After more than a decade of legal battles over assisted suicide, a Supreme Court ruling affirming that states have the authority to regulate medical treatment of the terminally ill may help turn an Oregon law into a national model.

At least six other states have proposed, or are considering, some form of an assisted suicide law, with bills currently in the legislatures of California and Vermont.

The Shot Heard ‘Round The World

The 6-3 ruling Tuesday was considered a rebuke to the Bush administration and former Attorney General John Ashcroft. The court said they improperly threatened to use a federal drug law against Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of medicine to dying patients who request it.

“The favorable ruling by the Supreme Court now permits other states to move forward in replicating Oregon’s landmark law,” said Peg Sandeen, executive director of the Death with Dignity National Center.

All I have to say is FINALLY! Why is this even an issue? The way I see it, you have a terminally ill patient (x), their family (y) and their doctor (z). (xy)+z=P(eace). Where in this equation does government fit in, let alone right-leaning supreme court justices?

Secret Santa?

Now, remember John Roberts during his confirmation hearing? Remember how he was on his best behavior? Remember how he said he will go by the rule of law? Well it’s no surprise that he was one of the dissenting justices, along with, can you guess– Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. These three right-hand pitchers don’t go by man’s law, but by god’s law, or some form thereof. The Red Sox need some good righties!

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

“If the term ‘legitimate medical purpose’ has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death,” he wrote.

Scalia said 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.”

The Truth

Oregon’s law covers only extremely sick people– those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.

So if Oregon’s law only covers terminal patients, with less than six months to live, are of sound mind, and have two doctors in agreement, where is the issue? Exactly, there is no issue, so Bush and John Aschroft devised a deviant scheme.

Extremists

The court said they improperly threatened to use a federal drug law against Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of medicine to dying patients who request it. So, knowing they have no case, they use laws intended to stop drug dealers to punish doctors, and in turn, punish terminal patients who have the right to die with dignity at the time and place of their choosing.

IMHO, you can’t get any lower than this.

The “Right” Way To Die

Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive.

So you can refuse food and die, suffering all the while, or you can receive a human overdose. Each means will achieve the same end, but why is one better than another? I’ll tell you, because if you stop eating, God is still in control of your soul. Technically, you don’t induce death by any artificial means. So it is about religion…

A total of 208 people, mostly cancer patients, have taken the lethal prescription from 1998 through 2004, according to figures collected by Oregon health officials tracking how often the law is used.

“There’s a lot of people out there who would love to have that law,” said Charlene Andrews, a 68-year-old retired teacher who lives in Salem and is suffering from terminal breast cancer. She has not asked her doctor to prescribe a fatal dose of medication, but said she was glad the court upheld the law.

Slap-O-Matic

This is a nice big slap in the face to George W. Bush and John Ashcroft. This ruling says “keep your religious views out of my life.” There is no place for one man’s religions in another man’s home. The time of dying is a very personal matter, and only those truly affected by the process should have any say in the outcome of said process. This ruling gives the freedom and choice back to the individual, and strips it away from the clutching hands of the government.

Checks & Balances

Like any medical procedure, there has to be rules and regulations. You don’t get a free pass to kill yourself because you are depressed, which is what the opponents always say. They’ll tell you a guy will lose his job, then go seek medical treatment to kill himself. Sure, and people will marry dogs when you allow same-sex marriage. Move on! Those arguments just don’t fly.

Scare Me, Scare Me Not

Also, opponents will tell you that you can effectively treat the pain associated with bone cancer. That may be true for a period, but what does the patient wish? Prolonging life for the sake of keeping someone on this Earth is not only wrong, but strips away the basic right people have– to live free or die. These terminal patients are not only not free, but can’t die with dignity. Sadly, I treated my dog better than Bush and Ashcroft would like to treat humans with terminal cancer.

To Protect And To Serve

Aside from religious belief, there is not one reason to keep a suffering person alive, who wishes to end his suffering. Not one. The Bush administration knows this, so they did an end-around, and tried to use drug laws to stop the practice. Gladly, the Supreme Court saw this quite clearly and correctly ruled against them.

My advice to people? Worry about your own family, and stay out of the lives of other families who wish to do the right thing.

This article was written by Bryan Los on Wednesday, January 18th, 2006 at 7:35 AM and is filed under In The News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.