GreekChat.com Forums - Death With Dignity or Ashcroft's idea that you should suffer in pain?

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)

- - Death With Dignity or Ashcroft's idea that you should suffer in pain? (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=59359)

Death With Dignity or Ashcroft's idea that you should suffer in pain?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sted_suicide_7

Quote:

White House Wants Suicide Law Blocked
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to block the nation's only law allowing doctors to help terminally ill patients die more quickly.

The appeal from Attorney General John Ashcroft had been expected since May, when a lower court ruled the federal government could not punish Oregon doctors who prescribed lethal doses of federally controlled drugs.

Oregon voters approved the law and since 1998 more than 170 people have used it to end their lives. Most had cancer.

The Bush administration has argued that assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" and that doctors take an oath to heal patients, not help them die.

While not as prominent as abortion, the issue is an important one for conservative Christians, who helped President Bush win a second term last week. The government waited until Tuesday, the final day possible, to file paperwork at the high court.

Oregon's law, known as the Death With Dignity Act, lets patients with less than six months to live request a lethal dose of drugs after two doctors confirm the diagnosis and determine the person's mental competence to make the request.

Paul Clement, acting solicitor general, said in the appeal that the law conflicts with the federal government's powers. The attorney general's conclusion that doctors should not be allowed to treat patients with lethal doses of drugs "is the position maintained by 49 states, the federal government and leading associations of the medical profession," he told justices.

The Supreme Court probably will decide early next year whether it will review the case. The court has been hearing cases now with eight members, because Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is under treatment for thyroid cancer.

The high court has dealt with right-to-die cases before. Justices held in 1997 that while Americans have no constitutional right to assisted suicide, states may decide the issue for themselves. And in 1990, the court ruled that terminally ill people can refuse life-sustaining medical treatment.

Rehnquist wrote both opinions. In the 1997 ruling, he said the idea of having someone help end another's life conflicts with "our nation's history, legal traditions and practices."

Kathryn Tucker, legal director for Compassion in Dying, a Seattle-based group that supports physician-assisted suicide, said she expects the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, based on the previous decisions that let states set their own policies.

"I am extremely disappointed that Attorney General Ashcroft has chosen to continue ignoring the will of the voters of Oregon," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. "I certainly plan to look into how many taxpayer dollars Mr. Ashcroft has wasted in his attempt to disenfranchise Oregon voters."

The filing came on the day Ashcroft's resignation was announced at the White House. Scott Swenson, executive director of the advocacy group Death with Dignity, called it "Ashcroft's parting shot from the far-right at the people of Oregon."

Oregon is the only state that has such a right-to-die law, although leaders in other states have considered laws of their own.

At issue for the court now would be the bounds of a federal law declaring what drugs doctors may prescribe. Traditionally states, not the federal government, regulate medical practices.

A federal judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco have ruled that federal officials do not have the power to circumvent the Oregon law to punish health professionals in Oregon.

The case is Ashcroft v. Oregon.

I would have thought by now we could be as humane to people as we are to our own pets. If people are terminally ill they should have the right to a quick painless mode of death instead of a long drawn out one.

Guy: hey, I'm dying of cancer, can you help me go quick and painless?
Doctor: Ok, here's a lethal dose of this stuff.
Government: Nope, can't do that.
Guy: Well, shit, then can you give me something for the pain?
Doctor: Ok, here, try marijuana, it's the only thing that'll work.
Government: Nope, can't do that.
Guy: So what am I supposed to do, sit here and suffer for no reason?
Government: Yep. It's what God wants.

I hate to say it (okay, I don't really) but it almost makes you want Ashcroft get some type of painful disease so he can understand what an ass he's being.

Here's what I don't get, from the perspective of someone who has studied Constitutional law. Conservatives are generally the type to strictly interpret the Constitution and say that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is for the states to decide. So why can't Ashcroft just be a good little conservative and leave Oregon the hell alone? Do conservatives now want to leave states alone as long as the states do what the conservatives want them to do?

