October 6, 2005
-
Sanctioned Murder
WASHINGTON -- "New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives."
"The Supreme Court eight years ago concluded that the dying have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O'Connor provided a key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state experimentation."
John Roberts oversaw his first case yesterday as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. My first reaction to this was typical. Its my life, If I want to die then no one should be able to stop me. If I want a doctor to kill me then why should the government interfere? What if I doomed anyway? What if I have cancer? What if I cant get a date? The people of Oregon did vote for this law and since 1997, Oregon doctors have been writing lethal prescriptions.
But I do have a problem with this. And its simple. I don’t like it when the government kills. And I know you’ll say "Oh but Morrison you support the death penalty, you support the war on terrorism." Yes I do. But the difference is in those instances it vital that we kill. I don’t think the government, federal or states should assist in the suicide of Americans. It is immoral, and it damages the image of the medical community, let alone the image of this nation.
Morrison
Comments (21)
If medical doctors offered assisted suicides, that seriously lessens any faith in the medical community we have as patients.
Not to mention, what if it doesn't do its job? Say someone decides to follow through with euthanasia and, whatever the process is, goes wrong. Malpractice insurance would be useless at that point.
You seem to be confusing doctor assisted suicide with state assisted suicide. State assisted suicide is not the issue at hand, and indeed, I am not sure that it has ever been an issue. There is a fundamental difference between an active role in such an act as assisted suicide, and the legalization of the procedure. Prohibiting doctor assisted suicide imposes a governmental restriction within individual peoples' lives (it does not matter whether, at this point, it is deemed constitutional or not - it is still a governmental restriction). To remove the restriction does not automatically mean that the suicide is suddenly "government assisted" for the mere reason that it is now allowed.
As far as damaging the image of the medical community, I disagree. It is the doctor's job to carry out the wishes and best interests of the patient. How is it that the reduction of suffering for a patient with a terminal illness somehow diminishes the credibility of the medical community?
You know, I actually agree with WSR for once! Though personally I wouldn't pay for a doctor to kill me if I wanted to die, I'd just down a few bottles of asprin and a bottle of whiskey.
I don't have a problem with terminally ill ending their own lives, especially when their deaths would be tough, drawn-out, and horribly disgusting. They should be able to die if they so chose, but there should also be a waiting period just to ensure the decision the patient makes isn't a heat-of-the-moment type of deal. Let them think it over for a month or two, and then if they still decide that's what's best, then sobeit. The problem I have here is doctors being forced to perform the procedures. If a doctor finds that this is immoral, or for whatever other reason decides that he or she does not wish to perform the assisted suicide, then they should not be forced to do so by the state or federal government.
This has to be one fo the worst blogs I've seen in a while. Now I'll leave without saying anything in support of that and I won't contribute anything to the discussion.
Good job. You've just lost any respect of mine that you would have had.
I have a moral problem with the combination of Doctors, suicide, and government. Does that not sound scary? It immediately conjures up Nazi Germany in my mind's eye. "Assisted suicide" in any form is just wrong.
No one said anything about forcing doctors to do it. The issue is whether or not ones that would do it are allowed to.
I see no reason why this wouldn't be allowed. We grant our terminally ill pets an end to their suffering, what is the difference with humans? If I knew I was going to die, I'd rather cut out a few months of pain too.
Morrison called me a whore for no apparent reason!
http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=Xox_SugarNSpice_xoX&tab=weblogs&uid=354923423
"Morrison called me a whore for no apparent reason!"
Yea, I mean, I'm the one you paid $2,000 to have sex with you anyways........
*sigh* No one said anything about forcing doctors to do it? Perhaps you should look into this a little more...I realize the issue you see is skin-deep, but I'm looking at the ramifications. Doctors already, through court decisions, are being forced to (meaning, they cannot deny that service to people) hand out morning-after pills and other related drugs whether or not they have moral issues with it, how is this any different? That's my issue with it, as I said, doctors should not be forced to take part in this . As long as they aren't, then I have no problem with it.
And as for what's the difference between people and animals? Please...
"And as for what's the difference between people and animals? Please... "
I think preventing a person from enduring needless suffering is much more important than preventing an animal from the same. Although, I'd much rather keep my dogs from suffering than keep someone like Hillary from suffering............but then again -- are lawyers even human? (Sorry, been watching seasons of Angel lately and they constantly make that joke -- "He's human....well barely")
To force a doctor to provide assistance in a suicide when requested is somewhat unforeseeable. In any case, it would require statutory enforcement - and what representative would support such a measure.
Regardless of whose side one is on, this topic is fraught with dubious moral implications, and there are certainly those doctors who, for various reasons, would wish not to participate. But I highly doubt this would lead to any sort of mandate against doctors to perform such a procedure.
Assisted suicide is just lazy. If you wanna kill yourself, do it yourself.
: )
Don't be offended. I warned you with my name.
Oh yeah, and don't insult me for no reason again.
My thoughts on this subject are incomplete, but I think I can understand why some want this "assistance" option. As I grow older and prepare for whatever fate awaits me, there are a few things that seem very logical to me. It would be nice to hear my family and friends say, "He took a little nap one afternoon, and quietly passed away". I think we all look at death with that same hope. Not all of us will have that option, so it is not surprising that some begin to think of ways in which this could become a reality.
It's not death that we fear, for we must all exit some day. It is the fear of suffering, the loss of dignity, the suffering of loved ones, the depletion of finances and the lack of control over the whole situation.
Many people have had the life experience of going to doctors for the various diseases and discomforts they have suffered. The doctor could always "assist" because they are able to prescribe drugs and compounds that alleviate pain. These substances are not available from any other legal source.
I believe that many people, as in Oregon, would select a method of deliverance that would allow them to "do it themselves", if they could obtain those substances. There are many cases on record of movie stars and other prominent people having taken sleeping pills with alcohol to take their own lives. This leads me to the question, "Just how much doctor-assistance is already legal?". It looks like these people have no difficulty in getting doctors to prescribe pills in sufficient quantities to allow for suicide use.
It is natural, before surgery, to ask the doctor for the anesthetic that will provide the most comfort. To be able to "sleep" through the pain and risk is a very normal and common request. It seems to me, therefore, that it is very natural for some to turn to their doctor when death is imminent and ask for a prescription, if they choose to take that little nap.
God bless America.
Bimmer- How dare you bash lawyers, you lawyer-bashing Shakespeare wannabe.
Yeah. I stole your picture. I'm glad we're on good terms, uh, again (?), though.
And what do you think of that JFK thing on my xanga? Answer the questions on mine, please, if you are going to. Thanks.
WyomingSheepRancher is right. The government wouldn't be killing anyone, it would merely be allowing people to kill themselves. I fully support this. The government shouldn't be able to restrict personal freedom in this way.
There are people whose every waking moment is a living hell thanks to a disease they may have. If they want to, let them end their own lives.
very insightful. i think this country is swinging to a more conservative stance.
No one would force doctors to do it. Providing prescriptions and treating patients are two different things. Obviously, not a lot of doctors would even need do this. In fact, it might end up being that there would end up being doctors specializing in this and only this. Whether or not forcing pharmacists to distribute morning after pills is debatable, but you'll never have to worry about it in a situation like this.
Comments are closed.