Death With Dignity? Not Here...Not Now
As we all know the Supreme Court started it’s new session with a number of issues. Today, the court heard one of the most contentious cases of this new session in Gonzales v. Oregon. The subject? Physician-assisted suicide, and whether it is permissible, or even constitutional. Now, many of our readers know that Marcie and I focus on issues regarding the law. We are both studying the law intensely, and for may people it is interesting to see the opinions we have. So, without further adieu, let’s get started. Below is a quick overview of the case. (A note here: I didn’t listen to the opening arguments, so this isn’t up to par as I would’ve liked it to be. These are my initial thoughts on the case. We’ll see what happens. And yes, I know I do not rely solely on jurisprudence in this post. These are my opinions, backed up partially in law, and through what should be accepted by physicians.)
In 1994, the people of the state of Oregon voted by initiative to enact the Death with Dignity Act, enabling physicians to legally prescribe certain lethal substances to assist in the painless death of competent yet terminally ill individuals.
When the law was enacted, Oregon became the first state to legalize doctor-assisted suicide. More than ten years later, it remains the only state to do so.
Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, however, viewed physician-assisted suicide as a violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, in that assisting in suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" that would justify the dispensing of any controlled substance.
In November 2001, he employed what has come to be known as the "Ashcroft Directive" under which physicians who distribute controlled substances to assist suicide can have their registration to distribute controlled substances under the act revoked or be criminally prosecuted for violating federal law.
Ashcroft invoked the power invested in the Attorney General by determining that a physician’s assistance in suicide was "inconsistent with the public interest."
In April 2002, a doctor, a pharmacist, a group of terminally ill patients and the state of Oregon successfully challenged Ashcroft’s Directive in the U.S. District Court in Oregon. The court ruled that the Ashcroft Directive was invalid and enjoined its application.
A divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed in May 2004, though first it voided the lower court opinion, concluding that it had original jurisdiction over final decisions made by the Attorney General under the CSA.
The majority found the directive unlawful and unenforceable because it violated the plain language of the CSA, undermined Congress' intent and overstepped the bounds of the Attorney General's authority.
Now, as many people know, I am an advocate of states’ rights. And on the outside, this may seem like a states’ rights issue. However, the drugs being prescribed by the doctors, and administered by them, fall under those controlled by the federal government. The FDA controls a number of drugs, including marijuana, as was evident in the Raich case that was decided last session. The question presented to the court today was simple.
Whether the Attorney General has permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and its implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual's suicide, regardless of a state law purporting to authorize such distribution?
The simple answer is yes, the government has the right to do so under FDA guidelines and the Controlled Substances Act. But this goes further than simple jurisprudence. Yes, yes, we abide by the law, however this should not just focus on that alone. It should focus on the responsibility of a physician to treat their patients accordingly. To that end, I cite the Hippocratic Oath; an oath all physicians are to adhere to.
"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 judgement 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 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."
Doctors are forbidden to cause harm to their patients, and their oath holds them to it. No physician should have the power of God; that being the power of life and death. They should do their utmost to treat and heal their patients. If healing is not possible, then they are to make them as comfortable as possible as they die. It sounds cold and callous, but that is the way things are and should be.
There are provisions to help those that are dying that absolves a doctor of any participation in their death. It can be done through DNR, or "do not resuscitate," requests. Such a request does remove the doctor from any sort of potential wrongdoing. Should the person go code blue, no unessary, artifical means will be used to bring them back. They will die in peace. "Death with dignity" is a misnomer, and is merely a talking point for the Left.
The facts of the case are simple. Doctors in Oregon are prescribing drugs to terminate the lives of patients with no will or guts left to deal with the remaining years of their lives. The state claims that the voters spoke out on this issue, which is true. However, the voters can’t trump federal law. This was discovered in the Raich case. The prescribing of a lethal dose of drugs to end the person’s life is still illegal, as suicide is. And that is another thing that isn’t being addressed in this case. Suicide, ladies and gentlemen, is still illegal. This is whether a physician assists in the act or not. (THAT is plain stupid as suicide is defined as: "to put oneself to death.") It is a solo operation for the person desiring it.
The simple fact of the matter is that morally, this case should be found on the side of the government. From a jurisprudence point of view, the court should rule in favor of the government. It will be awhile before the court renders it’s decision. I only hope they make the right one. The precedent that could be set could be an extremely dangerous one should they rule in favor of the state of Oregon.
Publius II
As we all know the Supreme Court started it’s new session with a number of issues. Today, the court heard one of the most contentious cases of this new session in Gonzales v. Oregon. The subject? Physician-assisted suicide, and whether it is permissible, or even constitutional. Now, many of our readers know that Marcie and I focus on issues regarding the law. We are both studying the law intensely, and for may people it is interesting to see the opinions we have. So, without further adieu, let’s get started. Below is a quick overview of the case. (A note here: I didn’t listen to the opening arguments, so this isn’t up to par as I would’ve liked it to be. These are my initial thoughts on the case. We’ll see what happens. And yes, I know I do not rely solely on jurisprudence in this post. These are my opinions, backed up partially in law, and through what should be accepted by physicians.)
