Say goodbye to states' rights.


PDA






Molon Labe
October 5, 2005, 09:08 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/assisted_suicide

New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide

If you enjoyed reading about "Say goodbye to states' rights." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dionysusigma
October 5, 2005, 09:09 PM
You're kidding, right? :scrutiny:

Welcome to 1861.

Skofnung
October 5, 2005, 09:47 PM
Uh, states rights died at at a courthouse over a century and a half ago.

Don't Tread On Me
October 5, 2005, 10:20 PM
Agreed, States Rights became extinct oh say...1865ish.

beerslurpy
October 5, 2005, 10:32 PM
Yay for voting republican, the party of small government and federalism.

In what part of the constitution does the right to regulate medicine reside? Oh right, the controlled substances act is interstate commerce because some drugs travel interstate and assisted suicide is interstate commerce because it is performed with drugs that are regulated by the CSA.

So much for John Roberts, long time member of the Federalist Society. Something tells me that few Romans mourned the fall of the empire when it eventually came.

LAR-15
October 5, 2005, 10:42 PM
Boy that pesky Delclaration of Independence says we have the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Nowhere in the US Constitution or any other document do you have the right to physician assisted suicide.

cuchulainn
October 5, 2005, 10:51 PM
Nowhere in the US Constitution or any other document do you have the right to physician assisted suicide. See the 9th Amendment. ;)

I'm not a big fan of assisted suicide, but if assisted suicide is a right (and I'm not saying it is), then the Consitution would protect it under the 9th Amendment.

Oh, and by the way, everyone -- States don't have rights, they have powers.

Skofnung
October 5, 2005, 10:58 PM
and the pursuit of happiness

If ending ones life by ones own choice makes one happy, then who is the state to butt in?

Even outside of the Delclaration or the Constitution, I believe that the founders believed in the primacy of the individual.

LAR-15
October 5, 2005, 11:04 PM
They did not believe in suicide.

It was generally considered wrong and punishable offence at the time.

petrel800
October 5, 2005, 11:07 PM
You can't have life without death. So a right to life, would also be a right to dealth.

If you don't believe in suicide, then don't kill yourself. Otherwise, I don't see how anyone killing themselves effects your rights in any way, shape, or form.

LAR-15
October 5, 2005, 11:17 PM
It's not about stopping suicide its whether physician assisted suicide is constitutional.

If you want to stick the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger I'm not stopping you.

Standing Wolf
October 5, 2005, 11:18 PM
New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide...

On the proverbial "bright side," at least we know the new statist bully boy isn't a time waster, right?

junyo
October 5, 2005, 11:42 PM
It's not about stopping suicide its whether physician assisted suicide is constitutional.

If you want to stick the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger I'm not stopping you.Exactly. There's a difference between something being legal and something being convenient. This law lowers the bar for suicide by making it easy, painless, and risk free (no chance of missing or not taking enough).

Oregon is essentially arguing that the Federal government has no authority to regulate what Oregon chooses to declare an acceptable medical practice, the government is asserting that they have the right to enforce federal laws regulating the type and/or usage of drugs and that if those regulations make it more difficult or impossible for Oregon's doctor to assist suicides then tough. Justice Roberts merely pointed out that if Oregon's argument stands enforcing any federal drug or medical standard would be impossible.Roberts put tough questions to Oregon's lawyers, asking whether such state decisions would undermine the effectiveness and uniformity of federal law.

I always love how any statement about states rights always instantly becomes about those noble slaveowners were so terribly abused but that nasty federal government in 1861, and how it marked the end of true freedom - except, of course, for the forced labor, but shush that ruins the impact of the narrative.

Nehemiah Scudder
October 5, 2005, 11:52 PM
I don't find the theory behind all this, that tons of people are going to start offing themselves, very credible.

cuchulainn
October 5, 2005, 11:57 PM
I always love how any statement about states rights always instantly becomes about those noble slaveowners were so terribly abused but that nasty federal government in 1861, and how it marked the end of true freedom - except, of course, for the forced labor, but shush that ruins the impact of the narrative. And you just committed an ad hominem fallacy. Regardless of the motives and morality of the Southern cause, State Powers(*) were harmed greatly by the Civil War. That's an historical fact.

