Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law
Posted on January 17, 2006
Another victory for the pro-death folks at the ACLU. The Supreme Court upheld Oregan’s suicide law.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.
Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that federal authority to regulate doctors does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time
.
Quite disappointing, but we will join others in finding comfort in the way the voting pattern went. Conservatives can find some reassurance in the fact that Roberts did join Scalia and Thomas in the dissent.
Also, I can understand the libertarian view, that it was a State’s Rights issue. The people did vote for it. While I disagree with the entire philosophy of handing over life and death into anyone’s hands other than God, it is difficult to argue against the will of the people in a democracy. I’m divided.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, Supreme Court
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
You’ve probably already seen this. I had this clipping from November 1991.
Ann Wickett Humphry, 49, was a modern woman. She had it all.
Blond-haired, blue-eyed and pretty, she was the daughter of a Boston
Banker, A Peace Corp volunteer, a student of Shakespeare who had
studied for a doctorate in English literature, an author and
co-founder with husband Derek of the “death with dignity” Hemlock
Society…”
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1991/pln-0116.txt
There is nothing conservative about the Federal government sticking it’s nose in whether or not a suffering, terminally ill patient can end their life on their own terms.
This isn’t like abortion, where the rights of a fetus are in conflict with a woman who doesn’t want to carry a pregnancy to term. This is about whether a terminally ill and suffering individual has the right to make their own decision about how they want to go out, or whether Big Brother should make the decision for them.
Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts let their religious beliefs trump their belief in an individual’s right to self-determination. There is nothing conservative about that position.
From a Libertarian perspective this is the correct ruling for precisely the same reason Roe v. Wade was a bad ruling. It all concerns the 10th Amendment and states rights. Medicine is an area where the Federal government has not business legislating. The feds must allow states to make their own laws about both assisted suicide and abortion. Bravo to the six justices who voted to uphold the Oregon law.
I’ve got to agree with Jason on this one. For a conservative, this should actually be good news because it is a sign that federalism is not dead. FOr someone who believes in limited government, it is an excellent outcome because it showed that a naked power grab like the one Ashcroft attempted here can still be resisted.
My own take on the ruling can be found here:
http://belowbeltway.blogspot.com/2006/01/clear-victory.html
One thing everyone seems to forget about this. The residents of OR. Voted for this Law. It wasn’t a court decsion to put this law into place.
Much like the medical pot bill, that was over-turned by the Stenches on the Bench, it was too, voted in by the residents of CA.
Pro-death?? Sure, I’m not for it, but again, this all has to do with States Rights. Period
RR
“Pro-death?? Sure, I’m not for it, but again, this all has to do with States Rights. Period”
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.
Assisted suicide is unconstitutional since William Blackstone’s Commentaries, which are used to determine the intent of the Constitution, states it is the Governments job to protect the right to life of its citizen’s even from themselves. The Declaration of Independence states the same thing but not so specifically. The best the state of federal law could legally do is to make the victims condition a mitigating circumstance when sentencing the perpetrator for murder.
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.
Labeling the ACLU “pro-death” trivializes what every terminally ill human being goes through and makes you look like a craven fool. This from someone in the camp claiming that the current crop of Democrats’ “activism” manifested as harsh criticism will only backfire come election time.
“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.
“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.”
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)
“Doctors are no more qualified than any other human to decide ethical matters.”
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 am divided too. Not over the legal issues, but over he ethical and moral issues. If one is terminally ill, meaning that they are going to die soon, shouldn’t that person determine how much suffering they must endure?
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.
Haldol: Its just that their are a lot more factors to be considered. First, as a Christian, I can knock that argument out with Scripture: Jesus states that if we think about murder in our hearts, we have committed murder and in fact are murderers. So in keeping with the suicide-straight-to-Hell logic, if I think about suicide ever in my life, I’ve committed suicide and I’m damned now no matter what I do with the rest of my life.
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.