Right to die

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm surprised no one's talked about this.

As much as I support the right, and the right of states to make the decission, I fear the feds might have a good case. As long as the blasted Controled Substances Act exists, this probably falls under federal jurisdiction.

And I don't think the scope of the case is broad enough to say either of the 2 things I'd really like to see said. The first is, "Controlled Substances Act be damned, this is clearly not under the purvey of Constitutionally granted federal powers and therefore is the state's choice." The other is, "Screw the CSA, we're calling it invalid here and now."

The second is clearly not an option, that's not the question before the court. I have a dim hope that the first might happen. But, sadly, if they rule it as, "Based on the existence of the CSA, the federal government has a right to enforce restrictions," I can't really say I can argue with that.

The best I hope for right now is an opinion, like the recent marijuana opinon, that says, "Based on existing law, we have to side with the feds...BUT, we really think someone needs to get to repealing that stupid CSA." Unsatisfying, but it'd be something.

Of course my other pie-in-the-sky hope is that the Court does shoot down the Oregon right to die act based on the Controlled Substances Act, sparking action to either legislatively repeal the CSA, or get a case before the court that would put the Constitutional validity of the CSA into the scope. It's so entrenched that I doubt it'll happen, but it'd be nice.

[scaeagles]

I have read about this, and have tried to come to some sort of coherent or relevant expression, but find I am struggling to do so.

I find it sad that legal wranglings over the CSA should come into play over this. What if the law in Oregon was legalized and consensual beheading? Would that be acceptable? I doubt such a law would be passed, as it isn't clean enough. Has to be clean.

Surely if Terri Schiavo can be put to death by dehydration and starvation (I had no problem with her life being ended only the way in which it was done), surely there is a way in which people can legally end their lives in a more humane fashion. However, I digress - this really isn't about Schiavo.

I struggle with this issue like no other. My mom died of lupus in Sept. 1984 when I was 15. She had been suffering for 13 years after the first signs of the disease surfaced - specifically a brain tumor. I came close to killing her myself at her request one summer day in 1984, but was removed from the situation by a knock at the door by a lady from our church that had come to offer assistance that day. My mother never made the request of me again.

While lawyers present arguments and judges rule from on high, the very real situation faced daily by Americans is not dealt with. My family and I were ripped apart by this. While I email my dad a couple times a year, I literally have not spoken to him in.....10 years? The roots of that go back to the complexities of my mom's situation, and should she have simply been permitted to die - without medication she would have a couple years into it, and without brain surgery she would have died before I had any memories of her - it would not be so. Surely in a world where medical advances can assist so many to lead quality lives when they would be dead otherwise it should be possible for those who are terminal and in pain to end them.

So.....I will read about the CSA and the constitutionality and morality thereof, and perhaps see an attempt by Oregon to rewrite their law to circumvent it, and I will sit and sadly shake my head because the legality of this case has nothing to do with the issue itself, and people go on terminally ill and in pain while their families go through the grieving process in front of them on a daily basis.

[Prudence]

I'm fortunate to not have had any personal experiences with this subject.

However, I work with faculty who are involved with end-of-life care and research. At the moment, my biggest concern is the impact the SC ruling will have on EOL care of people NOT actively seeking to end their lives.

Pain management is a big issue. Many care providers are afraid and/or unwilling to provide the full measure of pain relief dying patients need, for fear that the care providers will be accused of hastening death. What is a care provider to do when, for example, the appropriate dose of pain medication needed to relieve the patient's pain also further decreases the patient's respiratory function and thus may hasten death? What happens when death is not the goal, but the unavoidable side effect of pain relief?

When an administration, such as this one, goes to such lengths to assert its position on physician-assisted suicide, even care providers NOT involved in suicides have to be extra careful, lest someone disapprove of the care provided. Result? Patients suffer.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So.....I will read about the CSA and the constitutionality and morality thereof, and perhaps see an attempt by Oregon to rewrite their law to circumvent it, and I will sit and sadly shake my head because the legality of this case has nothing to do with the issue itself, and people go on terminally ill and in pain while their families go through the grieving process in front of them on a daily basis.

Exactly what's bothering me. Legally, I will understand if the court's hands are tied by what's on the books. But I hate that that's the case. I wouldn't want the court to go beyond its powers if indeed the CSA is deemed to cover this, but the end result will be a continued restriction on individual freedom that I believe shouldn't be there. And the only possible solution is the hurculean task of dismantling the CSA. Bloody CSA.

[Name]

The right to die clearly falls under the lines of interstate commerce.....

rationale: if people are allowed to off themselves, then they will be removing themselves as a consumer of interstate trade and commerce, which would fall under federal jurisdiction.

[/sarcasm]

completely tongue in cheek, but based on other scary decisions, can see that being used......

(I hope the feds don't read this and use this argument(if they do, they better f'in pay me, or something))

[Alex]

The entire constitutionality of the Constolled Substance Act relies on a broad definition of the Commerce Clause.

I'm in favor of freely available drugs of all types and people can kill themselves if they want. Doctors shouldn't be involved. If you want to die, it should be a personal decision acted up by yourself. Involve who you want and how you want them involved. The only reason we've created a need for allowing physician assisted suicide (which is a horrible misnomer) is that we've made the means of actual peaceful painless suicide illegal for no good reason.

[alphabassettgrrl]

The right-to-die is as hotly contested as the right-to-life, though with the added benefit that the person facing death can chime in with an opinion.

I can't see how it's a Federal issue. The administration just wants to butt its nose in where it doesn't belong, and make a stand that they have no ground to make. Ok, the drugs used are sold across state lines, but so what? Many things are purchased across state lines but this is the only one they're making a stink about.

Death is a choice every person should be able to make. I'm sure people make that choice every day, holding off that dose of pain pills, and stockpiling the "extras". When they have enough, they say goodbye. Nobody knows the difference, except possibly the family.

I understand that we as a culture should value life. This is a good thing. We also need to understand that sometimes it's time to die. Quality must win over sheer quantity, at least in some cases. I only worry that the right-to-die will become a requirement, or a source of pressure. "Y'know, grandma, if you choose to die early, you'll be able to leave more money to your family."

I've seen people hang on who only want peace. I've seen people struggle for just one more day. My dad chose suicide for no reason we've been able to ascertain. It's not like I'm standing outside the issue. It's a choice only the person involved can make. Yes, there is pain, but there is also pain in watching someone you love suffer. It's a hard choice either way.

[€uroMeinke]

I believe Oregon must use the 2nd Amendment right to bare arms and create a "Militia Assisted Suicide Initiative" whereby a phonecall to the state militia provides you with a gun and bullet to off yourself with. The militia will also be allowed to counsel the suicide as to the best place to aim the gun to ensure fatality. At least this way the right to die will be protected by the constitution.

[sleepyjeff]

I voted against this law(twice) but since it did pass a vote of the people of my State I will be a little un-happy if it is lawyered out of exsistence.

[PanTheMan]

Before Abortion was legal, doctors got around the law with various procedures, and today there are many doctors who will skirt around the Euthenasia issue by offering the 'Service' Quietly.

It would be far better to make it Legal and regulated, (2 doctors, 4 evaluations, no less than 15 days apart, etc....) than the way it IS NOW, one doctor writing a prescription. And it IS going on now, and has been quietly for quite some time.