The Southern states share a measure of the blame to be sure. They chose an immoral issue on which to fight for State Powers, thereby forever linking the two and allowing the same ad hominem you committed.

(*) "States Rights" is a misnomer. States don't have rights, people do. States (and other governments) have powers.

No_Brakes23
October 6, 2005, 12:01 AM
I always love how any statement about states rights always instantly becomes about those noble slaveowners were so terribly abused but that nasty federal government in 1861, and how it marked the end of true freedom - I always love how people want to reduce the Civil War to being all about slavery, instead of being a concerted effort on the part of northern businessmen trying to control southern production. This struggle had been going on since before the War of Independence. The war was about the right to leave the Union, but Lincoln painted it as a moral struggle. If it was really about slavery, then why was one of the northern states, (Kentucky,) a slave state?

Slavery was very much talked about, but in reality was a non-issue that was going away anyway. Technology and Legislation had already gauranteed the eventual obsolescence of slavery. I am not defending slavery as a good thing, certainly it was a blight on our nation since the start. But the War of Northern Agression was about money and power, not freeing the slaves.

Personally, as an American, I am glad the Union won, since it preserved the unity of our nation. But as a patriot and lover of freedoms, I have to realize that the powers/rights/freedoms/sovereignty of states was greatly diminished.

R.H. Lee
October 6, 2005, 12:41 AM
Oregon is essentially arguing that the Federal government has no authority to regulate what Oregon chooses to declare an acceptable medical practice, the government is asserting that they have the right to enforce federal laws regulating the type and/or usage of drugs and that if those regulations make it more difficult or impossible for Oregon's doctor to assist suicides then tough. Justice Roberts merely pointed out that if Oregon's argument stands enforcing any federal drug or medical standard would be impossible. Upon what constitutional grounds does the government claim authority to regulate drugs? Is this essentially the same legal argument that frustrated California voters attempt to legalize medical marijuana? Is Oregon's claim that since such regulatory power is not specifically bestowed to the federal government by the Constitution, it becomes the purview of the state(s)?

wingnutx
October 6, 2005, 12:48 AM
One of the reasons I was happy with Roberts' nomination was his past opinions on limits of federal law and what "interstate commerce" consisted of.

I hope I was not dead wrong. We'll see.

MICHAEL T
October 6, 2005, 12:53 AM
"why was one of the northern states, (Kentucky,) a slave state?"

As I recall Kentucky refused to take sides. It was neither northern or southern. Many people fought from the state on both sides. Seems to me a couple other states did the same.

Technosavant
October 6, 2005, 01:02 AM
This case is not about suicide. It is about the ability of a state to allow drug usage which is not approved by the FDA. While in this case, it seems to be ludicrous (if somebody wants to off themselves, so be it), but it can also have pretty far reaching effects when it comes to drug certification. That can be a bad thing and a good thing.

Remember- when cases hit before SCOTUS, it is rarely about the items which make up the meat of the case. The whole thing will very often turn on some peripheral (and seemingly irrelevant) facet.

No_Brakes23
October 6, 2005, 01:11 AM
As I recall Kentucky refused to take sides. Yes, and most Kentucky residents would consider themselves southerners. But Kentucky did not secede, and therefore the Emancipation Proclamation did not free their slaves. Thus, they were a slave owning state within the Union.

Kim
October 6, 2005, 01:24 AM
I'm a physician and I don't know what to think about this. If someone wants to commit suicide they will do it no matter what. But then physicians are suppossed to try and prevent it and have been sued for someone committing suicide. I then think of the Hippocratic oath or what it was. It has already been changed to allow abortion. I guess they will change it again to allow assisted suicide. I can just see 30 years from now Physicians will be trained in Medical School how to assist in suicide while at the same time being taught how to save lives. Will it be a op-in or op-out for such teaching. Abortion training when I went was op-in but it is my understanding that now in some schools you have to op-out. I believe in relieving pain and suffering but I will not help someone kill themselves. That burden they will have to bear themselves. I find these people in some ways selfish. They want to involve someone else in their suicide I think in order to help them rationalize the acceptance of their actions. Carbon monoxide posioning is painless also. But they say it is not dignified. How dignified is it to involve someone else in your suicide?

thorn726
October 6, 2005, 03:34 AM
In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.) Curiously, as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Of course they didn't take matters as seriously as the Roman emperor Hadrian, who in 117 AD declared attempted suicide by soldiers a form of desertion and made it--no joke this time--a capital offense.

i dont know what to think in terms of law, but i have this to think about=

i have worked for and am friends with a large number of Quadrapeligics, some born that way, some caused later. ....

