Death With Dignity lives on in Oregon.

[shereads]

Thank God for some positive news. The Supreme Court refused the Justice Department's petition to overturn Oregon's assisted suicide law. Oregon is the only state that allows physicians to provide the means for a terminally ill adult to end his life, provided he is if sound mind when the request is made and that two physicians confirm that there is no likelihood of improvement.

No abuses or allegations of abuse have been reported since Oregon passed the death-with-dignity act. The attempt to overturn it was John Ashcroft's final act of arrogance before leaving office. If Ashcroft is ever terminally ill, ravaged by pain, and beyond the help of pain-killing drugs, I'll bet the bastard moves to Oregon.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank God for some positive news. The Supreme Court refused the Justice Department's petition to overturn Oregon's assisted suicide law. Oregon is the only state that allows physicians to provide the means for a terminally ill adult to end his life, provided he is if sound mind when the request is made and that two physicians confirm that there is no likelihood of improvement.

No abuses or allegations of abuse have been reported since Oregon passed the death-with-dignity act. The attempt to overturn it was John Ashcroft's final act of arrogance before leaving office. If Ashcroft is ever terminally ill, ravaged by pain, and beyond the help of pain-killing drugs, I'll bet the bastard moves to Oregon.

It's odd. The three men who voted against states rights and for bigger government are allegedly conservatives.

 

[Pure]

One caution

The SC did NOT affirm a right to 'die with dignity.'

Hence if Oregon repeals their law, or if California PASSES a law expressly forbidding dr.- assisted suicide for 'terminals', the SC will not necessarily correct the situation.

 

[shereads]

The SC did NOT affirm a right to 'die with dignity.'

Hence if Oregon repeals their law, or if California PASSES a law expressly forbidding dr.- assisted suicide for 'terminals', the SC will not necessarily correct the situation.

This is still an enormous relief. Overturning the Oregon law would have almost guaranteed that no other state would attempt to legalize assisted suicide.

When the court first agreed to hear Justice's petition, I watched an interview with an Oregon man who has a terminal illness. He said that just knowing he will be able to decide for himself when the pain is too much, gives him the confidence to keep going. I think I would feel the same way. The fear of pain is less significant than the fear of being trapped with it. Just as hospital patients on morphine drips, who are given some control over how much and how often, tend to use less than patients who have to request each dose from a nurse, some terminally ill people will find they can endure more, and derive more value from the time that remains.

 

[impressive]

The fear of pain is less significant than the fear of being trapped with it.

Very, verrrrrrrrrry true.

 

[bearlee]

It's odd. The three men who voted against states rights and for bigger government are allegedly conservatives.

Yeah, and the case gave a glimpse of where Roberts may be coming from.

 

[shereads]

It's odd. The three men who voted against states rights and for bigger government are allegedly conservatives.

I don't find it odd at all. "Big government" is traditionally a villain when it interferes with property rights, imposes regulations on industry and commerce, collects taxes, and imposes unwelcome social changes like racial integration. When it intrudes in more personal areas like our bedrooms and doctors' offices, it's just doing what's necessary to prevent moral decay.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't find it odd at all. "Big government" is traditionally a villain when it interferes with property rights, imposes regulations on industry and commerce, collects taxes, and imposes unwelcome social changes like racial integration. When it intrudes in more personal areas like our bedrooms and doctors' offices, it's just doing what's necessary to prevent moral decay.

I'm an old school conservative Sher. Please cdo't confuse me with the religious right or the Neo-cons. Roberts is a product of the neo-cons and far religious right, so his views were to be expected. Thomas is just a shill. Scalia has moved into the Neo-con camp.

To liberals, I know we are all conservatives and thus bad, the men on the court just showing varrying shades of the same color. To me, however, these men are worse than bad, they are not just a shade of conservative, they aren't conservative in anything but name.

I've never been in favor of governemnt intruding into a person's bedroom, or his library, or his doctors ofice.

I'm not accusing you of anything, but please don't tar us all with the same brush. Alleged conservatives voting to broaden federal powers at the expense of state's reserved powers is as incomprehensible to me as itis outrageous to you. I don't understand it. i don't condone it. And it is far more troubling to me than you can know. It is one thing to have your party shanghied by reactionaries. It's another to have you affiliation also hijacked.

No matter how bad it gets, you can always take comfort in having opposed it. Your party is still yours. Your affiliation is. For me, there are precious few refuges left.

 

[Pure]

It's odd. The three men who voted against states rights and for bigger government are allegedly conservatives

As the saying goes, 'by their fruits ye shall know them.' I know, Colly, there are 'liberty loving' conservatives, and those who truly want less centralization and federal power. It's nice to see them in such places as
antiwar.com and in causes related to the first or fourth amendment, including current cases of arbitrary detention without charges.

