PDA

View Full Version : Terminally ill and want out? Move to Oregon.



william_brasky
1/18/2006, 04:32 AM
The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Bush administration's attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die, protecting Oregon's one-of-a-kind assisted-suicide law.

It was the first loss for Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court's most conservative members — Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — in a long but restrained dissent.

The administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to pursue Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court said in a rebuke to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The 6-3 ruling could encourage other states to consider copying Oregon's law, used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people in that state. The decision, one of the biggest expected from the court this year, also could set the stage for Congress to attempt to outlaw assisted suicide.

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority — himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

With this decision Kennedy showed signs of becoming a more influential swing voter after O'Connor departs. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins more liberal members on cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment.

In some ways, the decision was an anticlimactic end to the court's latest clash over assisted suicide.

The case was argued in October on Roberts' second day on the bench, and he strongly hinted that he would back the Bush administration. Some court watchers had expected O'Connor to be the decisive vote, which could have delayed the case until her successor was on the court. The Senate is set to vote soon on nominee Samuel Alito.

Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before, most recently in 1997 when the court unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die. That decision, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, left room for states to set their own rules.

The Tuesday ruling, and dissents, were tinged with an understanding about the delicate nature of the subject. The court itself is aging and the death of Rehnquist this past September after a yearlong fight with cancer was emotional for the justices.

Scalia said in his dissent that the court's ruling "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position."

At the same time, Scalia said federal officials have the power to regulate doctors in prescribing addictive drugs and "if the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death."

He was joined in the dissent by Thomas and Roberts. Roberts did not write separately to explain his vote. Thomas also wrote his own dissent.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life, a culture of life that is built on valuing life at all stages."

The court majority dealt harshly with Ashcroft, who in 2001 declared that Oregon doctors who helped people die would be violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. Lower courts prevented any punishment while Ashcroft's authority was contested by the state of Oregon, a physician, pharmacist and terminally ill patients.

Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

Oregon's law, which was passed by voters, covers only extremely sick people — those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind. At least two doctors must agree the ill have six months or less to live before they can use the law.

"For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions," said state Solicitor General Mary Williams.

The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."

The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws — only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it still could have ramifications outside of Oregon.

"This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration.

The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

Harry Beanbag
1/18/2006, 07:10 AM
My question is how much does this service cost? Since I'm fairly sure health insurance won't cover it, does the state pay for it or is it affordable enough to make doctors break their hippocratic oath and kill people that patients and their families can handle the bill on their own?

OUHOMER
1/18/2006, 07:54 AM
good a place to go.. dont have a problem with it. I think if you have terminal illness, and in a lot of pain, draining all the funds you have ever worked for and dont want to put your family thru this. There should be a way out on your own terms. Dont really like the idea of using a shot gun to the head.

Harry Beanbag
1/18/2006, 09:01 AM
Dont really like the idea of using a shot gun to the head.


So you'd rather put the responsibility of ending your life on somebody else who has sworn to preserve all life?

Pieces Hit
1/18/2006, 09:08 AM
Heck, just bring some wine to downtown Tulsa at 3 am and walk around a while.

A guy got killed not 40 feet from where I park.

OUDoc
1/18/2006, 09:15 AM
So you'd rather put the responsibility of ending your life on somebody else who has sworn to preserve all life?
The doctors choose to participate or not. And the oath I remember says "Do no harm", which could be taken either way (one could argue keeping a terminally ill patient alive in pain is doing them harm). For what it's worth.

Okla-homey
1/18/2006, 09:17 AM
Look, per this Oregon statute, if I'm sick, and competent to make the decision for myself and I can convince two docs to sign affadavits that I'll be room temperature within 6 months anyway, then I see no problem with my being able to be put too sleep and out of my suffering. Remember, this law is only applicable in a quite narrow range of cases. This is a decision the patient must be capable of making for themselves, not anyone else. I also expect getting two docs to sign on the dotted line averring you'll be dead in six months could be tough.

OUDoc
1/18/2006, 09:20 AM
I also expect getting two docs to sign on the dotted line averring you'll be dead in six months could be tough.
Especially with Homey now in law school. :D

Harry Beanbag
1/18/2006, 09:25 AM
I'm not a doctor of course, so this is just a google search result. And apparently this text has been altered throughout the years as morals have changed.

