|
News: Supreme Court Hears Case on Assisted Suicide |
|
|
Paul writes "The national debate over assisted suicide came to the Supreme Court in Washington Wednesday as Justices heard arguments to determine if the federal government can prohibit Oregon doctors from performing assisted suicides with federally controlled drugs.
Christian conservatives groups active in social policy and court related issues have been keeping close track of the case, supporting the government's claim that the Attorney General, who is in charge of enforcing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), is within his authority to assert that doctors are violating the law when assisting in the suicide of terminally ill patients.
The case of Gonzales v. Oregon, which bears the name of current attorney General Alberto Gonzales, was appealed to the Supreme Court following a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that sided in favor of the state of Oregon. That court held that the previous Attorney General, John Ashcroft, had overstepped his bounds when he issued a directive that barred doctors from giving patients lethal doses, saying that using federally controlled drugs for euthanasia lacked a "legitimate medical purpose."
"To pervert the medical profession so that it becomes one of killing rather than healing poses a danger to everyone, particularly the disabled. It is significant that protesters from the disabled community were out in force on the steps of the Supreme Court today," said Bill Saunders, Human Rights Counsel for the Family Research Council.
Arguments for the government were made by Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, the Bush administration's Supreme Court Lawyer. He argued that even though there was nothing in the CSA that specifically authorized the federal government to regulate the practice of medicine, which has been traditionally left to the states, that such a fact must be "reconciled with the fact that for 90 years the federal government has had a prominent role in the regulation of controlled substances ... the substances that are at issue here are the most highly controlled lawful substances."
On the opposing side was Robert Atkinson, Oregon's senior assistant attorney general. He contended that states had have traditionally been the arbiters of what is and what isn't a legitimate medical purpose. In 1997, a voter-approved law in Oregon went into effect called the Death With Dignity Act. It allows doctors there to prescribe killing doses of drugs for terminally ill patients who request it. Since that time, over 200 suicides have taken place, according to the New York Times.
"It is important to note that federally-controlled drugs, dangerous drugs, can only be used for 'legitimate medical purpose,'" said Barbara Lyons, executive director for Wisconsin Right to Life. "It is hard to rationalize distributing a drug with the intent of ending a human as a 'legitimate medical purpose.'"
Christian conservative groups active in court and societal matters are supporting the government's position, affirming that doctors should be concerned with healing and not killing patients. Various organizations in addition to the state and federal governments have filed court briefs with the Court regarding the matter, including religious, family, civil liberties, medical and university groups.
The Family Research Council and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) both filed briefs with the Court arguing that it should allow the Attorney General to stop the use of federally controlled drugs for the purpose of euthanasia.
If the court - which has until June 2006 to decide - rules in favor of the government, the law would still not prevent doctors from assisting in suicides through other means which do not specifically involve federally controlled drugs.
Family Research Council's Patrick Trueman, the Senior Legal Counsel for the organization, said in a press statement that he was "concerned" that some of the justices were asking questions to the lawyers, "looking for a way to legalize euthanasia."
"After hearing oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court today we are profoundly concerned that at least three members of the Court appear to be looking for a way to legalize euthanasia," said Trueman. “Questioning from Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens indicated receptivity to arguments that would take America down this dangerous path.”
ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow felt that the court is closely divided on the issue, with four justices agreeing with the government's position and four against. He noted that retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor seemed to support the state of Oregon's views. However, he said that since she may not be around to render a decision if her replacement is confirmed soon, arguments would be heard again at a later time."
|
|
Posted on Friday, November 18 @ 23:07:55 MST by ArCh_AnGeL
What is Social Bookmarking?
|
|
|
|
"News: Supreme Court Hears Case on Assisted Suicide" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Links |
|
|
Article Rating |
|
|
Options |
|
|