Quote:

Originally posted by valkyrie
I hate to say it (okay, I don't really) but it almost makes you want Ashcroft get some type of painful disease so he can understand what an ass he's being.

Here's what I don't get, from the perspective of someone who has studied Constitutional law. Conservatives are generally the type to strictly interpret the Constitution and say that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is for the states to decide. So why can't Ashcroft just be a good little conservative and leave Oregon the hell alone? Do conservatives now want to leave states alone as long as the states do what the conservatives want them to do?

Ashcroft is more Jesus-freak than consservative. He doesn't follow the Constitution. He follows his fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. That, in his opinion is (or should be) our nation's highest law.

Quote:

Originally posted by valkyrie
I hate to say it (okay, I don't really) but it almost makes you want Ashcroft get some type of painful disease so he can understand what an ass he's being.

Obviously, he's never seen anyone go through the end-stages of cancer or any other terminal illness.

I thought Republicans were for smaller government. The Patriot Act does not look like small government--nor does this bill that Baby J Freak Ashcroft is pushing. What happened to live and let live? I guess it doesn't apply if you're not Christian.

What if Ashcroft and Lieberman were to run for office together? :eek:

Well here is something to think about, and I am not sure how I feel with regard to this issue, but say they end up making this legal. Would it mandatory that ALL doctors offer this to their patients? I mean, what if (and I know this is pushing it) only 3 doctors decided they would feel okay about administering this suicide mechanism. This would not let everyone have the chance to use it. (Gawd, this sounds weird talking about it like it is an amusement park ride)

Anyways, would they start MAKING doctors put people to death? You kind of run into the same dilemma that you come up against with the abortion pill. What if a doctor feels wrong about administering it? Should he be FORCED to?

Please keep in mind that if I contracted a painful terminal illness, I would probably want a way out as well... These are things to think about though...

Quote:

Originally posted by krazy
Well here is something to think about, and I am not sure how I feel with regard to this issue, but say they end up making this legal. Would it mandatory that ALL doctors offer this to their patients? I mean, what if (and I know this is pushing it) only 3 doctors decided they would feel okay about administering this suicide mechanism. This would not let everyone have the chance to use it. (Gawd, this sounds weird talking about it like it is an amusement park ride)

Anyways, would they start MAKING doctors put people to death? You kind of run into the same dilemma that you come up against with the abortion pill. What if a doctor feels wrong about administering it? Should he be FORCED to?

Please keep in mind that if I contracted a painful terminal illness, I would probably want a way out as well... These are things to think about though...

I don't think doctors could be forced to perform this. For example OB/GYNs are the doctors that perform abortions and not every OB/GYN does. For whatever reasons those doctors do not offer or perform that procedure, and this would likely fall into the same area. It would likely be performed by those who would chose to perform it, and not forced upon them.

I know that with medical professionals I have had, there has been differing of opinions for procedures and if we weren't in agreement then I'd be given the name of a doctor that would provide the care I wanted.

Ethically speaking (I'm pretty sure), doctors are free to refrain from performing procedures with which they disagree. However, they must not bar their patient from seeking treatment elsewhere.

Quote:

Originally posted by KappaKittyCat
Ethically speaking (I'm pretty sure), doctors are free to refrain from performing procedures with which they disagree. However, they must not bar their patient from seeking treatment elsewhere.

That is good to know... Thanks for the info...

One thing they don't really emphasize enough in politcal science classes is that there isa different from political conservative as an idealogy to socially conservative as a moral imperative.

Many self-proffessed conservatives are actually social or cultural conservatives that view things through a moral filter and see the government as a tool to impose that filter on others.

A true conservative might hate the way you live but wouldn't want to infringe on your rights to live that way.

Is there REALLY nothing else going on in this crazy nation and WORLD that they have decided to focus on Oregon's law???????

Quote:

Do conservatives now want to leave states alone as long as the states do what the conservatives want them to do?"

Yes basically. :D Just kidding