Assisted Suicide, Oregon vs. Ashcroft

Given that our new Chief Justice's first case is going to be a landmark decision either way it goes, I'm curious what you all think about it.

For those who don't know, here's a very basic rundown. Oregon has a law allowing physicians to assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives. It is, to my knowledge, the only US state to permit assisted suicide (or, as it's being called right now, assisted death). Attorney General Ashcroft decided a couple of years ago that the law is a violation of a federal law that prevents doctors from prescribing controlled substances except for legitimate medical purposes - which he does not believe assisted suicide is.

Now, the reason for allowing doctors to assist in suicide is twofold. One, these people often have nothing left to their lives except pain, and thus there is, for them, no point in living. Two, often these patients may not be physically capable of ending their lives themselves.

I, personally, find this incredibly hypocritical of the Republican government, considering they're so often "states' rights" advocates, and this is an issue that has always been left to the states that they are now impinging on.

I want an honest discussion of this, but I'm going to say right now, please don't just say that Oregon is wrong because suicide is wrong because of your religious views. If you don't believe people should take their own lives under any circumstances, that's fine, and you can say so. But I'd like this to be a primarily legal discussion.

If a person is already dying, and in extreme pain, I think that they should be given a chance to at least have a quick and easy death. And frankly, I figure it's better that a docter provide some drug to quicky and painlessly kill the patient rather than a person hanging themselves or sliting their throat. It just seems more humane to me.

I believe that it is a person's right to decide what they do with his or her life. If he or she is in pain and terminally ill, that person should be given the option to choose his or her time of passing. To live with the certainty that you will die and that you are dying painfully can't be easy, to say the least. If said person finds no reason to delay the inevitable, it is his or her choice to die.

Putting aside my own religious views, I don't oppose a person's wish to die on their own terms. I know I wouldn't want to live as an invalid or stuck on life support.

That said, I believe that no person (read: singular) on this planet would ever, no matter their credentials or experience, be qualified to assist another person into death. We require an unanimous sentence from a jury to put even the most abhorrent criminals out of the public's collective misery. Even then, we have a system to potentially reverse that decision if there appears to be the slightest indiscretion about the decision.

As I understand it, the Oregon law A) gives the assisting physician immunity from their actions, and B) allows said immune physician to be the sole authority on whether or not the patient is truly terminal. I don't think either of those provisions are acceptable.

Tack onto that most of the supporters I see citing "dignity" as one of the key reasons for wanting it. "Pain" I can have compassion for. "Dignity" is either a self- or socially-imposed matter of perspective, and is a fluid thing. Pain is concrete, as are rights. Dignity is irrelevant as far as the law should be concerned.

I'd rather err on the side of caution. I'll also say that, while I empathize, the unholy amount of oversight I think such a practice would need to be even remotely trustworthy (given the current level of corruption already present in the health-care industry) would be prohibitively difficult to either put into place or administer.

There's no comparison between a terminally ill patient and a man sitting on death row. None, whatsoever.

I think you're failing to acknowledge that, regardless of what the doctor says, it's the patient that makes this decision.

I think you're also misinterpreting the "dignity" argument. It's allowing a person to die with dignity before wasting away to nothing - it's about them being able to choose to die while they still have some capacity, rather than once they're a vegetable.
Because, what it sounds like you're saying is that it's okay for someone to kill themselves if they're dying and in pain, but if they're life is headed to the point where they're going to be unable to ever get out of bed again for months - or years - before they die, then they shouldn't have the right to choose to end their life, despite the fact that it's going to end regardless.

And, ah, unholy amount of oversight?

Personally, I'm the the opinon that if a person knows that they're going to die no matter what and wishes to leave life with some dignity left to them and before the really horrible pain comes, then let them do so and if they need assistance, that should not be denied to them.

Think of it this way; if the person isn't allowed to, they'll never know exactly when they'll die and have a chance to say farewell. If they are allowed to somewhat choose their time, then at least they get a chance to say goodbye.

