The other thing I’m considering is my dad, who as an Air Force special forces combatant, and then the intelligence community, would have had to kill himself in the event of capture, in order to keep information from enemies hands. Is that wrong too? No.

“The Terry Schiavo case created such an atmosphere of disension, that there should have been some rational debate on the sanctity of life versus “suffering”

I talked about this on my website. Mr. Schiavo walked away with $2 million because the doctors did not pick up on his wife’s eating disorder, something they could not possibly have tested for. What if the patient begs to die having been diagnosed with an irreversable disease, only to find out later it wasn’t irreversable? Is the doctor liable? Are we going to keep suing doctors for medical malpractice, one reason medical care is so expensive by the way.

“ou’d think that anyone favoring assisted suicide in any form wants to start storming hospitals and suffocating every inpatient with pillows or disconnecting their ventilators”

Its such a tough issue, I can’t begin to have all the answers. I think the legislation is crucial here, and this Oregon law does give clear cut stipulation on the subject. Like I said, glad I’m no doctor, and God be with them and anyone else that has to make that decision.

On the other hand, so called terminally ill patients, after much suffering have prevailed or their disease has gone into remission.

The cause of suicide has been described as the loss of hope or one living with despair. Our morality teaches us to embrace hope.

The conflict that enters the question is the term suffering. Who determines ones suffering; the state, the family, the sufferer?

The Terry Schiavo case created such an atmosphere of disension, that there should have been some rational debate on the sanctity of life versus “suffering”.

There has to be some middle ground here that can satisfy the legalist and the moralist.

I wouldn’t want such a decision solely in the hands of one doctor either. The patient (to the extent possible) and patient’s family clearly need to be involved. I just don’t believe that the god of anyone’s understanding would favor using modern technology to keep someone “alive” when their agony-free time on Earth has unfortunately passed for good.

You seem to understand what others don’t — that a tentative, careful examination of this end-of-life issue is hardly a “pro-death” stance. To hear extremists tell it, you’d think that anyone favoring assisted suicide in any form wants to start storming hospitals and suffocating every inpatient with pillows or disconnecting their ventilators.

I see your point, but I fail to see how insulting Christianity once again gets that point across. Trusting fallibe humans who are destined to fail in life isn’t exactly smart either. Doctors are no more qualified than any other human to decide ethical matters. I see your point. Its a tough issue. I see both sides. As a Christian, suicide is not something I’m fond of. (I don’t believe its a straight to Hell sin like others, and there is no Scripture that says otherwise) But I also understand the suffering involved. Basically, I’m taking up web space to say, “I don’t have a clue.” I can only pray I’m never in a situation like that. Tough call. I’m personally praying for doctors and patients alike. While the patients suffer, it can’t be easy as a doctor to make a call like that no matter what the patient says. One reason why doctors make so much money. (You’d have to pay me millions to put someone’s life in my hands. One twitch, one sneeze at the wrong moment and I could end someone’s life)

“Also, I can understand the libertarian view…”

How about the medical-ethical view? That you clearly don’t understand and don’t care to. Claiming that an imaginary being should be in charge of the level of someone else’s suffering and delicate outcomes like this is recklessly inane. Why not just flip a coin to decide whether a cancer patient gets to receieve his morphine that day?

Until you’ve had a family member experience what the Oregon law addresses, you should really avoid this topic.

In this particular ruling the court was asked if Congress has the right to specify under what conditions products were sold within a state. They do have that right since they can legally forbid items to be sold in the state. This ruling can cause the legalization of cocaine, marijuana, and other illegal drugs as the Court it removes congresses power to regulate trade goods.

The deciding Justices are the same six anarchist who ruled sodomy was protected by the Constitution.

I agree. But I’m not sold. Its a tough issue. I posted about this on my site at http://christmatters.blogspot.com
If you’re interested in my opinion, check it out.