The other folks, the 'neo cons' and the 'social conservatives', as sher says, hate the government as it *hinders* big business, though they love it to fund pork barrel projects, and to AID big business with massive tax write offs. As sher says, they want the government NOT to be in the classroom, if it means integration, but TO BE THERE if it's to insure teaching the Bible, 'intelligent design,' or premarital chastity.

This old problem goes back to the Massachusetts pilgrims, of whom the textbooks say, "they wanted religious freedom, but didn't have it in England." In fact they wanted the freedom to establish THEIR religion and suppress others--and that's what they did.

 

[Pure]

Another note:

The *manner* in which the Feds were trying to proceed was typical sleazy, Bush,Cheney, Ashcroft arrogance, also attempted with such issues as 'torture' ('it is what we say' 'if it doesn't kill, it ain't torture').

In this case, the government appealed to anti-drug trafficking legislation, i.e., that directed against pushers, including doctors who hand out scripts for narcotics for profit. Ashcroft argued that the dr assisting the terminally ill, is NOT following a standard medical procedure (though the Oregon physicians followed their own officially approved procedure).
Further it could not conceivably BE a standard medical procedure since it involved the taking of a life. Hence it was an ILlicit and IMproper use of the drugs, which makes the dr. in the same category as the drug-pushing physician who hands out 'perc' for no standard medical reason.

This utter contempt for the legislature, doomed the governments case.

By the way, have people seen Bush's announcement in signing the Cain anti torture legislation: He said, "Fine, but none of this limits my powers as commander in chief." I believe this is an Alito strategy for strenthening the pres-- he states his interp on any legislation at the time of signing.

 

[shereads]

I've never been in favor of governemnt intruding into a person's bedroom, or his library, or his doctors ofice.

I know you haven't. My experience of conservatism didn't include anyone with your openness to social change and sexual freedom until I met you.

As for finding comfort, there's not a lot of that to be found in my party affiliation, either. Having lost all but a trace of influence in all three branches of government, my partie's leadership is tugged in so many directions that when they finally settle on one, I might not want anything to do with it. Why should I care if the party regains power, if it does so by abandoning issues that matter to me?

You're right, Colly. You've been hijacked. So have I. We opened the cockpit door and lost control to people who have neither of our interests at heart. When they pay attention at all, it's to learn how best to appease the largest number of us without altering their chosen course.

If I hadn't already begun to abandon hope, I wouldn't be celebrating this court victory. I'd be livid that the issue was brought before the court to begin with and screaming for the heads of the people responsible. How dare anyone presume to impose on others an extension of hopeless pain and despair, under the pretext of protecting their rights?

Ashcroft didn't fool anyone by crafting this case as other than a right-to-life issue. I'm tempted to hope that he'll someday face it in a more personal way, and regret having tried to deny others what he willl almost certainly want for himself. But I've seen someone beg to be allowed to die, and I wouldn't wish torture on anyone.

Sadly, such people are so far removed from the daily reality of middle-class and poor Americans, they aren't likely to suffer no matter how they limit our access to things like assisted suicide and legal abortion. There are private physicians for people who can afford them. For the right price, there will always be ways to buy an end to pain, to obtain a medical abortion, to live where it's still safe to drink the water, or to keep your kids from having to fight a war.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I know you haven't. My experience of conservatism didn't include anyone with your openness to social change and sexual freedom until I met you.

As for finding comfort, there's not a lot of that to be found in my party affiliation, either. Having lost all but a trace of influence in all three branches of government, my partie's leadership is tugged in so many directions that when they finally settle on one, I might not want anything to do with it. Why should I care if the party regains power, if it does so by abandoning issues that matter to me?

You're right, Colly. You've been hijacked. So have I. We opened the cockpit door and lost control to people who have neither of our interests at heart. When they pay attention at all, it's to learn how best to appease the largest number of us without altering their chosen course.

If I hadn't already begun to abandon hope, I wouldn't be celebrating this court victory. I'd be livid the issue was brought before the court to begin with. How dare anyone presume to impose on others an extension of hopeless pain and despair, under the pretext of protecting their rights?

Ashcroft didn't fool anyone by crafting this case as other than a right-to-life issue. I'm tempted to hope that he'll someday face it in a more personal way, and regret having tried to deny others what he willl almost certainly wants for himself. But I've seen someone beg to be allowed to die, and I wouldn't wish torture on anyone.

