Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

[KenpoEMT]

Sounds about right.

That's why I'm a DemoRepulicratican. Take the best of both worlds and laugh at the rest.

 

[michaeledward]

Questions: Do liberals support euthanasia but are against the death penalty? While conservatives are against euthanasia but support the death penalty?

I might have it all wrong...

Are you suggesting that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are synomyms?

 

[Rich Parsons]

If the Supreme court is the highest court in the land, why then do we need a 10th Amendment? Is the issue of 'assisted suicide' a state issue, or a federal issue? Didn't you say earlier the 10th Amendment gives the states powers to decide items not specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Is 'assisted suicide' specifically enumerated in the Constitution? If it is not, doesn't that mean the state court should decide the issue?

The wonders of the US Constitution is that it grants the powers and also states who has them, i.e. the Fed/State/people. There will always be questions, and one needs to have a review process and for check and balances.

This is a basic issue that goes back to lots of papers written at the time frame of "Birth of a new country" and soon afterwards. Who has the power, the States or the Feds.

This was further re-inforced that the Fed has the ultimate authority, in the case of the Cival War, or War of Northern Aggression as the case maybe. The states of the south wanted a loose confederacy and the North wanted a strong central government.

The Federal government passes laws that take jurisdiction over state laws all the time. This is the pwoer of the Federal Legislation, and if it is called into question then the Supreme Court gets to decide the Constitutionality of the issue, by either listening to the case and deciding or not listening to the case at all. For no action is still action.

Take it up with the creators of the Constitution and those in the Government from then until now.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I still am not convinced that 'suicide' needs to be codified as a law of the state. There are enough ways that a person can commit suicide without making it the practice of medicine. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. It just concerns me on an ethical level when this becomes a part of the practice of medicine.

 

[shesulsa]

I still am not convinced that 'suicide' needs to be codified as a law of the state.

You mean other than the fact that it already is?

There are enough ways that a person can commit suicide without making it the practice of medicine.

Yeah, except they mostly are all violent and unpleasant for family members to have to deal with afterwards or require assistance anyway; "Say, sonny, could you toss me out that window over there?" or "When you give me my pain meds could you leave an extra one or 15 with me? I'd sure appreciate it," or "Hand me my gun and make sure it's loaded - oh, and you'll need to pull the trigger for me because my hands are shaking so much I don't know if I'd miss or make my mark."

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

It just concerns me on an ethical level when this becomes a part of the practice of medicine.

If it's a private decision made by the patient and family and doctor and the method is as humane as the law allows, why must it concern you unless the decision is made without patient/family consent or becomes a mass and abused practice? Can't we relinquish a little control to people over their own lives?

 

[sgtmac_46]

You mean other than the fact that it already is?

Suicide isn't illegal, never has been.

Yeah, except they mostly are all violent and unpleasant for family members to have to deal with afterwards or require assistance anyway; "Say, sonny, could you toss me out that window over there?" or "When you give me my pain meds could you leave an extra one or 15 with me? I'd sure appreciate it," or "Hand me my gun and make sure it's loaded - oh, and you'll need to pull the trigger for me because my hands are shaking so much I don't know if I'd miss or make my mark."

Oh, so you want everything to be easy. We need a streamlined system of check out. I didn't realize suicide was so complicated.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

Yep, I acknowledge the fact that I could be mistaken from time to time. It's too bad others aren't so honest, then they could have a real dialogue, instead of a shouting match.

If it's a private decision made by the patient and family and doctor and the method is as humane as the law allows, why must it concern you unless the decision is made without patient/family consent or becomes a mass and abused practice? Can't we relinquish a little control to people over their own lives?

Their own lives? I never said otherwise. It's the doctor's involvement that I take issue with. What you propose isn't giving them control of their own lives, you propose including doctor's in to what, is in essence, an ethical dilemma. 'Do no harm'. You want to redefine what harm is. In other words, you merely want to declare it no harm to kill a patient....as long as they ask, or it's determine convenient.

Please excuse me, however, if I find it somewhat disconcerting to legislate doctor's in to the death business. I find it a bit of a contradiction.

Of course, however, that means I have to absolutely be opposed to people taking control of their own life, right? Please. I actually think more of you than that.

 

[shesulsa]

Suicide isn't illegal, never has been.

Actually it is still in some states and has been for a while. Of course, I'll have to find those statutes ... why don't you help me look?

