http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/10/05/national/w130814D22.DTL High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, October 5, 2005 (10-05) 21:50 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) -- 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 justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has the final say on the life-or-death issue. It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer. The outcome is hard to predict, in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who seemed ready to support Oregon's law. Her replacement may be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now. Roberts repeatedly raised concerns that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules. "If one state can say it's legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better, or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn't that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?" he asked. 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. The new case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's conservative religious supporters. Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration. Oregon won a lawsuit in a lower court over its voter-approved law, which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people. The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided in hearing the Bush administration's appeal. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has had colon cancer, talked about medicines that make a sick person's final moments more comfortable. David Souter, in an emotional moment, said that it's one thing for the government to ban date rape drugs and harmful products but "that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here." On the other side, Roberts and Antonin Scalia appeared skeptical of Oregon's claims that states have the sole authority to regulate the practice of medicine. Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. He interrupted Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson in his first minute, then asked more than a dozen more tough questions. Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose and "it suggests that the attorney general has the authority to interpret that phrase" to declare that assisted suicide is not legitimate. Roberts asked three questions of the Bush administration lawyer, noting that Congress passed one drug law only after "lax state treatment of opium." "I was wondering if the new chief would hold back and wouldn't ruffle other people's feathers. It appears clear he's not waiting for anything or anyone," said Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke University and a former Supreme Court clerk. The two justices who seemed most conflicted were Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. Breyer's wife counsels young cancer patients. Besides Ginsburg, the justices who have had cancer are O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. "For me, the case turns on the statute. And it's a hard case," Kennedy told the Bush administration's lawyer, and later he asked about the "serious consequences" of curbing federal government authority in regulating drugs. Solicitor General Paul Clement said, "If this court makes clear that state law can overtake the federal regime, I think it at least creates the potential for there to be a lot of holes in the regime." Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his usual practice, asked no questions. He could be sympathetic to Oregon. He was one of three justices who said in a summer decision that the federal government should not interfere with state medical mar1juana laws. The other two were O'Connor and Rehnquist. If O'Connor is the deciding vote in the case, the court would probably delay the decision and schedule a new argument session after the arrival of the new justice. On Monday Bush named White House lawyer Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor. Dozens of spectators gathered outside the court, waving signs supporting and opposing the Oregon law. "My Life, My Death, My Choice," read one sign. "Oregon Law Protects Doctors — Not Patients," said another. Oregon is the only state with an assisted suicide law, but other states may pass their own if the court rules in the state's favor. The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623. ______________________________________________ Nice to see the court is hitting some interesting issues right away. Also fun to see that Roberts is hungry and not shy about swinging around his wang. He is already showing his colors by going the opposite direction from where Reinquist would have likely gone, putting government over states' rights. I wonder how he will rule on the impending death penalty cases as well. It looks like it's going to be a very interesting year for the SC. It's nice when the newbies are active right away, kinda like instant impact rookies in the league.
The right to die. You'd think it would be an obvious right, but some people are idiots. Of course, this is about doctor-assisted suicide, but that's just an extension of the right to die.
"Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his usual practice, asked no questions." Look for Miers to do the same damn thing. I swear, CT just asks Antonin Scalia how he should vote and does it. I don't agree with him, but at least Antonin has the intellectual gravitas to back up his wrong opinion.
dontcha love how the right claims to want smaller government and to keep what government there is out of your life but then turns around wants to tell you how to live your life via Federal government?
I'm not too heavily invested in this decision, but if you want to die that badly, go get a gun and shoot yourself....no? You do that right I'd imagine there isn't any pain.
i assume you support roe however, and doesn't roe support exactly the type of overly agressive federal meddling you bemoan in this case?
Not really, if anything Roe would go the other way. Roe basically extended the Griswold v. Connecticut decision which determined that each person has a "zone of privacy." In this case, the embryo is still considered part of the mother and consequently the mother has the autonomy to do what she wants with her body. Somewhat of a strange justification but that's what it boiled down to. This case would be similar. The Griswold decision's zone of privacy could probably extend to decisions affecting one's life and Roe could be thrown in to reinforce that idea.
And the idea of assisted suicide is that this should be the least painful way of dying. If you **** up where you shoot yourself, you could be alive but still in a lot of pain. Just trust the experts in Oregon, they'll kill you with great expertise.
roe essentially asserted a federal answer to the question of abortion. ashcroft in this case is making the same claim over assisted suicide. i happen to think the feds are wrong in both cases, and that these issues are bettwer left to the "laboratories" of the states.
And are you supposed to do that if you're in a hospital or a hospice? Hate to get too graphic, but you could kill or injure someone else after the bullet passes through your head. Keep D&D Civil.
Well then make go stand on the side of a bridge, then shoot yourself, so even if you don't kill yourself from that, you'll fall of the bridge and either die from the impact or drown. I mean, I understand that you may be physically unable to do it, etc. And knock on wood, I understand being in intense pain may just make you reasonably and legitimatly want to die. I just think there are enough problems/issues to deal with with the living, considering that almost anybody who really wants to kill themselves could find some way to do it regardless of the outcome of this decision.
Thanks for your opinion, but it comes completely from ignorance. One of my best friends died from cancer very recently. He was very athletic when he was healthy, 5'10" and 170 pounds of solid muscle. He could run top speed for nearly a mile and bench press well over twice his body weight. His resting heart rate was in the 50's and was the most fit person I ever met. After 6 months of cancer he weighed 90 pounds. He couldn't feed himself, go to the bathroom on his own (not that it mattter much because he couldn't eat anything without throwing it up). If it were legal for a doctor to give him enough pain killers to end his suffering it very likely could have killed him, so the doctors never gave him enough pain medication to completely stop the pain. He was in complete agony up until the bitter end. There is no way it could have taken his own life yet he begged for death. He was a devout Christian so he knew he was going to a better place when he died. He just wanted relief. He justed wanted his pain to stop. So nothing personal, but you dont a frickin clue what you are talking about.
Great post Mulder, very classy. I can't imagine the emotional trauma of suffering through something like this let alone being the person going through the physical pain. I just don't understand how other people can presume to be in a position to make that decision for other people.
Totally agree. And to withhold pain medication in that circumstance is an unspeakable offense. Sorry for your loss. Keep D&D Civil.
Yeah, let's have some of the conservative pseudo small government and run around trying to arrest and prosecute Oregon doctors who don't follow the dictates of the Tom Delay Christians who are in power in our government
Great bud. My grandma died from lung cancer. Everyone knows people who have died, often traumatically. I don't see how it raises the importance of this argument. The fact that the thread has had so few replies argues my point. This isn't a major major major issue in America.