When Dr K helped a recently paralyzed "crip" die , my friends were NOT happy.
how many disabled people get disabled, go into depression for a few months,
but ultimately get through it and have really good lives?

assisting a terminal old person who really cant do it themselves, i can see being injected as much more dignified than sitting in a garage.

but letting a Doc assist anyone who is depressed kill themselves?

what's next, Suicide Rounds in the mental hospital?

Molon Labe
October 6, 2005, 05:24 AM
Nowhere in the US Constitution or any other document do you have the right to physician assisted suicide.Hmm. So if the constitution doesn’t say I can, then I can't? I wasn't aware the constitution was the source of our rights. :rolleyes:

Sleeping Dog
October 6, 2005, 07:01 AM
I like the other way of reading the Constitution. If it doesn't say I can't do something, then I can.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. That's great, but maybe people would like to legally opt out of Life, Confinement, Misery and Pain. Hopefully states like Oregon would try to draw distinctions between terminal illness and temporary depression, and create guidelines for administration of drugs.

If this is outlawed, then people just revert to the old-fashioned "accidental death while cleaning a firearm". Messy, but generally effective.

Regards.

Michigander
October 6, 2005, 07:07 AM
Oregon is essentially arguing that the Federal government has no authority to regulate what Oregon chooses to declare an acceptable medical practice, the government is asserting that they have the right to enforce federal laws regulating the type and/or usage of drugs and that if those regulations make it more difficult or impossible for Oregon's doctor to assist suicides then tough. Justice Roberts merely pointed out that if Oregon's argument stands enforcing any federal drug or medical standard would be impossible.

So what about the drugs used for capital punishment? Are they federally approved to end someone's life? If so, maybe Oregon should just use those.

Nematocyst
October 6, 2005, 07:09 AM
I believe in relieving pain and suffering but I will not help someone kill themselves. That burden they will have to bear themselves. I find these people in some ways selfish. They want to involve someone else in their suicide I think in order to help them rationalize the acceptance of their actions. Carbon monoxide posioning is painless also. But they say it is not dignified. How dignified is it to involve someone else in your suicide? That depends.

If i invite you to come only for the purpose of having you watch me scatter my own neurons & blood on the wall with my {9 mm (http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/review/kahrk9elite98.htm), .357 (http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5719&return=Y), 12 ga (http://www.remingtonle.com/shotguns/870synthetic.htm)] [this is a gun forum, after all. just doing my share to prevent this thread from being locked], then it's got no dignity.

On the other hand, if I choose to invite a few close friends or family members to my suicide {should i decide to do that, which at this point i have NO intention of doing}, and we play Mozart, drink wine, eat fine bread & cheese before I {pull the trigger, eat the pills, jump from the 5th floor, etc}, then it could be arguably 'dignified'.

IMO, when it comes to whether and how long I live MY life, it's not about federal rights, states right or corporate rights.

It's about individual rights.

Whether I have the flu or not, a broken arm or not, cancer or not, live or not ain't none of your **c***g business, as long as i don't harm you in the process of deciding.

Likewise for my physician, with whom I have a personal & professional relationship.

Hear this well: what you say about supreme court justices, attourney generals, presidents, governors, tax agencies, police & fire departments, fish & game departments .... all that is fair game.

But as long as I'm not affecting your life or health, then stay out of my life, and stay out of my death.

