patients who have not agreed to assisted suicide is retarded. The federal government could technically step in to reduce the amount of pain medication given to a terminally ill patient in their last minutes of life, because it might “illegitimately” hasten their death by a couple minutes … thus subjecting them to an excessively agonizing end. It would be fucking retarded to give the federal government jurisdiction over this.

But really, I expect nothing less from these conservative federalists we have in power

___________________
Retro ...

Occ, thank you for the information. This is such a tricky issue, at least in my opinion, and I find myself going back and forth between each side. I did not realize how regulated Oregon made these assisted suicides, which I am very impressed with. Also, Occ you make excellent points in your last paragraph. Indeed, we would be going down a slippery slope if the government was allowed to interpret for the entire nation what is and isn't a legitimate use of medicine. It seeems that in this case, the doctors cannot be sued, but then again I don't knwo enough about this. So if the doctors are protected, and the patient has proven to two separate psychologists that it is absolutely neccessary for them to end their life what is the problem?

___________________
Lost Souls

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings So if the doctors are protected, and the patient has proven to two separate psychologists that it is absolutely neccessary for them to end their life what is the problem?

The problem is that the right to die issue conflicts with Ashcroft's religion. As such he desires to impose his religious values on the rest of the country. Has Ashcroft even made an attempt to provide any evidence whatsoever that the assisted suicide law has undermined the substance control act? Never mind the fact that Oregon voters have voted twice to uphold the law. We can’t let a lousy thing like democracy get in the way of religion and federalism now can we?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus quote: Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001 If it does violate federal drug laws, then it violates the commerce clause. If it doesn't, it doesn't, and Oregon can do what it wants.

Now I'm not an expert in US law, but using that logic, it should also be illegal for doctors to prescribe the poison needed for execution in many US states, never heard anyone criticise that...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew If it does violate federal drug laws, then it violates the commerce clause. If it doesn't, it doesn't, and Oregon can do what it wants.

Now I'm not an expert in US law, but using that logic, it should also be illegal for doctors to prescribe the poison needed for execution in many US states, never heard anyone criticise that... [/QUOTE]

That's a very good point. Technically the federal governemnt could ban the death penalty (via lethal injection) as it does not constitute a "legitimate" medical purpose for those particular drugs in the sense that they're not "curing" someone.

___________________
Retro ...

Standing O for St. Andrew, great arguement point.

___________________
Lost Souls

Historically when conservatives have talked about “State’s Rights,” it’s usually been applied to slavery, segregation, and other racial issues because the federal government has twice interjected itself on behalf of a beleaguered minority in opposition to those individual states that have largely been the biggest proponents of “State’s Rights.”

If John Roberts, a former member of the Federalist Society, sides with Ashcroft’s hypocritical position, I am forced to conclude that he is either incapable of separating his religious beliefs from his judicial ones, or a sycophant.

That said, we still don't know how he will rule on the case, or whether O'Connor's vote will count in the final ruling.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Historically when conservatives have talked about “State’s Rights,” it’s usually been applied to slavery, segregation, and other racial issues because the federal government has twice interjected itself on behalf of a beleaguered minority in opposition to those individual states that have largely been the biggest proponents of “State’s Rights.” If John Roberts, a former member of the Federalist Society, sides with Ashcroft’s hypocritical position, I am forced to conclude that he is either incapable of separating his religious beliefs from his judicial ones, or a sycophant. That said, we still don't know how he will rule on the case, or whether O'Connor's vote will count in the final ruling.

Well said, Dave!