Assisted suicide is sort of a personal issue for me. My father died of cancer, and was often in extreme amounts of pain. I'd be lying if I said there weren't times when I thought it would be best if his suffering could just end, and I imagine he had similar thoughts. But my father did not believe in assisted suicide, and neither do I.

Here are some of the reasons:

-You can never really be sure when a person is terminal. A friend of mine's mother lived years beyond the time the doctors predicted she would die. My father at one point was in the hospital's ICU in extreme pain- the doctors told us it was the end. But he recovered and lived for months afterwards.

-People with terminal illnesses often suffer from clinical depression. It's difficult to tell if a person who wants to go through with assisted suicide is really thinking rationally, or is just suicidally depressed.

-I think it's a slippery slope. People talk about how assisted suicide in the Netherlands has created a sort of culture of death, where terminally ill patients feel pressured to die so they will not be a burden. Also- where do you draw the line? What about the elderly? People with advanced Alzheimers, or MS?

I may have to face this issue again personally with my mother, depending on how her cancer treatment progresses...but I don't think I'll change my mind.

I feel that the issue here is more of whether this falls under state or federal jurisdiction.

Oh, and on a slightly related note, my friend is in DC watching this trial.

Maybe I wasn't clear about what I was saying. If we go through the trouble of making sure that even society's worst, who usually don't even have a say in the matter, get equal treatment under the law... then shouldn't we require some safeguards that are at least as protective of innocent citizens and their families to ensure they aren't taken advantage of? There's a lot of intra-family politics in death, especially when there's an inheritance involved. Washington often looks mild by comparison.

To make myself clearer, though, I'll use something similar. There are entire medical review boards, licensing practices, and civil liability designed to protect patients from doctors that might incorrectly diagnose and administer treatment for a non-lethal condition. Shouldn't there be at least that much oversight (if not much more) for administering death?

I don't think so. See my next:

The law in question doesn't affect those in a vegetative state, but only those in a "terminal" state (at least according to the summary I have). As that law stands, though, only one person is required to make the terminal diagnosis, and that person is granted complete immunity from their actions.

I'm only opposed to suicide from a religious point of view. That has to do with morality, and only morality (the rights of no other person are infringed upon by someone choosing to end their own life), then the law should not take my (or anyone else's) idea of morality or dignity into question.

But, since this issue treads so closely to the line between murder and suicide, the law needs to put effective safeguards into place if it's to be allowed. The particular law in question doesn't do that, IMO, and should be struck down because it doesn't adequately protect either the patients or their families. If you're going to make such a law, get it right.

I said allow them to decide BEFORE they reach what is essentially a vegetative state.

And you need to remember, it's not the doctor making the decision to end the person's life - it's the person, and they are asking the doctor for assistance in doing so.

As I understand it, the Oregon law being debated by the SC only deals with terminal conditions, not vegetative ones. To have it say otherwise isn't something the SC can do - and in this particular case, the law isn't even the issue.

Of course, now that I've read the details of the case, I'm unimpressed by the media circus surrounding it.

And I'll reiterate that I think the Oregon law does a disservice to those people by not making sure they aren't being taken-advantage of.

I'm referring to 'vegetative' for the fact that there are terminal illness that are debilitating to that point.

I understand that. Not all vegetative states are terminal, though, and that's where the existing law draws the line: it has to be terminal, regardless of anything else.

And I understand that, but just because this wouldn't apply in ALL cases, doesn't mean it doesn't apply in some.

I believe that every person has the right to live and every person has the right to die. I think it should be a personal choice. Terminal, not terminal. I don't think it matters. If each person "owns" his or her own life, then that person has the right to end that life.

I'm from Oregon. This law was one of the first things I voted for when I turned 18. I don't think the Feds should interfear with this law. Whether you believe in assisted suicide or not, it's the individual's choice. Just like anything else in life. You shouldn't force your own personal views on another person. But that's what this is becoming. A certain few people in the government oppose it, so the law is going to the Supreme Court.

Oregon made it a law. Our courts decided it was valid. The Feds should just leave us alone with our decision.

Well said, Selina.