I don't necessarily have a problem if somebody wants to end their life, after all it is theirs. I just don't think doctors should be involved, and that since it is the dying person's wish, they should take on the responsibility, not force somebody else to do the dirty work.



Hippocratic Oath

Traditional text


I swear by Apollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo) the physician, by Æsculapius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius), Hygeia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygeia), and Panacea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panacea), and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessary) to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

OUDoc
1/18/2006, 09:31 AM
Yeah, there's several things in that one that weren't in mine.:O

12
1/18/2006, 09:38 AM
Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

OUDoc
1/18/2006, 09:40 AM
That's better, 12.

12
1/18/2006, 09:42 AM
But still, do you treat slaves any different than your other patients?

http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/614/614_image_06.jpg

OUDoc
1/18/2006, 10:18 AM
Mine, or just in general? :)

47straight
1/18/2006, 12:06 PM
This is a decision the patient must be capable of making for themselves, not anyone else.

You know that once 1 person has the ability to make this decision, his next of kin will have that same decision once he's declared "incapable of making his own decisions."


I also expect getting two docs to sign on the dotted line averring you'll be dead in six months could be tough.

I completely disagree. 2 pro-offing-yourself doctors could set up shop and rubber stamp such requests. Doctors who run around with the Hemlock Society, etc, would be perfect candidates.

soonerscuba
1/18/2006, 12:08 PM
Before all the pro-death penalty culture of lifers get the granny panties in a wad, anyone have a guess how many times this procedure has been done?

Harry Beanbag
1/18/2006, 12:14 PM
Before all the pro-death penalty culture of lifers get the granny panties in a wad, anyone have a guess how many times this procedure has been done?


208 from 1998-2004.

Hatfield
1/18/2006, 01:50 PM
You know that once 1 person has the ability to make this decision, his next of kin will have that same decision once he's declared "incapable of making his own decisions."

you wouldn't have anything that supports your contention would you?

Seems to me it is clear that to utilize that statute you have to be the one making the decision with a sound mind (among other things). If you aren't of sound mind you or your next of kin/guardian/etc. can't use the statute.

1stTimeCaller
1/18/2006, 01:53 PM
Living wills people, living wills.

Harry Beanbag
1/18/2006, 02:35 PM
you wouldn't have anything that supports your contention would you?

Seems to me it is clear that to utilize that statute you have to be the one making the decision with a sound mind (among other things). If you aren't of sound mind you or your next of kin/guardian/etc. can't use the statute.


This is true.


Q: Can a patient's family members request physician-assisted suicide on behalf of the patient (for example, in cases where the patient is comatose)?

A: No. The law requires that the patient ask to participate voluntarily on his or her own behalf.

http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml

Ike
1/18/2006, 02:39 PM
Living wills people, living wills.
living will's don't become applicable until you are uncapable of making your own decisions. and even then, I don't know that a living will that says "gimmie a lethal dose of cyanide" would be permissable under that kind of statute.

1stTimeCaller
1/18/2006, 02:51 PM
oh, I was throwing that out there in case you were worried that your loved ones would have you put down if you became unable to make your own choices and you didn't want to be put to sleep.

Ike
1/18/2006, 03:00 PM
oh, I was throwing that out there in case you were worried that your loved ones would have you put down if you became unable to make your own choices and you didn't want to be put to sleep.

oh...ok. I can think of some cases where I would want my loved ones to put me down, and some where I wouldn't. all depends on the chance that it would be me that came out of it in the end.

1stTimeCaller
1/18/2006, 03:02 PM
I just hope my family doesn't take me to the Vet like they had to do to a few of our dogs....

mdklatt
1/18/2006, 03:08 PM
I assisted suicided a man in Oregon just to watch him die.

Ike
1/18/2006, 03:13 PM
I just hope my family doesn't take me to the Vet like they had to do to a few of our dogs....


what do you care? you'll be brain dead anyways. You'll probably be thrilled that you are getting to go on a ride. wheeeeee!

soonerscuba
1/18/2006, 03:18 PM
One time my family told my little brother he was going to live on a family farm, turns out it wasn't to be taken literally.

1stTimeCaller
1/18/2006, 03:18 PM
true, I'll probably have my head out the window, tounge waggin in the wind thinking, "Oh boy oh boy, I'm getting tutored at the vets, oh boy I'm gonna be so smart when I get back!!!"

Pieces Hit
1/18/2006, 03:31 PM
I guess if you moved there that would make you an "Oregon transplant".