quote:

High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide By GINA HOLLAND The Associated Press Wednesday, October 5, 2005; 4:56 PM WASHINGTON -- New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives. The justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has the final say on the life-or-death issue. It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer. The outcome is hard to predict, in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who seemed ready to support Oregon's law. Her replacement may be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now. Roberts repeatedly raised concerns that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules for steroids, painkillers and other drugs. 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. The new case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's conservative religious supporters. Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration. Oregon won a lawsuit in a lower court over its voter-approved law, which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people. The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided in hearing the Bush administration's appeal. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has had colon cancer, talked about medicines that make a sick person's final moments more comfortable. Justice David Souter, in an emotional moment, said that it's one thing for the government to ban date rape drugs and harmful products but "that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here." On the other side, Roberts and Antonin Scalia appeared skeptical of Oregon's claims that states have the sole authority to regulate the practice of medicine. Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. Before Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson could finish his first sentence Roberts interrupted with the first of many questions. "Doesn't that undermine and make enforcement impossible?" he asked Atkinson. He posed just two questions of the Bush administration lawyer. At one point, a flustered Atkinson said, "I'm starting to be backed into a corner." "I was wondering if the new chief would hold back and wouldn't ruffle other people's feathers. It appears clear he's not waiting for anything or anyone," said Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke University and a former Supreme Court clerk. The two justices who seemed most conflicted were Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. Breyer's wife counsels young cancer patients. Besides Ginsburg, the justices who have had cancer are O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. "It's a tough case," Kennedy told the Bush administration's lawyer, and later he asked about the "serious consequences" of curbing federal government authority in regulating drugs. Solicitor General Paul Clement said Congress was concerned about drug overdoses and suicides. Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his usual practice, asked no questions. He could be sympathetic to Oregon. He was one of three justices who said in a summer decision that the federal government should not interfere with state medical marijuana laws. The other two were O'Connor and Rehnquist. If O'Connor is the deciding vote in the case, the court would probably delay the decision and schedule a new argument session after the arrival of the new justice. On Monday Bush named White House lawyer Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor. Dozens of spectators gathered outside the court, waving signs supporting and opposing the Oregon law. "My Life, My Death, My Choice," read one sign. "Oregon Law Protects Doctors, Not Patients," said another. Oregon is the only state with an assisted suicide law, but other states may pass their own if the court rules in the state's favor. The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...00500122_2.html

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 .

___________________
Retro ...

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!