October 06, 2005
Death With Dignity Before the Court
Chief Justice Roberts was immediately thrust into presiding over a highly controversial case today. The ability of doctors in Oregon to legally prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients is being challenged by the U.S. Attorney General’s office.
In his very last day in office, Attorney General Ashcroft drew my ire by ruling that under the Controlled Substances Act, doctors' licenses to prescribe drugs could be revoked if they prescribed lethal doses for terminally ill patients meeting the qualifications of Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law, approved twice by Oregon voters, most recently by a wide margin.
The case is controversial, but it boggles my mind why it should be. Common decency and compassion dictate that patients enduring great pain, or facing terminal conditions should be able to obtain prescriptions making it possible for them to painlessly hasten their own passing. Assuming that we get past the current push toward theocracy in our country, one can easily imagine a day when people of the future will look back on this case as we currently look back on the Dred Scott decision. They (hopefully) will shake their heads in amazement and ask "You mean back then you could only get those prescriptions in Oregon?!"
Early indications are that Roberts is leaning toward ruling for the Attorney General's office. Supreme Court scholar, Jan Crawford Greenberg was quoted tonight on PBS' Newshour:
Chief Justice Roberts asked lawyers on both sides of this issue very aggressive questions; he saved most of his aggressive questions for the lawyer for the state of Oregon who was defending Oregon's law.Souter, O'Connor, and Ginsberg were clearly more aggressive in questioning DOJ lawyer Paul Clement. But O'Connor may not get to rule in this case if her replacement is confirmed before a decision has been written, and previous precedent has been that such decisions are deferred in cases where the retiring justice would render a deciding vote.
Onlookers are split in reading how the court is likely to rule on this one, with Greenberg calling it too close to say, death with dignity activists Compassion & Choices writing "the Court is unlikely to uphold the Ashcroft Directive", and SCOTUSblog seeming to lean toward believing the feds will prevail. The calculus is that Souter, Ginsberg, and O'Connor will likely be joined by Stevens and or Breyer, while Kennedy is more likely to join Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts in upholding the Attorney General's strictures against these prescriptions. Precedent would then hold the decision up until Miers joined the court, where immediately we would have a test of whether Bush has succeeded in tilting the court toward a ruling for the religious right. Perhaps Thomas or one of the conservatives could surprise us by allowing states' rights considerations to trump their cultural conservatism.
Compassion & Choices provides a full set of links at their summary page which goes on to say
The Justices appear reluctant to read the Controlled Substances so broadly. Several Justices repeatedly asked how Congress had empowered the Attorney General to preempt Oregon's law. With no sufficient answer, it seems clear the Attorney General exceeded his authority.
While I appreciate concerns for abuse of any death with dignity law, the Oregon law has multiple safeguards, and the history of its application bears out that it has not been abused, with those taking advantage of its provisions being exactly the sort of cases for whom it was designed. Concerns that it might be applied disproportionately among the poor or those whose primary motivation is to not be a burden on their families have not been borne out. It has also provided great comfort to many who know they have the means to choose for themselves when enough is enough.
In my view, concern for the patient should trump all other considerations in determining medical care. When the patient cannot be made comfortable and is expected to die within six months, it strikes me as the height of audacity and hypocrisy for anyone else to shake their finger at the sufferer and tell them they have no right to hasten their own death. If an animal is suffering we consider it an act of kindness to put them out of their misery. How much clearer it is in the case of a human being who can cogently express their desire to hasten their death, to allow them a dignified and painless method of doing so.
Doctors opposing this law point to their oath "to do no harm." If they cannot save the patient or alleviate their suffering, then they ARE doing harm by denying the patient a painless way out.
Posted by Walker Willingham at October 6, 2005 10:27 AMOne must wonder of allowing doctors to prescribe lethal doses of drugs to terminally ill patients for the purpose of them taking their own lives is a precurser to a companion law allowing or, at least sympathizing with and not prosecuting a family member who “pulls the plug” for such a patient.