It' always darkest before the dawn. and rightnow it seems black as ngiht.

Asscroft was a fuckwit. A gate guard who thought his hat and badge made him CEO. A poster child for the danger of giving power to someone who wants it.

But the court did stand up and say no. Not so much to the legality of Death with dignity laws, but no to the idea an appointed offical could reinterpret the law to fit his agenda. And that's a start.

Faint hope, but hope nonetheless.

 

[BlackShanglan]

What annoys me is inconsistancy.

If one wishes to base one's government on morality, fine. I can actually see an argument, from a religious point of view, that the government has a duty to uphold moral behavior. But in that case, the Bible does say that we need to be generous and kind to the poor, turn from the riches of this world and look to the next, and love our neighbors as ourselves. If we're going to insist on morals in other people's bedrooms, then we must insist on them in taxation, foreign policy, personal wealth, social welfare, and corporate power. Where are they? Why is it that when there's money on the table, suddenly the free market is God?

When one's morals are limited to the times when they allow one to tell other people what to do, and end when they might cost one time or effort, others might be excused for thinking that one was a hypocrite.

And no, I've never understood why the government might think it was its business to tell people when they may die. I am wholly against any law that allows anyone to be killed without his or her express and extremely clear permission, but someone else's willing suicide appears to me to be none of my business. And I say that as someone who personally believes suicide to be a sin. I support the church's right to say that it's a sin, but I can't imagine what business the government could possibly have in the matter.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

What annoys me is inconsistancy.

If one wishes to base one's government on morality, fine. I can actually see an argument, from a religious point of view, that the government has a duty to uphold moral behavior. But in that case, the Bible does say that we need to be generous and kind to the poor, turn from the riches of this world and look to the next, and love our neighbors as ourselves. If we're going to insist on morals in other people's bedrooms, then we must insist on them in taxation, foreign policy, personal wealth, social welfare, and corporate power. Where are they? Why is it that when there's money on the table, suddenly the free market is God?

When one's morals are limited to the times when they allow one to tell other people what to do, and end when they might cost one time or effort, others might be excused for thinking that one was a hypocrite.

And no, I've never understood why the government might think it was its business to tell people when they may die. I am wholly against any law that allows anyone to be killed without his or her express and extremely clear permission, but someone else's willing suicide appears to me to be none of my business. And I say that as someone who personally believes suicide to be a sin. I support the church's right to say that it's a sin, but I can't imagine what business the government could possibly have in the matter.

Shanglan

Culture of life issue horsey. Can't have a culture oflife that allows people to opt out ya know?

 

[CharleyH]

Thank God for some positive news. The Supreme Court refused the Justice Department's petition to overturn Oregon's assisted suicide law. Oregon is the only state that allows physicians to provide the means for a terminally ill adult to end his life, provided he is if sound mind when the request is made and that two physicians confirm that there is no likelihood of improvement.

No abuses or allegations of abuse have been reported since Oregon passed the death-with-dignity act. The attempt to overturn it was John Ashcroft's final act of arrogance before leaving office. If Ashcroft is ever terminally ill, ravaged by pain, and beyond the help of pain-killing drugs, I'll bet the bastard moves to Oregon.

Forget my post.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Culture of life issue horsey. Can't have a culture oflife that allows people to opt out ya know?

I realize that you don't mean this cruelly, but I see many important and good things in a culture that defends the sanctity of life. I have sincere personal misgivings about suicide; I simply don't think it the government's role to decide the issue.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I realize that you don't mean this cruelly, but I see many important and good things in a culture that defends the sanctity of life. I have sincere personal misgivings about suicide; I simply don't think it the government's role to decide the issue.

Bush continues to sell his Fundamentalist, right wing, policy as "the Culture of life". I meant nothing cruel by it. Simply observing that you can't allow people to choose to end their own pain and still be operating within his self defined paradigm.

I know pain all to well. If it were constant, unremitting, and doctors were helpless, I would see suicide as a blessing.

A "culture of liefe" that makes no room in it's scope for situations where life has lost all joy and become an unremitting hell of pain and suffering, is not admirable to me. When compassion and an admittance that sceince is beyond helping are impermissible beacuse life is sacred, then all I see is brutally making people suffer for the self satisfaction of others.

And it's pretty disgusting to me.

I don't advocate suicide to anyone one, bfor any reason. But making people die long, lingering deaths for no goddamned reason other than moral qualms in letting them go? I just cannot see that that fits into my understanding of God, religion or morality.

I am dr4eeadfully sorry if I offended. Such was not my intent.