If it comes down to it, if I'm in severe pain, with no choice of a comfortable sleep, or dancing, or shooting the 9 at the range with pleasure, & I want to stick said 9 into my mouth pointed at my brainstem & pull that 8 lb trigger, then after i do so, since i killed someone (me), you should send out the sherriff (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-sherriff-typexiv.htm) and have me arrested, tried & convicted.

But if you have an ounce of dignity, a gram of compassion for those who suffer needless chronic pain leading to terrible death - like my father, who spent the last two months of his life in CCU hooked up to innumerable beeping machines - who say to themselves, "it's been great, but i'd like to check out now", well then i say to you, let them die with dignity when they choose.

Just an opinion. No Truth implied.

Marko Kloos
October 6, 2005, 08:01 AM
owhere in the US Constitution or any other document do you have the right to physician assisted suicide.

The Constitution is not a List of Things Allowed to Citizens. It is a List of Things Allowed to Government, amended with a List of Things Definitely Not Allowed to Government. And I don't see anything in the Constitution about government being able to regulate medications or the use thereof.

You're right in that you read the Constitution as "if it ain't in here, it's prohibited." You're wrong in that you apply that maxim to Joe Citizen. It applies to the government.

publius
October 6, 2005, 08:46 AM
Looks like Roberts agrees with Scalia (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html) and the left, not Thomas (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html) and the right, when it comes to interstate commerce.

Wouldn't want to undermine those one-size-fits-all federal regulatory standards, now would we? :barf:

benEzra
October 6, 2005, 09:16 AM
This case is not about suicide. It is about the ability of a state to allow drug usage which is not approved by the FDA.
+1.

El Tejon
October 6, 2005, 09:50 AM
Michael T, Kentucky joined the Union in 1862 when faced with Southern aggression and invasion. No Brakes, the Civil War was most assuredly about slavery by admission of the Southern states.

The issue before the Supremes is whether the federal interest in protecting life via the 14th Amendment trumps a state's inherent police power. IME, the issue is so personal that it transcends the usual right/left distinctions.

beerslurpy
October 6, 2005, 10:05 AM
This case is not about suicide. It is about the ability of a state to allow drug usage which is not approved by the FDA.

Which is why it is so sad that Scalia and Roberts, supposed members of the FEDERALIST SOCIETY, would choose to completely ignore the major issue in favor of striking a blow for religious conservatism. Very petty minded.

While the socialists on the court have their eyes firmly planted on protecting Wickard v Filburn, the "conservatives" dither and avoid confrontation.

NCP24
October 6, 2005, 10:13 AM
The Southern states share a measure of the blame to be sure. They chose an immoral issue on which to fight for State Powers, thereby forever linking the two and allowing the same ad hominem you committed. I can understand why you don’t like the word "States Rights”, but do you honestly believe the Civil War was only about slavery?

I always love how people want to reduce the Civil War to being all about slavery, instead of being a concerted effort on the part of northern businessmen trying to control southern production. This struggle had been going on since before the War of Independence. The war was about the right to leave the Union, but Lincoln painted it as a moral struggle.I agree with you No Brakes23, it was all about economy and sovereignty. The Feds simply broke the contract one too many times and as you pointed out the slavery issue was just painted as a moral issue.

Now I can understand the condemnation toward the word "States Rights”, and yes I fully realize that state sovereignty went out the window years ago. Now what I don’t understand is why everyone is so eager to dismiss and rebuke fundamental beliefs set fourth by our founding fathers. States Rights, States Powers, States sovereignty (or whatever) equals subordinate fed gov.. which sounds good to me.

Now as for this case, my guess is the court will rule in favor of the Fed. Gov.

El Tejon
October 6, 2005, 10:56 AM
NCP, the problem is that the states may tyrannize as well. For example, after the Civil War, the Southern states attempted to deny the freedmen their rights as Americans and Congress responded with the 1866 Civil Acts and then the 14th Amendment.

antarti
October 6, 2005, 11:11 AM
Anybody who still believes that slavery was the cause of the Civil War (yes, it's a misnomer) should have been around to tell that to the tens of thousands of Union troops who dropped their arms and deserted when they heard the text of the Emancipation Proclamation.

They were stunned to find out it was about slavery, a cause they didn't think was worth fighting for. Up to that point, they thought they were doing something (to them) noble, like preserving the Union.

