In a commentary headlined "Sam Brownback at your deathbed" on the conservative Townhall.com site, Jacob Sullum takes issue with what he sees as the Brownback proposal to "insert the federal government into deeply personal end-of-life decisions, prohibiting doctors from helping terminally ill patients choose the time and manner of their deaths." Like Kansas’ senior senator, Sullum dislikes Oregon’s decade-old assisted suicide law. But Brownback’s Assisted Suicide Prevention Act "would push doctors into a gray zone beyond the law," Sullum argues, resulting in "more lies, not fewer suicides." Oregon’s law, he says, is also "the sort of state policy experiment our Constitution requires the federal government to allow" — a point too often ignored by conservatives otherwise sympathetic to states’ rights.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
19 Comments
RhondaIf we could make a deal on this issue, I would allow “states rights” on almost all medical decisions, including abortion, of course.We might well be heading in that direction anyway.However, in defense of Brownback, I once had a confused, terminally ill life insurance and IRA client who came to me 3 different times in one week to change her beneficiary designations. Each time, a different relative was with her.On the last visit, I told my client that I felt obligated to call her attorney.The client’s attorney sat the whole family down and told them, bluntly, that I would be a witness in defense of anyone who wanted to claim that this poor woman was not of “sound mind and body” when she changed her beneficiary designations, and that she was definately under duress.The family all agreed to an equitable “split” on the beneficiary forms, “dear old mom” signed off on it, and we avoided a court battle.I always wondered what would happen in a state like Oregon, or if “Dr Death” Kevorkian had a “Killing Grandmas r US” franchise down the street.There are compelling reasons why leaving “end of life” decisions to family members is not always in the public interest.I have watched family members die. In times like that, we need some rules to follow, since we can’t always expect everyone to have good judgement.
Is this the same Brownback who opposed the chemical weapons ban? Who voted for the illegal occupation of Iraq? Who voted for more nuclear weapons research? Who voted to disgard thousands of embryos rather than use them for medical research to potentially save the lives of millions? Who voted to support the death penalty? Who voted to allow increased air pollution that would increase respiratory deaths? Who voted to support ethnic cleansing in Serbia? Who supports a war with Iran?
I must be confused with Senator Brownback and this Brownback who you say is pro-life. Perhaps you meant pro-fetus because Senator Brownback certainly isn’t in favor of those who are born.
Paul, the case you used above probably may not a good case even in Oregon. To the best of my knowledge, the law requires patient to be a sound mind, and have less than 6 months to live, signed off independently by different doctors. It’s up for the patient to choose to take the cocktail, not the physician.
Damnit Doug, you keep saying the things I would say,KEEP IT UP!
PAUL F POSTS = REPUB SPIN
Agreed Doug.
Doug,
As usual, you liberals just don’t get it.
It is about the sanctity of life. In order to protect life, sometimes life must be taken.
For instance:
Those “infamous” LA bank robbers who were shooting the LA police and firing at anything/everything that got in their way.
They had to be killed to stop them from killing more people.
This is why when people like myself and Brownback say we are pro-life it doesn’t mean that in every instance imaginable we would never support killing someone.
Besides that, it is just a political term that defines a persons position on abortion not an all encompasing absolute statement in it’s self.
Just like when abortion advocates call themselves “pro choice” it doesn’t really mean that they support choice in everything imaginable.
Sorry Nathan, you didn’t read my post so your “rebuttal” is irrelevant. Brownback’s votes had nothing to do with bank robbers in Los Angeles. Who knows from what bowels of your ass you pulled that out because it has nothing to do with my post.
So if you are going to reply to my posts with some brilliant counterargument you need two things; 1) Reply to my posts2) Reply with something brilliant.
Looks like you’ve done neither.
Doug,
Wow doug. I think you will fit right in here with all the others on the left.
So there is no confusion, I was responding to your point that he is not pro-life rather pro-fetus.
My reply was explaining what being pro-life means since you seem to be confused.
You drag up a bunch of rhetorical questions in an effort to say he is not in the absolute meaning of the word pro-life.
So I explained to you what pro-life means and why it is not an absolute term.
If that is too hard for you to figure out, I am truely sorry for you.
Thanks Nathan, you have indicated well that pro-life means pro-fetus. Also, don’t assume that everyone is ignorant on subjects as you are.
The end-of-life area I find to be much easier to deal with than the abortion issue. The government should allow directives that direct what actions are to be taken (or not) and basically should stay out of a family’s business.
Everyone stop fighting and play nice. Remember, Phil Kline is watching you!
From what I’ve read regarding Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, it is very well thought out, completely legal, and respected by most people in the state.
Here’s a link to the law:http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml
Sanctity of life. From what you have said Nathan I take it that the lives you are concerned about are just the ones you believe have value. A fetus, a terminally ill person, or someone on life support for 10 years and is brain dead. But what about infants? What about poor defensless infants who cannot defend themselves from an oppressive government? Or possible the state of Texas? Do you oppose that? Do a google search for what happened in Texas on the day congress was debating about interviening in Florida. Then tell me you believe the culture of life/sanctity of life bullshit Brownback and the rest of the republikan party spews.
I know the story and it was George Bush as Governor of Texas that signed the law as a thank you to the insurance companies. I also know that Tom Delay while pounding his chest over Terry Shivaio had pulled the plug on own father years before. Not to mention his business dealings along with Jack Abramoff with the Tan Holding Company with ran a series of sweatshops that were involved in forced abortions with its female employees
DING! DING! DING! Give Dingus a prize. Yes Nathan it is true. Your hero Shrub the Forever Twit signed a law while governor of Texas that allowed doctors to remove someone from life support, evidence of recovery be damned, if it was too expensive. And on the very same day dickhead delay and the rest of the two faced Nazi neo-cons were up in arms over Shivaio a baby in Texas, a baby showing signs of getting better albeit slowly, was removed from life support and allowed to die. And you and the rest of the conservative shits have the gall to speak of the ‘Sanctity of life’?! Keep it to yourself until the lot of you learn a little integrity.
Well done k!
DougThis thread began on the subject of Euthanasia and “states rights”.You may argue for or against Brownback’s stand, either for or against a “10th Amendment” arguement or for or against assisted suicide in principle.However, your “kitchen sink” attack of Brownback is not coherent or on point.Brownback thinks we need Federal protections in “assisted suicide” cases, which typically involve a “fetus” in the retirement years!Criticizing Brownback as “only pro-fetus” looks rather silly here.
k: Please back up you story with facts about the particular child involved. Not saying it isn’t true, but usually stuff like this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
And if it is true, don’t you think if pro-life forces knew about it, they would be all over it?
So what was your point again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Huds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Ni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Futile_Care_Lawkolouzoson