Snub for Bush as suicide law is upheld by judges

[Neil D]

By Andrew Gumbel

Published: 18 January 2006

An Oregon law that allows doctor-assisted suicide, the only one of its kind in the United States, was upheld by the Supreme Court in an embarrassing defeat for the Bush administration, which has spent five years trying to overturn it.

The High Court justices voted 6-3 in Oregon's favour, saying the state had every right to pass such a law without federal interference. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, said the former attorney general John Ashcroft's attempt to claim a higher authority and revoke the prescription-writing licences of participating doctors was "both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design".

Oregon voters have twice approved the assisted suicide law, which requires two doctors to confirm terminally ill patients wanting to take advantage of it are capable of making the decision on their own. Since 1997, when the Death With Dignity Act was first passed, more than 200 people have used it to end their lives.

The Clinton administration raised an objection but the ardently religious Mr Ashcroft turned it into a personal cause - even after the 11 September attacks when his office was supposedly focused on tracking down possible al-Qa'ida cells in the United States.

The case was marked by a political irony, since conservatives usually uphold the cause of self-determination by individual states - and liberals more commonly granter greater leeway to federal authority. In this case, it was the conservatives on the Supreme Court, including new Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the Bush administration.

[:"blue"]Now we see John Roberts true colors as a dye in the wool religionist/conservative. Do we truely want Alito's conservative voice on the bench? [/]

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

The Clinton administration raised an objection but the ardently religious Mr Ashcroft turned it into a personal cause

---

Does anyone else know SPIN when they see it?

The Clinton Administration opposed the law and the Bush Administration continued the same policy. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of state's rights. That is good.

[Dr. Shane]

I did not find any balanced articles on this topic. All either favored the majority opinion or the minority opinion.

The issue resolved around the wording of laws which allow the federal government to control drugs that do not have a "legitimate medical purpose". Justice Scalia wrote, "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death."

So there were a couple things to consider:

• A state's rights to pass its own laws regulating medical practice
• The federal government's right to enforce anti-drug laws.

I tend to side with states' rights. However this goes right into medical marijuana too.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Does anyone else know SPIN when they see it?

The Clinton Administration opposed the law and the Bush Administration continued the same policy.

---

From MSMBC news-

[:"green"]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. [/]

Excuse me, but how is this 'spin'?

[Dr. Shane]

There are two sides to the issue. I read a number of articles reporting on this and all of them appeared to be spin to me. Some of them were conservative spin and others liberal spin.

I don't see any "bad" guys or "good" guys in this story. I don't see any that are "right" and any that are "wrong". I see two sides with two different views. One side says that drugs used to aid suicide are medical drugs and thus are beyond the reach of anti-drug laws, which apply to illegal recreational drugs. The other side focuses on the medical purpose and states that suicide is not a medical purpose. That is the debate.

The fact that some may or may not be religious is beside the point and is a way of spinning that story. That is a spin tactic used by the liberals in the media. The conservatives spin the story by making arguements about the value of life and mankind taking on the role of God. So both sides play the religious card.

Religion isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not helping someone commit suicide is a medical procedure. From my prespective I would say it is. Just like abortion is a medical procedure. Now I may have religious and ethical beliefs against it. However I think it hard to argue that drugs used to assist suicide are covered by anti-drug laws directed at illegal recreational drugs.

So I agree with the ruling but disagree with the media coverage of it. In my opinion it falls into the same category as abortion. It is an issue that should be settled by the voters in the individual states and not an issue for the federal government to deal with.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I see two sides with two different views. One side says that drugs used to aid suicide are medical drugs and thus are beyond the reach of anti-drug laws, which apply to illegal recreational drugs. The other side focuses on the medical purpose and states that suicide is not a medical purpose. That is the debate.

---

And I see that you have missed a fine point in this issue. It is NOT about *drugs* at all.

Quote:

---

Oregon voters have twice approved the assisted suicide law, which requires two doctors to confirm terminally ill patients wanting to take advantage of it are capable of making the decision on their own.

---

It is about terminally ill patients who wish to end thier painful lives with some measure of dignity. That is all.

Oregon voters have twice approved that terminally ill patients who are going to die within a 6 month period [in the estimation of 2 doctors] MAY choose to end thier lives with medication prescribed from doctors. It is not about prescribing drugs...it is about choosing an end ... a painful life that is going to end as much as 6 months sooner than the enivitable.

Quote:

---

The fact that some may or may not be religious is beside the point and is a way of spinning that story. That is a spin tactic used by the liberals in the media. The conservatives spin the story by making arguements about the value of life and mankind taking on the role of God. So both sides play the religious card.

---

Well, I see it a bit different...I see it as sensationalizing a personal issue that doesn't have to be sensationalized. ...but it does sell papers.and I understand that and the need for that... It's the Terry Shavio case all over again.

... and I think that this tactic, *of yours*, tends to keep people from coming together and keep those obnoxious tensions up....ie, liberal and conservative, "that is a knee slapper", ect.

It lends me to think that you enjoy being contentious...You don't want people to grow and see eye to eye on issues, but rather like to mock people and label ideas as "liberal". Whether you know it or not, Shane, ideas are just that,...ideas...They are not "liberal" or "conservative"...They just are. You don't need to make them into something that they were never meant to be.

[Dr. Shane]

The issue, as presented before the Supreme Court, was about drug enforcement. The issue was whether or not the US Justice Department could stop assisted suicide by anti-drug laws. So the arguements focused on the application of anti-drug laws. Those that are focusing on religion and the right to die are simply spinning the issue.

The Court's focus was on the Justice Department's use of anti-drug laws. The Court did not focus on the right to die or religion in public life. Those that wish to use this story to focus on such things are spinning. Those that cannot see that simply don't know spin when they see it.

This case is much more related to medical marijuana than the right to die.