The civil war was not started due to slavery. Slavery was brought in by Lincoln to drive up support for his war. Get over it.

Where was the Supreme Court during all this, and why didn't they render an opinion? Between imprisonment and exile, that's where.

Dain Bramage
October 6, 2005, 11:15 AM
what's next, Suicide Rounds in the mental hospital?

That, and more. If you want to know what's next, just check out the Dutch hashing out rules on how to off children.

Suicide is not the State's job, and it irretrievably harms what a physician should be.

JShirley
October 6, 2005, 11:35 AM
There is no such thing as "state sovereignty", at least under the Constitution (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union).

Article 6 (Supremacy Clause):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The civil war was not started due to slavery. Slavery was brought in by Lincoln to drive up support for his war. Get over it.

Actually, since the South left because they were afraid of losing their slaves, in effect starting the war, yes, the war was fought because of slavery. No, the North was not fighting to free the slaves, but the South WAS fighting to keep them. Claiming the war was not fought over slavery is disingenuous at best.

Slavery was brought in by Lincoln to drive up support for his war.

Not at all true. The Emancipation Proclamation, among other things, made England and France very reluctant to recognize the CSA or assist them. Instead of "driving up support for his war", it acted to prevent support for the South.

Lincoln did not "paint the war as a moral struggle". He was openly not for slavery, but plainly stated that his motivation was preserving the Union, whether slavery was still extant or not.

John

rick_reno
October 6, 2005, 11:49 AM
Let's see - Roberts clerked for Rehnquist. Rehnquist, on a case about physician assisted suicide, referred to this very history when he wrote that "...for over 700 years, the Anglo American common law tradition has punished or otherwise disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide."

The 'history" mentioned above is the brilliant English jurist William Blackstone who defined suicide as "self-murder," categorized it as a "felony," and wrote that it was long considered to be of the "highest crimes" in common law history. While not an American Founder, Blackstone provided a definitive explanation and summary of the English common law tradition that informed American jurisprudence. His immense influence on America's legal and political heritage is undisputed by historians.

I don't think there should be any doubt about which way Roberts is going to go on this one. Bush sure did good with this one. :barf:

NCP24
October 6, 2005, 12:52 PM
NCP, the problem is that the states may tyrannize as well. Very true, but wouldn’t you rather have your elected officials closer to home where they can be held accountable for their actions. Do we just say heck with our state and local officials and let the fed gov. impose its will?

There is no such thing as "state sovereignty", at least under the Constitution (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union). True, however the states delegated certain powers to the fed. by way of the Constitution and those powers not found in the constitution were reserved to the state or people, and protected by the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Remember it’s the Bill of Rights and Not the Bill of Powers. As for state sovereignty, the term has been widely used by the legal profession throughout our history, it was also an extremely important issue prior to and during the ratification of the Constitution.

I think we all realize that our current form of government is not what the Founding Fathers or states/people imagined when they ratified the constitution. I would dare to say if so the states/people would have never delegated such power and would have held out tooth and nail for a stronger Bill of Rights.

I just don’t see how we can justify our 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms while turning our back on the 10th Amendment or any other Amendment for that matter.

cuchulainn
October 6, 2005, 12:57 PM
NCP24: I can understand why you don’t like the word "States Rights”, but do you honestly believe the Civil War was only about slavery? I never said anything about only. :)

I know there were other factors. But slavery was one factor, and a big one. The Southern states -- whether they intended to or not -- linked States Powers to that immoral institution when they seceded to protect their power to decide slavery (yes, among other reasons for seceding).

The Southern states thus share a measure of blame in the 1860s damage to State Powers. The link between State Powers and slavery is as much their fault as it is Lincoln's. Indeed, they handed Lincoln all the propaganda he needed to attack State Powers.

FWIW, I see both sides in typical Civil War debates as being wrong. It is wrong to say the war was about only slavery, but it also is wrong to deny that it was about slavery at all.

antarti
October 6, 2005, 01:01 PM
I don't see what powers Fedgov has to regulate doctors, or their actions enumerated anywhere.
I don't see what powers Fedgov has to regulate medications anywhere (except maybe if they are going to cross state lines, and these would be procured and injected locally, not shipped to the patient). Just because I once crossed a state line doesn't make me Fedgov property exclusively and forever does it?
I don't see what powers Fedgov has to regulate/prohibit suicide anywhere.