 

[CharleyH]

Bush continues to sell his Fundamentalist, right wing, policy as "the Culture of life". I meant nothing cruel by it. Simply observing that you can't allow people to choose to end their own pain and still be operating within his self defined paradigm.

I know pain all to well. If it were constant, unremitting, and doctors were helpless, I would see suicide as a blessing.

I agree with your argument, Colly.

Apart from your sentiments, which I agree with wholly ... Perhaps its in the words? Words like 'selfishness'? People want people to stay here. People fear no matter what religion - the unknown - death - for them and others. It's complex - much more complex, and an interesting, yet long argument that surrounds religion and well, lol - we know where that leads on Lit.

 

[Pure]

I'm not sure Ashcroft wants to make suicide illegal, but rather the *assisting* of it. The argument goes: bad enough by friends, but terrible for a dr. who's dedicated to life.

The moral questions of 'assisting' are not coincident with the problems of the act itself.

Further, on the Oregon model, iirc, you've got to be pretty lucid, convincing and persistent (AND be slated to die in 6 mos). Barring paralysis or somesuch, arguably these people are the *least* in need of assistance. One could, in many of these cases, just leave a gun--or a toxic 'cocktail'-- in the room, and let them do the rest

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree with your argument, Colly.

Apart from your sentiments, which I agree with wholly ... Perhaps its in the words? Words like 'selfishness'? People want people to stay here. People fear no matter what religion - the unknown - death - for them and others. It's complex - much more complex, and an interesting, yet long argument that surrounds religion and well, lol - we know where that leads on Lit.

People don't want to let go. looseing aloved one is never easy. And, as the hrosey points out, if you are of a religious bent, you aren't just looseing a loved one, but they are consigning themselves to hell as well, so the seaparation could be eternal, depending upon your religion.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not sure Ashcroft wants to make suicide illegal, but rather the *assisting* of it. The argument goes: bad enough by friends, but terrible for a dr. who's dedicated to life.

The moral questions of 'assisting' are not coincident with the problems of the act itself.

Further, on the Oregon model, iirc, you've got to be pretty lucid, convincing and persistent (AND be slated to die in 6 mos). Barring paralysis or somesuch, arguably these people are the *least* in need of assistance. One could, in many of these cases, just leave a gun--or a toxic 'cocktail'-- in the room, and let them do the rest

In NY people have found a way. According to SCOTUS you may reuse life sustaining treatment. So people here sign a DNR, sign a refuslal to accept treatment, then just stop eating. It seems to me a nasty way to go, when a morphene OD is painless, but people use the options they have.

 

[CharleyH]

People don't want to let go. looseing aloved one is never easy. And, as the hrosey points out, if you are of a religious bent, you aren't just looseing a loved one, but they are consigning themselves to hell as well, so the seaparation could be eternal, depending upon your religion.

You are right, people never want to let go - living people that is, I saw it a few times, but what about those who are diing? A living person looses one, a diing person looses everyone. This is a really complex, and yet fascinating discussion, and I need to be more in a mind to talk to it. Shang, as you have quoted, suggests (though I know horsey has a wider perspective) that we are all judeo-christian (Hell reference).

Goodness, humans have not changed since they were born of the universe.

Please clarify the statement "seperation could be eternal, depending on your religion'? I do not understand that.

 

[shereads]

I'm not sure Ashcroft wants to make suicide illegal, but rather the *assisting* of it.

I don't think Ashcroft gave a damn about the issue of assisted suicide except as another game piece in the battle to end abortion rights. It's the same strategy that prompted Congress to pass the "Lacey Petersen Act," by which the murderer of a pregnant woman can also be charged with murdering the fetus (of course, it's also a deterrent; no killer wants to risk a double murder when one murder will do). It's the same strategy that prompted Jeb Bush, and eventually the president and Congress, to intervene in the Terri Shiavo case, turning what would otherwise have been a private tragedy into a circus, of which one of many low points was the threat to call a brain-dead woman to Washington to 'testify' on her own behalf.

The concept of fetal rights, if you subtract the argument that every pregnancy is God's will, relies on the argument that a fetus is not just alive, with human DNA; so was Terri Shiavo, and so are the many people with severe brain damage whose families quietly allow them to be removed from artifical life support every day. Not until the third trimester does a fetus' brain become so cognizant of its own existence that the same degree of brain function would prohibit removing a child or adult from life support.

For the right-to-life movement to establish a credible argument that the health and wishes of a pregnant woman are secondary to the fetus' right to life, they can't allow contradictory behavior toward people outside the womb. Brain function can't be used to determine the 'right' to live or die.