In 1994, the people of the state of Oregon voted by initiative to enact the Death with Dignity Act, enabling physicians to legally prescribe certain lethal substances to assist in the painless death of competent yet terminally ill individuals.
When the law was enacted, Oregon became the first state to legalize doctor-assisted suicide. More than ten years later, it remains the only state to do so.
Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, however, viewed physician-assisted suicide as a violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, in that assisting in suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" that would justify the dispensing of any controlled substance.
In November 2001, he employed what has come to be known as the "Ashcroft Directive" under which physicians who distribute controlled substances to assist suicide can have their registration to distribute controlled substances under the act revoked or be criminally prosecuted for violating federal law.
Ashcroft invoked the power invested in the Attorney General by determining that a physician’s assistance in suicide was "inconsistent with the public interest."
In April 2002, a doctor, a pharmacist, a group of terminally ill patients and the state of Oregon successfully challenged Ashcroft’s Directive in the U.S. District Court in Oregon. The court ruled that the Ashcroft Directive was invalid and enjoined its application.
A divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed in May 2004, though first it voided the lower court opinion, concluding that it had original jurisdiction over final decisions made by the Attorney General under the CSA.
The majority found the directive unlawful and unenforceable because it violated the plain language of the CSA, undermined Congress' intent and overstepped the bounds of the Attorney General's authority.
Now, as many people know, I am an advocate of states’ rights. And on the outside, this may seem like a states’ rights issue. However, the drugs being prescribed by the doctors, and administered by them, fall under those controlled by the federal government. The FDA controls a number of drugs, including marijuana, as was evident in the Raich case that was decided last session. The question presented to the court today was simple.
Whether the Attorney General has permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and its implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual's suicide, regardless of a state law purporting to authorize such distribution?
The simple answer is yes, the government has the right to do so under FDA guidelines and the Controlled Substances Act. But this goes further than simple jurisprudence. Yes, yes, we abide by the law, however this should not just focus on that alone. It should focus on the responsibility of a physician to treat their patients accordingly. To that end, I cite the Hippocratic Oath; an oath all physicians are to adhere to.
"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 judgement 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 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."
Doctors are forbidden to cause harm to their patients, and their oath holds them to it. No physician should have the power of God; that being the power of life and death. They should do their utmost to treat and heal their patients. If healing is not possible, then they are to make them as comfortable as possible as they die. It sounds cold and callous, but that is the way things are and should be.
There are provisions to help those that are dying that absolves a doctor of any participation in their death. It can be done through DNR, or "do not resuscitate," requests. Such a request does remove the doctor from any sort of potential wrongdoing. Should the person go code blue, no unessary, artifical means will be used to bring them back. They will die in peace. "Death with dignity" is a misnomer, and is merely a talking point for the Left.
The facts of the case are simple. Doctors in Oregon are prescribing drugs to terminate the lives of patients with no will or guts left to deal with the remaining years of their lives. The state claims that the voters spoke out on this issue, which is true. However, the voters can’t trump federal law. This was discovered in the Raich case. The prescribing of a lethal dose of drugs to end the person’s life is still illegal, as suicide is. And that is another thing that isn’t being addressed in this case. Suicide, ladies and gentlemen, is still illegal. This is whether a physician assists in the act or not. (THAT is plain stupid as suicide is defined as: "to put oneself to death.") It is a solo operation for the person desiring it.
The simple fact of the matter is that morally, this case should be found on the side of the government. From a jurisprudence point of view, the court should rule in favor of the government. It will be awhile before the court renders it’s decision. I only hope they make the right one. The precedent that could be set could be an extremely dangerous one should they rule in favor of the state of Oregon.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:16 PM
2 Comments:
I concur with your reasoning and the law. The federal law trumps state law even when it's the people initiated it and passed it. There are many reason's why the Oregon law should be declared unconstitutional including the voiding clause in life insurance contracts. There's nothing in our founding documents providing for a "right" to die. We, as a nation, value the individual and to give physicians the authority to end life, to me is dead wrong. Rawriter
Publius,
Despite the fact you did not stick to the law in your post, I must agree. The Hippocratic Oath seems to have no legal basis in determining what is right and proper for a physician.
As Rawriter posted, federal law trumps state law. But it goes further than that, and you did an excellent job of emphasizing it.
In short, suicide is illegal, and regardless of what a state law dictates. Federal law has provisions for the prevention of such an act, therefore it is safe to assume that the federal government is also against such an act.
The Supreme Court should strike down this law. It might do it for a number of different reasons, but the primary one will likely be that the federal government controls and enforces the uses of these drugs, and they are not to be used for the assistance of a terminally-ill patient to die.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home