Oh, so you want everything to be easy. We need a streamlined system of check out. I didn't realize suicide was so complicated.

My point is that people who are terminally ill and wish to end their suffering may require assistance. If doctors are involved, then medicine can be administered. If a family member is involved, they'll be in line for lethal injection themselves.

Yep, I acknowledge the fact that I could be mistaken from time to time. It's too bad others aren't so honest, then they could have a real dialogue, instead of a shouting match.

Shhhhh ... not so loud.

Their own lives? I never said otherwise. It's the doctor's involvement that I take issue with. What you propose isn't giving them control of their own lives, you propose including doctor's in to what, is in essence, an ethical dilemma. 'Do no harm'. You want to redefine what harm is. In other words, you merely want to declare it no harm to kill a patient....as long as they ask, or it's determine convenient.

Please excuse me, however, if I find it somewhat disconcerting to legislate doctor's in to the death business. I find it a bit of a contradiction.

I understand your concern, but I think it's doable ... since it's been done so very many times before.

Of course, however, that means I have to absolutely be opposed to people taking control of their own life, right? Please. I actually think more of you than that.

Why thank you - don't make me blush, now. And I'm not sure why this has to be about absolutes - isn't that what we're discussing here? Absolutes and boundaries and such? Why does it need to be black or white?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Actually it is still in some states and has been for a while. Of course, I'll have to find those statutes ... why don't you help me look?

Please point to one person ever prosecuted for committing suicide.

My point is that people who are terminally ill and wish to end their suffering may require assistance. If doctors are involved, then medicine can be administered. If a family member is involved, they'll be in line for lethal injection themselves.

Those situations do occur, and I don't begrudge someone who simply can't handle the pain of a terminal illness any more. I do believe that it is their decision.

I understand your concern, but I think it's doable ... since it's been done so very many times before.

I find the doctor inclusion a slippery slope.

Why thank you - don't make me blush, now. And I'm not sure why this has to be about absolutes - isn't that what we're discussing here? Absolutes and boundaries and such? Why does it need to be black or white?

No, on this topic it's not about absolutes with me. I can concede arguments on both sides, and I am empathetic on the issue of terminal illnesses and the wish among some people to end suffering.

I'm uncomfortable, however, with changing the paradigm of physicans and their role in patient suicides. Perhaps i'm unnecessarily concerned, but I wish to examine the ethical consequences further before throwing my support in. :asian:

 

[shesulsa]

Please point to one person ever prosecuted for committing suicide.

I believe attempted suicide is illegal so that the person may be arrested and placed in custody. Will have to see if anyone has ever been prosecuted for attempting suicide.

 

[KenpoEMT]

I believe that attempting suicide gets you nothing more than a free stay in the psych ward of your local hospital until the docs determine that you are no longer a threat to yourself or others.

 

[shesulsa]

I believe that attempting suicide gets you nothing more than a free stay in the psych ward of your local hospital until the docs determine that you are no longer a threat to yourself or others.

Yep.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I believe attempted suicide is illegal so that the person may be arrested and placed in custody. Will have to see if anyone has ever been prosecuted for attempting suicide.

I can tell you that Missouri has no state law making attempting or actually committing suicide a crime. You will, as already noted, get a 96 hour commitment in the local stress center or psych ward for a failed attempt, however, but that's not a criminal issue.

 

[jdinca]

I still am not convinced that 'suicide' needs to be codified as a law of the state. There are enough ways that a person can commit suicide without making it the practice of medicine. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. It just concerns me on an ethical level when this becomes a part of the practice of medicine.

The problem is differentiating between the depressed suicidal person who jumps off a bridge or eats a bullet and the chronically ill, infirm, bedridden, often in incurable pain patient who doesn't have other options and wants to end suffering in a humane way.

Which causes more harm? Helping a patient end chronic suffering by helping them end their life, or condemning them to continued suffering or resorting to alternative, often more violent measures that may not work?

Suicide can actually be surprisingly complicated. You wouldn't believe how many people screw it up.

Assisted suicide is already part of medicine and has been for some time. It's just not identified as such. When I see a quart of morphine elixir, or several bottles of painkillers sitting on the nightstand, it's not hard to figure it out. The means have been provided.

I will admit to you that I do have reservations over assisted suicide laws, because there will be abuses and because I have a moral issue with suicide. However, I'm not willing to take the option of having help out of the hands of a terminally ill patient who can no longer handle the suffering.