Seems simple to me.

Am I missing something?

They were stunned to find out it was about slavery, a cause they didn't think was worth fighting for. Up to that point, they thought they were doing something (to them) noble, like preserving the Union.

Answer that one mod... I guess those soldiers were too dumb to know what they were fighting for? :rolleyes:

Henry Bowman
October 6, 2005, 01:13 PM
Whoa! Just a minute here. Roberts hasn't voted yet. What you ALL are overlooking is that appellate judges OFTEN make retorical statements or ask questions that do not reveal their opinion or leaning. He may agree with the implied answer to the question, or he may be wanting to highlight the weakness of the answer.

On the other hand, The difference between this an the California medical MJ case is that here the drugs HAVE moved in interstate commerce.

I have no confidence in the outcome either way.

NCP24
October 6, 2005, 02:08 PM
I know there were other factors. But slavery was one factor, and a big one. The Southern states -- whether they intended to or not -- linked States Powers to that immoral institution when they seceded to protect their power to decide slavery (yes, among other reasons for seceding). Cuchulainn I do want to say thanks for pointing out the negativity associated with certain words like "States Rights”. However, I question if we should really abandon the phrase/concept just because someone may have misused it way back when. I mean it’s basically the same argument the anti-gun folks use (guns are bad - guns kill people) we should get rid of guns.

cuchulainn
October 6, 2005, 02:24 PM
NCP24: Cuchulainn I do want to say thanks for pointing out the negativity associated with certain words like "States Rights”. However, I question if we should really abandon the phrase and belief it stands for just because someone may have misused it way back when. No, no, no. I've made two separate points about State Powers. You're confusing them. :)

Point 1) The South's linking State Power and slavery (intentionally or not) harmed State Powers.

Point 2) The term States Rights is an misnomer, so we should use the term State Powers.

On Point 2, look at the 10th Amendment (my emphasis): "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."

Note that the Amendment speaks of powers, not rights. The Constitution uses rights and powers as very distinct concepts. The term States Rights confuses these concepts.

The term rights refers to actions or personal conditions that ought to be free of government control or infringement. Rights are unalienable. Individuals have rights.

The term powers refers to what governments are allowed by the people to do. Powers are granted. States (in this context) are governments. States have powers.

Thus the term State Rights diminishes the concept of rights as unalienable by making rights a synonym for something granted, powers. Semantics, I know, but he who controls the language controls the debate.

Otherguy Overby
October 6, 2005, 02:48 PM
Regarding slavery, the first shots fired in the civil war were over a naval blockade. The north blockaded southern ports to prevent southern ships leaving for europe to sell raw goods for more than the northern "special interest groups" were willing to pay.

Yes slavery was unpopular and on the way out. The south was doubly screwed because the north wanted their goods for less than market value but also wanted to end slavery and thusly the south's ability to produce those raw goods. Everyone complains about schools teaching dreck. Has it occurred to you that maybe those very same schools were teaching dreck about the south's seccession issues? History tends to be written by the victors... :)

Now, about suicide, is it really suicide to ask for a large shot of morphine to end one's suffering through the final stage of terminal illness? Prohibiting this sounds cruel and unusual. Besides, most all of us already know prohibition doesn't work.

Finally, for the doctor's "dilemma: This isn't about someone taking themselves out prematurely because of ennui, losing an election, a relationship or something. It is solely about ending suffering. Don't forget that.

R.H. Lee
October 6, 2005, 03:37 PM
Now, about suicide, is it really suicide to ask for a large shot of morphine to end one's suffering through the final stage of terminal illness? Absolutely not. And anyone who thinks so has never been with a loved one during that time. When that time comes for you, I guarantee you will be urging the nurses and doctor to increase the morphine and ativan to the max.

