Bush challenges state's suicide law
By Michael Gawenda
WashingtonOctober 7, 2005
STATE law that allows doctors to prescribe drugs for terminally ill patients, enabling them to end their lives, is under threat after new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the state's right to pass such laws without federal intervention.
In the first major case to come before Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court is hearing an appeal by the Bush Administration against the Oregon law under which 208 people have used drugs prescribed by doctors to die, 80 per cent of them cancer victims.
Oregon passed its assisted suicide legislation in 1994 after a state referendum overwhelmingly supported the move, which was reaffirmed in another referendum in 1997.
But in 2001, then federal attorney-general John Ashcroft, a leading supporter of the conservative evangelical movement, threatened to begin criminal proceedings against any doctor in Oregon who prescribed drugs designed to help people take their own lives.
He argued that doctors who prescribed drugs in these circumstances were violating federal drug laws which, he said, made it clear that doctors were given the right to prescribe drugs to "save lives not to take lives".
Federal courts have twice ruled that Oregon has the right to pass laws on what drugs doctors could prescribe, decisions which the Bush Administration has appealed against all the way to the Supreme Court.
Outside the court, as the nine justices listened to arguments from lawyers for Oregon and the Bush Administration, groups of right-to-life protesters and right-to-die groups held separate but quiet demonstrations.
Both groups brought along people with terminal illnesses to press their case on an issue that the Republican Party's conservative base considers to be almost as important as its campaign to overturn the Supreme Court's 1973 decision that gave women abortion rights.
It is a tough case for the justices, all of whom, apart from Justice Roberts who is 50, are over 70, with three of the justices — Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sandra Day O'Connor and John Stevens — cancer survivors.
Justice Roberts told Oregon's Assistant Attorney-General, Robert Atkinson, that he was concerned by the argument that state laws could trump federal drug laws, which could "make drug enforcement impossible".
His was the most forceful questioning, with other justices saying the case was a complex one that involved privacy issues and the dignity of people suffering from terminal illnesses.
Polls have shown that a clear majority of Americans — and more than 70 per cent of Oregonians — support assisted suicide laws and if the Supreme Court rules in Oregon's favour, several other states, including California, have plans for similar legislation. Legal observers say it is hard to know which way the court will rule, given that in 1997 it ruled that there was no constitutional right to assisted suicide but at the same time ruled that assisted suicide laws were a matter for the states.
Outside the court, Kathryn Tucker, an organiser for a right-to-die group, said Oregon's law had not been abused in more than 11 years and had overwhelming public support.
"Of the 208 people who used the law and had doctors prescribe drugs for them, 196 died at home, where they wanted to die, surrounded by their loved ones," she said. "They all died peacefully, they way they wanted to."
But James Bopp, of the National Right to Life group, said that for pro-life people this case was about preserving life, which was what doctors should always do.
"To use the right to prescribe drugs to help people kill themselves goes against everything doctors are there for," he said.
THE PEOPLE SPEAK!!!!!!!!!
Link Here
WashingtonOctober 7, 2005
STATE law that allows doctors to prescribe drugs for terminally ill patients, enabling them to end their lives, is under threat after new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the state's right to pass such laws without federal intervention.
In the first major case to come before Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court is hearing an appeal by the Bush Administration against the Oregon law under which 208 people have used drugs prescribed by doctors to die, 80 per cent of them cancer victims.
Oregon passed its assisted suicide legislation in 1994 after a state referendum overwhelmingly supported the move, which was reaffirmed in another referendum in 1997.
But in 2001, then federal attorney-general John Ashcroft, a leading supporter of the conservative evangelical movement, threatened to begin criminal proceedings against any doctor in Oregon who prescribed drugs designed to help people take their own lives.
He argued that doctors who prescribed drugs in these circumstances were violating federal drug laws which, he said, made it clear that doctors were given the right to prescribe drugs to "save lives not to take lives".
Federal courts have twice ruled that Oregon has the right to pass laws on what drugs doctors could prescribe, decisions which the Bush Administration has appealed against all the way to the Supreme Court.
Outside the court, as the nine justices listened to arguments from lawyers for Oregon and the Bush Administration, groups of right-to-life protesters and right-to-die groups held separate but quiet demonstrations.
Both groups brought along people with terminal illnesses to press their case on an issue that the Republican Party's conservative base considers to be almost as important as its campaign to overturn the Supreme Court's 1973 decision that gave women abortion rights.
It is a tough case for the justices, all of whom, apart from Justice Roberts who is 50, are over 70, with three of the justices — Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sandra Day O'Connor and John Stevens — cancer survivors.
Justice Roberts told Oregon's Assistant Attorney-General, Robert Atkinson, that he was concerned by the argument that state laws could trump federal drug laws, which could "make drug enforcement impossible".
His was the most forceful questioning, with other justices saying the case was a complex one that involved privacy issues and the dignity of people suffering from terminal illnesses.
Polls have shown that a clear majority of Americans — and more than 70 per cent of Oregonians — support assisted suicide laws and if the Supreme Court rules in Oregon's favour, several other states, including California, have plans for similar legislation. Legal observers say it is hard to know which way the court will rule, given that in 1997 it ruled that there was no constitutional right to assisted suicide but at the same time ruled that assisted suicide laws were a matter for the states.
Outside the court, Kathryn Tucker, an organiser for a right-to-die group, said Oregon's law had not been abused in more than 11 years and had overwhelming public support.
"Of the 208 people who used the law and had doctors prescribe drugs for them, 196 died at home, where they wanted to die, surrounded by their loved ones," she said. "They all died peacefully, they way they wanted to."
But James Bopp, of the National Right to Life group, said that for pro-life people this case was about preserving life, which was what doctors should always do.
"To use the right to prescribe drugs to help people kill themselves goes against everything doctors are there for," he said.
THE PEOPLE SPEAK!!!!!!!!!
Link Here
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 12:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home