The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday supporting Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act was based on administrative law, not the Constitution: The court said that Congress had not given former Attorney General John Ashcroft the “extraordinary authority” to revoke the federal prescription-writing privileges of Oregon doctors who followed the state law. But as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, Ashcroft’s intervention was contrary to “the background principles of our federal system.” The regulation of medicine has always been a state issue, not a federal one. And like it or not, the voters of Oregon have twice approved physician-assisted suicide.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- dtrabert on Too many exemptions
- gster on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
15 Comments
Having “been there done that” I agree 100% that the State has no reason to stick its nose into these sort of decisions. Let me rely upon my medical and spiritual advisors and other family members.
Bush couldn’t interrupt his vacation for Hurricane Katrina, but he could fly out and sign a Terri Schaivo bill.
Go figure.
Trumad, ouch.
Ben, I believe that’s what the State of Oregon has done, given its citizens the right to consult their families, and especially doctors and spiritual leaders to help with a decision. The state isn’t “sticking its nose” anywhere. It’s giving people the right to have a doctor assist, it’s giving them “Death With Dignity” if that’s what they decide.
And while we’re on the subject, I urge everyone, no matter what their choices, to have a Living Will made if you haven’t already.http://www.health-first.org/hospitals_services/will_info.cfm
I don’t object to anyone ending their own life, especially if they are a liberal. What I would like someone to explain to me is this- If having a doctor take an action that is intended to bring about YOUR death is a matter for the states, why is having a doctor take action that is intended to bring about the death of your unborn child a matter for the Federal govt.
I agree RD. Actually my reference to “State” was any level of government and in particular to the actions in the Schiavo case. Perhaps the key to Oregon’s law is that it specifically removes government from the decision but rather leaves it to patient and family.
I read a comment elsewhere this morning that noted according to SCOTUS, terminally ill patients can voluntarily take steps to end their life, but they still cant smoke weed to lessen their pain and suffering.
Would that be more right wing logic? And you think Alito will make this all better how?
ksfarmgrrl
I think Alito and Roberts will “make this better” by the proper application of the most misused of all Constitutional principles, The Interstate Commerce Clause.
The result may not be to your liking but there may at least be more consistancy and logic to it.
Kinda like the consistancy and logic I mentioned above?
“proper application”?
That would be the Jack Abramoff, big money, christian coalition, republican interpretation of what is proper?
Farm Gal,They’re just trying to help; didn’t you know suffering is good for the soul?Seriously, I’ve made my own end-of-life decisions, put them in writing, signed my living will, advance directives and durable medical power of attorney. I hope that when the time comes, my family and physician have the courage to follow them.This is something everybody needs to do. Unless you make your wishes known in no uncertain terms, you’re setting the stage for another possible Terry Shaivo debacle!
Ah yes, the convenient states’ rights argument: As long as it appeals to the licentious impulse or the “private and personal” category (ie, as long as it “doesn’t hurt anyone else”) states should be exempt from certain federal interests. But let the people in a given state attempt to negate one of those private “rights”, such as abortion, and the federal trump card is supreme. When it comes to ceratin issues of morality, the side that favors traditional understandings of the defense of life will lose in favor of whichever argument supports the libertine disregard for them.
Translate: What does it matter what the people of Oregon allow if it violates our most basic suppositions as a nation?
JD,Exactly what basic supposition as a nation does the Oregon law violate? That everybody should be thankful for the right to suffer needlessly?
As one who has faced this issue from both sides I agree with you Jed. Just how is it a “most basic suppositions as a nation” that I be perpetuated on machines if surgery goes sour?
I agree. People have the right to die as painlessly and with as much dignity as possible. If I ever become terminally ill, I want to be the one in control of my life and my death.