Do not doctors already prescribe lethal drugs to execute criminals?
Posted by: steve smith at October 6, 2005 10:50 AMNot being able to use ‘assisted suicide’ when faced with an agonizing death due to illness or disease makes NO sense when people are legally allowed to have an abortion and our government can execute.
You’ve said it all here Walker — well done.
If Harriet Miers is confirmed, we don’t even have to wonder how her vote would go. As an evangelical, every decision voted in by the states, will be will be whisked away and ultimately decided upon by a “higher power”.
I take it then Adrienne that you are not in favor of Harriet.
Posted by: steve smith at October 6, 2005 11:21 AMNo steve, I am not in favor of her. She doesn’t have nearly the qualifications for the position, and personally, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of having any sort of religious fanaticism play a role in decisions made by the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 6, 2005 11:54 AMAdrienne,
Are you suggesting that Supreme Court Justices should not be permitted to have religious beliefs. This has come up before in other topics about how people in responsible positions are allegedly being guided by their personal religious beliefs, backgrounds,etc.
I fail to see how having reigion of any kind should preclude public service. Should we determine that they all be athiests?
Posted by: steve smith at October 6, 2005 12:20 PMsteve smith:
“Are you suggesting that Supreme Court Justices should not be permitted to have religious beliefs.”
“Should we determine that they all be athiests?”
Not at all. I’m only suggesting we shouldn’t want hard line religious fanatics on the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 6, 2005 12:26 PMBush the UNITER!
He has brought the far left and the far right together on the issue of comfirming? Miers.
I never thought I’d live to see the day…
steve smith,
decisions based upon religious beliefs are religious edicts, not legal decisions.
Because SCOTUS decisions have the force of law, you could reasonably say that using personal religious beliefs to decide SCOTUS cases is a violation of the 2d amendment.
The whole issue seems to be, as with many other type cases, who does your life belong to…you or the State????
Seems Bush and cohorts believe that they own me. Using the codswallop of religion is merely an excuse. Sorry, Bush, et al…My life is MINE, and I will die whenever I please…after that y’all can come and arrest my dead butt.
Walker,
Good article, yet I do believe Roberts will upset the extreme Right on the reading of the Constitutional Law in this Ruling. Does the moment of Death cause extreme pain? According to the government’s own findings, it does. Hence, Lethal Injection. By the Supreme Court ruling that Oregon Law is unconstitutional, they open the door so that capital punishment comes into question.
Is not the duty of a doctor or medical treatment suppose to help the person “Feel Better” or enable them to deal with the problem in a reasonable and logical manner? Than again by Ruling the OL unconstitutional, the SC opens up all medical treatment to the same standard.
Did Congress intend this to happen when they wrote and enacted The Controlled Substances Act? Does the Constitution even mention such a control over a person’s life given the 9th Amendment and the Declaration of Independence? For is it not the person who in the end decides to take the dosage? Could not they obtain the same results with over the counter drugs/Internet?
No, this issue is one that makes me glad that I’m not setting on The Bench. While Life is paramount, without Freewill of the Individual it is meaningless. The Founding Fathers and many Americans have fought hard for this Belief & the Rights that come with it. So unless the DOJ can show how such a Law would harm the general welfare of the Nation, I have to give the State it’s Constitutional Right. However, I would point out STRONGLY that Congress needs to look at it and establish very high standards for citizens to qualify for such action under a Federal Law.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 6, 2005 01:27 PMWe are witnessing an interesting time in american history where the rights of the individual are revoked in favor of the few.
Posted by: Kim at October 6, 2005 01:58 PM“We are witnessing an interesting time in american history where the rights of the individual are revoked in favor of the few”
Kind of like with smoking bans, seatbelt laws, anti-gun laws, property rights and taxes huh.
Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2005 02:04 PMCPAdams:
“decisions based upon religious beliefs are religious edicts, not legal decisions.”
Exactly.
“Because SCOTUS decisions have the force of law, you could reasonably say that using personal religious beliefs to decide SCOTUS cases is a violation of the 2d amendment.”
Actually, the 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms — I think you must have meant the 1st amendment, didn’t you?
Where I see the potential for violations as the result of a Justice’s religiously zealous beliefs would be:
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
9th Amendment:
The emummeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
14th Amendment, section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
I see that you are taking a grain of sand and make it into a mountain.
I am talking about laws like assisted suicide, abortion were it is up to the individual how they want to live thier lives. Their choices are not harmful to anyone but themselves.
And the laws you mention do apply in part…. Banning smoking in buildings I feel is wrong. Everyone should have a space to smoke. (I am a non smoker myself).
Seatbelts should be mandatory under a certain age. Once your old enough it should be my business if I want to fly out of a window or not.
Anti-gun laws there is no such thing. The laws do very little.
I can not say for the others since I am not
sure which particular part you would be refering to.
“I see that you are taking a grain of sand and make it into a mountain”
Because ALL of our rights are important to me, I do not choose which ones I am willing to fight for.
“I am talking about laws like assisted suicide, abortion were it is up to the individual how they want to live thier lives”
A right is a right. If you choose one over another, they all will be taken away.
“And the laws you mention do apply in part…Banning smoking in buildings I feel is wrong. Everyone should have a space to smoke. (I am a non smoker myself).
Seatbelts should be mandatory under a certain age. Once your old enough it should be my business if I want to fly out of a window or not.”
Amen.
“Anti-gun laws there is no such thing. The laws do very little.”
Uh, research anti-gun/anti-2nd Amendment laws and you will see that there is such a thing.
I only mention it though because owning a gun is an individual right and is nobody else’s business if you own one, just like it is nobody’s business if you kill yourself, smoke pot, smoke or whatever.
“I can not say for the others since I am not
sure which particular part you would be refering to”
Property rights- eminent domain, taking away an individuals right to appease a few.
Taxes- excessive taxation of the majority by the few.
Social Security as retirement- it is an individuals right to use the money they earn as they see fit, not how the govt wants to use it for some feel-good social program or how some political party thinks you should use it.
You can keep thinking ALL of our rights amount to a grain of salt, no problem, I however, will continue seeing it as being a mountain of a problem.
Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2005 03:07 PMNice post, Walker. You state that “The case is controversial, but it boggles my mind why it should be.” Simple. Because Bush has far less political capital to spend than he would like, and this case goes straight to the heart of his “Culture of life” mantra — one of the few remaining agendas he has left that still has broad support among his religiously-charged base. And tearing down the Oregon law = the further enabling of said agenda.
We all saw what happened when the government played God with Terri Schiavo. Which is precisely why the Oregon law should stand.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at October 6, 2005 03:21 PMSo, its OK for politicians, Supreme Court Justices and other elected or appointed officials to have and practice religious beliefs as long as their decisions are not influenced by those beliefs. I agree.
That said, very few people walk around with a note pinned to them saying “I am a religious fanatic” or, “I am an Evangelical Christian” or, “If in office I will allow my religious beliefs to influence my judgement”, etc.
As soon as someone is elected or appointed it seems that everyone on the left can’t wait to post unsubstantiated “facts” that they are unworthy due to religious beliefs or convictions.
Posted by: steve smith at October 6, 2005 04:21 PMsteve smith:
“As soon as someone is elected or appointed it seems that everyone on the left can’t wait to post unsubstantiated “facts†that they are unworthy due to religious beliefs or convictions.”