The world is shades of gray with boundaries of black and white on either end. This issue is black, white and a number of shades of gray, depending on your personal viewpoint.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The problem is differentiating between the depressed suicidal person who jumps off a bridge or eats a bullet and the chronically ill, infirm, bedridden, often in incurable pain patient who doesn't have other options and wants to end suffering in a humane way.

At the same time, who's to say that someone's psychological pain doesn't deserve an end of suffering as well?

Which causes more harm? Helping a patient end chronic suffering by helping them end their life, or condemning them to continued suffering or resorting to alternative, often more violent measures that may not work?

No one's suggesting condeming them to anything. I am, however, questioning whether adding on the responsibility of assisting someone die on the part of doctor's, will cause unforeseeable harm in it's own right. That's my question.

Suicide can actually be surprisingly complicated. You wouldn't believe how many people screw it up.

Actually, you might be surprised how many screwed up suicides i've seen, and you are correct. I responded to a suicide just this week.

Assisted suicide is already part of medicine and has been for some time. It's just not identified as such. When I see a quart of morphine elixir, or several bottles of painkillers sitting on the nightstand, it's not hard to figure it out. The means have been provided.

Yes, but there is a difference between an unwritten understanding, and a codified role. I'm concerned about that difference.

I will admit to you that I do have reservations over assisted suicide laws, because there will be abuses and because I have a moral issue with suicide. However, I'm not willing to take the option of having help out of the hands of a terminally ill patient who can no longer handle the suffering.

Again, that is an area to examine and debate.

The world is shades of gray with boundaries of black and white on either end. This issue is black, white and a number of shades of gray, depending on your personal viewpoint.

Yes, and I really am not sure what side I come down on.

 

[punisher73]

Here are a couple articles about the Netherlands

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/01/netherlands.mercykill/

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041226-123251-5015r.htm

Also, there were studies done that the doctors in the netherlands were making the choice for people before they passed laws about setting up guidelines.

Health care insurance companies should be all for this, why spend thousands of dollars on someone when you can help them to end it for a lot cheaper (HEAVY SARCASM INVOLVED).

Another thing not mentioned are the complications that have happened in Oregan when the assist fails.

 

[Marginal]

Yes, but there is a difference between an unwritten understanding, and a codified role. I'm concerned about that difference.

You weren't in the Terri Schaivo thread.

 

[michaeledward]

Another thing not mentioned are the complications that have happened in Oregan when the assist fails.

Care to expand upon this assertion.

There have been, according to reports I have heard, 208 reported uses of the perscriptions. There have been more than 208 perscriptions written, but not all have been used. I have heard of no reports of attempts that failed.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You weren't in the Terri Schaivo thread.

As you'll recall, in the Schiavo thread, I disputed starvation as an acceptable form of Euthanasia. If you have a point make it, however, there is no contradiction at all in the assertion that

A) I think some ethical issues exist with doctors being involved in planning the suicide of their patients

and the statement

B) I don't believe, if we are going to allow assisted suicide, that starvation is the ideal mechanism for that 'mercy killing'.

Sorry, but I don't think you've really made a point.

 

[jdinca]

At the same time, who's to say that someone's psychological pain doesn't deserve an end of suffering as well?

No one's suggesting condeming them to anything. I am, however, questioning whether adding on the responsibility of assisting someone die on the part of doctor's, will cause unforeseeable harm in it's own right. That's my question.

Actually, you might be surprised how many screwed up suicides i've seen, and you are correct. I responded to a suicide just this week.

Yes, but there is a difference between an unwritten understanding, and a codified role. I'm concerned about that difference.

It's with the psychological suffering that I have a moral dilemma. I'm also concerned about assisted suicide being used to "get rid of" elderly infirm patients, who are a drain on a families income and have given a durable power of attorney to a family member. It's going to happen.

You're not adding responsibility to the doctor. The law does not require them to assist in a suicide. Whether or not it causes some sort of harm will not be known until there's been enough time to develop a track record.

Given that you know what an attempted suicide can be like, do you want to potentially add that pain to a patient/family that is already suffering, when assistance by a physcian can prevent it?

What putting this into law does is give protection to a physician who was otherwise hanging it out there for the sake of their patients. Although there may be abuses, I see that as the exception to the rule.

Nice to see we're both firmly mired in gray.

 

[Flatlander]

I wonder, would their life insurance pay out?