NCP24
October 6, 2005, 03:43 PM
Semantics, I know, but he who controls the language controls the debate. Your statement is very true. Please don’t view any of our discussion as a debate, I’m just testing the waters and picking up tips along the way.

idakfan
October 6, 2005, 03:49 PM
I read that as "I'm too much of a pansy to do myself in."

JShirley
October 6, 2005, 04:08 PM
the first shots fired in the civil war were over a naval blockade. The north blockaded southern ports to prevent southern ships leaving for europe to sell raw goods for more than the northern "special interest groups" were willing to pay.

So, you're saying that there were shots fired by the North before the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter? Could I get some documentation, please?

Also, are you actually saying that the blockade started before some states attempted to leave the Union?!

John

Dain Bramage
October 6, 2005, 04:39 PM
Absolutely not. And anyone who thinks so has never been with a loved one during that time. When that time comes for you, I guarantee you will be urging the nurses and doctor to increase the morphine and ativan to the max.

And they already do that in most hospitals. I am not against doing all one can to alleviate pain, and if that sould overlap into an overdose, so be it.

It may be a fine line on semantics, but the goal of controlling pain to willfully causing death is a big divide in my opinion. It is the difference between doctors historically being healers and the documented cases of abuses in the Netherlands.

Otherguy Overby
October 6, 2005, 04:47 PM
So, you're saying that there were shots fired by the North before the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter? Could I get some documentation, please?

Uh no.

Also, are you actually saying that the blockade started before some states attempted to leave the Union?!

Your question answers itself... Why would the south wish to secede if there had not a naval blockade?

Political solutions no longer worked, and it was just time to "shoot the bastards" as Claire Wolfe has more recently stated.

JShirley
October 6, 2005, 07:00 PM
Why would the south wish to secede if there had not a naval blockade?

Uh, because they were afraid the newly elected Republicans would attempt to free the slaves. :rolleyes:

BryanP
October 8, 2005, 11:13 AM
I read that as "I'm too much of a pansy to do myself in."

Or perhaps "I'd like to make sure that it's done quickly and painlessly."

Even people who use guns to do it screw up occasionally and live (if only for a little while) in a painful and horribly damaged way.* I wouldn't want to linger or to leave a goddawful mess for a family member to find.**


*A story from a paramedic buddy of mine about a guy who *tried* to blow his head off with a shotgun would make most people want to skip lunch. :barf:

**A relative of mine shot himself in the head off with his 1911. Leaving his wife to find the messy aftermath. His situation would have been very well suited to Dr assisted suicide.

spartacus2002
October 8, 2005, 12:31 PM
Having been a cancer patient, rest assured that if I get cancer or some other terminal illness past age 60 or 65, I will not spend months in a hospital bed with poisonous chemicals flowing thru my veins again, killing me slowly and draining the family bank account. I will set my affairs in order, spend quality time with my family, enjoy some serious painkillers, and when the pain is too bad I will eat my pistol.

Sorry, but I've BTDT, and while I was there I saw many elderly folks choosing the "18 months of painful chemo" v. "5 months of quality life followed by death with dignity." None of them enjoyed it. You haven't seen emotional pain til you've seen a 75yo lady in bed, with tubes in her arms and a tube up her nose to drain the stomach acid, crying, telling her kids she can't DO this anymore.

It ain't the government's place to tell me "no, extend your life a few measly months in the most painful way possible." Letting government get away with that because we don't want drama queens to say "so long, boring life" with Soma, is applying a tourniquet to a problem that requires a band-aid.

Grey54956
October 8, 2005, 12:49 PM
The government builds bridges...

...people jump off of bridges...

...so, the government assists suicide...

...which means the government should ban bridges.

Gonna be hard to drive over any rivers once they figure that one out.

Michigander
October 10, 2005, 07:07 AM
If this is a question of Oregon using drugs approved by the FDA, then if they were to use the same drugs that are used to end lives in capital punishment cases, would it then be OK?

Are the drugs used to end lives in a death penalty case "approved" by the FDA for such purposes?

Man! This federal gubmint is outa control!

kahr40
October 10, 2005, 10:39 AM
already have.

If you enjoyed reading about "Say goodbye to states' rights." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!