Where have I posted “unsubstantiated facts”? I have given you only my opinion — that while judicial experience isn’t necessarily required for every SC justice, Miers also doesn’t possess the necessary level of intellectual accomplishment as a public official or as a constitutional scholar to warrant this nomination. And that because she is an evangelical with the likes of James Dobson and now, Pat Robertson coming out in support for her, I now must question whether her decisions are more likely to be based upon her religion rather than her intellect.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 6, 2005 05:07 PMAdrienne,
I was not referring to or referencing anything you said. Sorry for the generalization.
It does seem however that many are quick to assign guilt by association. Just because someone with a questionable modus operendi (don’t know if I got that spelling right) by some peoples standards shows support for a person does not mean that person should be catagorized as a follower of the supporter.
Posted by: steve smith at October 6, 2005 05:19 PMsteve:
“Just because someone with a questionable modus operendi (don’t know if I got that spelling right) by some peoples standards shows support for a person does not mean that person should be catagorized as a follower of the supporter.”
I think it does when no one else in the Republican Party who I can respect the opinion of has come out in her support.
PS. modus operandi
Posted by: Adrienne at October 6, 2005 05:23 PMOh, my Lord, not Pat Robertson,too
Oh,my Lord! Not Pat Robertson, too! Next thing
you know, Jerry Fallwell will also be endorsing
her. I believe I’ll light up a Winston to calm
my nerves. I’m a Christian also and I am
competent to interpret the Bible for myself.
So far I have found nothing in it that endorses
politicians or says I have to listen to them.
Mr. Magoo, astute observations. I agree with your political assessment.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2005 08:58 PMI asked this question some time ago and didn’t recieve an answer except someone saying I didn’t know anything about liberials. I live near a college town and am up to my eyeballs in liberials.
They won’t give me an answer either, atleast not a straight one.
Why is it the only time that liberials worry about the value of human life is when a murderer is about to be executed?
Posted by: Ron Brown at October 7, 2005 07:00 PMkctim
“We are witnessing an interesting time in american history where the rights of the individual are revoked in favor of the fewâ€
Kind of like with smoking bans, seatbelt laws, anti-gun laws, property rights and taxes huh.
Right, and its been the left leading the charge.
Add to that manatory auto insurance, and helment laws for both motorcycles and bycycles.
I predict that this thread will die now. The left is left in a “quagmire” and can’t justify all the rights they supported being taken away while trying to keep the rights important to them.
Posted by: tomd at October 8, 2005 09:04 AMWhy is it the only time that liberials worry about the value of human life is when a murderer is about to be executed?
Ron Brown, I’ll tell you why you’re not getting an answer. The question is insulting and not worth a serious reply. It’s the old, “Are you still beating your wife?” gag.
kctim, I’ve owned a gun in the blue, blue state of California for years now (as have Sens. Feinstein and Boxer) and still no one is trying to take it away. I’ll continue to keep you updated. :)
Good article, Walker.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 10, 2005 09:25 AMWhy is it the only time that liberials worry about the value of human life is when a murderer is about to be executed?
I think they’re worried about who says that the person is a murderer, what goes on in the legal system, and the fact that the death penalty is not applicable to all.
On the death with dignity issue, the VRW conspiracy always changes it into something else.
You’re talking about people who are taking larger and larger doses of pain medication, with diminishing returns, and a quality of life at zero. The Terry Schiafo case was a sick joke, since she was bulemic.
O/T to all the rplcns posting in this weblog. I’m puzzled. I would be as likely to look in at a Rplcn weblog as I would be to read a book by Ken Starr, go to your home page HERE, and enjoy.
Posted by: ray at October 11, 2005 01:50 PMIt has been an interesting conversation thus far, however, what hapened to the founding belief of this country…life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. if it is one’s own will in an able body and mind to conclude that he wants to end his life, should he not be able to do that…im sure if we wanted to, quite blatantly die, im sure there are a million people that can come up with a billion ways in order to do so, however it is this law that allows anyone to reach this part of their life and is able to do it in a legal manner and a mature sense for society…
Posted by: Mike at October 20, 2005 12:15 PM