Even more dangerous is the idea that someone fully human, possessing a cognizant human mind, might have the right to abort his own life with the assistance of a physician. Ending any human life, even for reasons of mercy, has to be seen as an unconscionable criminal act, no matter how awful the alternatives.

How else, without invoking religion in violation of church/state separation, can you defend the notion that a human egg or sperm cell have no rights at all; but if they get together, they are instantly and irrevocably entitled to a nine-month lease on the womb of an unwilling woman?

-----

BTW, let's not pin the attack on death-with-dignity exclusively on John Ashcroft. As much as I'd like to see you stick him with one or more pins, he acted on behalf of the Bush administration, who could have made this case go away after Ashcroft did.


It's time for amicus to rant something now. I imagine it takes him a few minutes to remember whether he's an athiest or a mullah when he's preparing a right-to-life post, and while i appreciate how difficult that must be for him, it makes my eyes glaze over. I think I'll pop over to the 24-hour Wendy's for a finger-bowl of chili.

Have fun, posters.

 

[shereads]

A "culture of liefe" that makes no room in it's scope for situations where life has lost all joy and become an unremitting hell of pain and suffering, is not admirable to me.

My aunt had some long, ugly weeks before she died. She was suffering from a lung ailment that gradually makes the lungs useless, and she told me it felt like drowning. Constantly, slowly drowning. When I visited her, every part of her body was rebelling. The "safe" doses of sedatives and pain-killing drugs were no longer enough. There was nothing else to be done. There was nothing to say.

There was a terrible moment when she gripped my hand, looked me in the eye, and whispered, "I need to die. I can't stand this."

She had said the same thing to her daughter, her sister, her husband, her nurses.

I remember feeling grateful that she hadn't come right out and asked one of us to help her by ending her life. I wouldn't have had the courage, because it would have meant risking criminal charges.

I don't remember what I said in response, if anything; but I know I couldn't keep eye contact. I was too ashamed. What she wanted was no more than any one of us would do for a pet.

One night, my aunt refused to let her daughter or another family member spend the night at her bedside. She asked for her cleaning lady, who was also a friend but could be trusted to look the other way when my aunt pulled off her oxygen mask during the night. It was the only way she knew to make death come quicker.

Her gift to us was that she made sure none of us were there. We would have been tempted to interfere - or eager not to, which would have created its own burden of guilt.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Bush continues to sell his Fundamentalist, right wing, policy as "the Culture of life". I meant nothing cruel by it. Simply observing that you can't allow people to choose to end their own pain and still be operating within his self defined paradigm.

I know pain all to well. If it were constant, unremitting, and doctors were helpless, I would see suicide as a blessing.

A "culture of liefe" that makes no room in it's scope for situations where life has lost all joy and become an unremitting hell of pain and suffering, is not admirable to me. When compassion and an admittance that sceince is beyond helping are impermissible beacuse life is sacred, then all I see is brutally making people suffer for the self satisfaction of others.

And it's pretty disgusting to me.

I don't advocate suicide to anyone one, bfor any reason. But making people die long, lingering deaths for no goddamned reason other than moral qualms in letting them go? I just cannot see that that fits into my understanding of God, religion or morality.

I am dr4eeadfully sorry if I offended. Such was not my intent.

I understand your objections to Bush, but would find this debate more welcoming if you might refer directly to Bush and his policies rather than generally to the idea of a culture of life. While I recognize that President Bush uses that term, I do not believe that he owns it or that his and Mr. Ashcroft's actions fairly reflect the concept. Many other voices within the broad umbrella of groups comitted to a view of life as sanctified or precious do not embrace the types of actions or ideas you describe.

I do believe that it is possible for my own suffering to serve a moral purpose. I recognize that not everyone believes this. Because I recognize that not everyone believes this, I feel that the best answer is for the government to confine itself to resolving conflicts of human rights and responsibilities and for the church to handle the question of morality. In the case of assisted suicide, I perceive no conflict of rights; there is no other person involved whose rights are affected so substantially by the person who elects to die that that other person's rights should take precedence. I still believe life to be sacred and a culture of life to be important; however, I do not feel that the church has the right to legislate it in this case. In some ways legislation of all morality is antithetical to the development of moral character and spiritual determination. Goodness lies in choosing good, not in being preventing from doing anything else. When it will harm no one else, I generally think it better to let people choose their own actions.

Shang, as you have quoted, suggests (though I know horsey has a wider perspective) that we are all judeo-christian (Hell reference).

I beg your pardon, but I certainly do not. I stated that I personally consider suicide a sin. I would never suggest that any other specific person must believe this, or that everyone believes this or anything else given as my personal opinion.

Shanglan