Anything Forums

The Bush administration has appealed to US Supreme Court in an effort to block an Oregon law allowing doctors to help the terminally ill end their lives.

Oregon is the only US state where assisted suicide is permitted.

Outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to overturn rulings by two courts that protect Oregon doctors from federal punishment for aiding suicide.

The Death with Dignity Act, approved by Oregon's voters, has been used by 170 people since 1998. Most had cancer.

Assisted suicide is an important issue to conservative Christians, who helped George W Bush win a second term as president last week, Associated Press reports. Mr Ashcroft, himself a conservative Christian, issued his directive against assisted suicide in 2001. In it he declared that using drugs restricted under the Controlled Substances Act to help patients commit suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose". He ordered that doctors and pharmacists prescribing lethal doses of drugs should have their prescription licenses revoked.

But a federal court and the Ninth Circuit appeal court have blocked the directive, saying it was beyond Mr Ashcroft's powers to interfere in state medical regulation. Under Oregon's "right-to-die" law, patients must be in the final six months of a terminal illness, have their diagnosis confirmed by two doctors and be judged mentally competent to make the decision.

Campaigners in Hawaii and Vermont are seeking to bring in similar legislation. Legal judgements so far have not rested on the ethics of euthanasia itself. The Supreme Court is likely to decide early next year whether to hear the Attorney General's appeal over Oregon.

Oregon's Assisted Suicide Laws wrote: -Patients must be in final six months of terminal illness
-Patients must make two oral requests and one written request to die, each separated by a two-week period
-Patients must be mentally competent to make decision
-Two doctors must confirm diagnosis
-Lethal prescription of drugs prescribed by doctor and administered by patients themselves

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16558

Oregon's law seems fair to me, but hey, I don't fully comprehend how this administration's thought processes work

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16560

sintekk wrote: Oregon's law seems fair to me, but hey, I don't fully comprehend how this administration's thought processes work

Yeah, it does seem fair, esp. since the people voted for it and it doesn't violate any constitutional law. I think this is yet another example of the federal government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.... where did I put that rolled-up newspaper? whack!!!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16562

It seems fair to me. Though suicide is wrong, I just wonder how God justifies it in cases like this, for example a paralized person that can't even do anything with his life.

I personally would not want to die even in a bad situation but at least it's good to know the right is there. It's sad to see someone in the hospital and you know they're going to die anyway, might as well make it fast.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16563

It's cases like this that make me glad that Ashcraft is out, though I'm still uncomfortable with the new guy

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16564

Red Squirrel wrote: It seems fair to me.  Though suicide is wrong, I just wonder how God justifies  it in cases like this, for example a paralized person that can't even do anything with his life.

I personally would not want to die even in a bad situation but at least it's good to know the right is there.  It's sad to see someone in the hospital and you know they're going to die anyway, might as well make it fast.

One of the objections to an assisted suicide law is clearly seen in this post. Instead of just refering to people who are close to death, Red has extended the "benefit" to paralysed people. If you start allowing suicide laws, you end up on a slippery slope of devaluing life. Can a paralysed person really not "even do anything with his life"? And when did suicide become a "right"? Is this really Red posting?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16578

Well, the oregon law clearly states the limitations of who can get away with it, seeing as it really covers the 'Terminally ill only" base well, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's their life, let them do what they will.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16582

devalue life? from what? who's putting a value on it currently?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16583

fragged one wrote: devalue life?  from what?  who's putting a value on it currently?

Since this isn't a debate thread I won't start quoting Scripture. Suffice it to say that I could.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16584

sintekk wrote: Well, the oregon law clearly states the limitations of who can get away with it, seeing as it really covers the 'Terminally ill only" base well, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's their life, let them do what they will.

Not only that, the patient themselves have to give the lethal blow.
Lethal prescription of drugs prescribed by doctor and administered by patients themselves


Bookworm: gluttoney, prostitution, bad judgement, and divorce all could be said to 'devalue' life, but these things can be legal, because America exist for us to make the desicions. We do not regulate our laws around christian morals, but instead laws of man, and encourage individually that we make the right choices. That way, Christians can live the way they need to in order to live right - Muslims can live their life in a way deemed correct for their faith - Jew, Hindu, Buddism and the others can live the way they need to to achieve their spiritual goals. The final judgement is up to god. Government is here to level the playing field.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16589

I've never heard those four things being used in the context of devaluing life before. I've usually heard it in the context of abortion or euthanasia, but I can see your point, especially in regards to prostition. Are you saying that the basis for our laws is us "making the right choices" and not morality? I didn't quite understand your sentence. Is an opposition to suicide primarily a "Christian" morality issue?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16590

Personally I think that the Oregon law is more than fair, and considering that the patient must administer the drugs himself, I'm not even sure it would fit with my definition of assisted suicide. Arresting the doctor would be like arresting the guy at a hardware store selling a piece of rope, and though that's obviously a gross over simplification, but the doctor is simply providing the means, he isn't killing anyone. If your particular flavor of supreme power has a problem with that, let him be the judge.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16592

I must admit I'm impressed with the restrictions in the Oregon law. If there is a slippery slope involved in the kinds of laws, the Oregon law provides for quite a bit of traction.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16595

Bookworm wrote: I've never heard those four things being used in the context of devaluing life before. I've usually heard it in the context of abortion or euthanasia, but I can see your point, especially in regards to prostition. Are you saying that the basis for our laws is us "making the right choices" and not morality? I didn't quite understand your sentence. Is an opposition to suicide primarily a "Christian" morality issue?

isn't morality a choice?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16598

fragged one wrote:

Bookworm wrote: I've never heard those four things being used in the context of devaluing life before. I've usually heard it in the context of abortion or euthanasia, but I can see your point, especially in regards to prostition. Are you saying that the basis for our laws is us "making the right choices" and not morality? I didn't quite understand your sentence. Is an opposition to suicide primarily a "Christian" morality issue?

isn't morality a choice?

Good question. I believe there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong. For someone who does not believe in that concept, then morality does become just a series of choices. We just have a difference of opinion, that's all. We'll agree to disagee.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16600

Bookworm wrote:

fragged one wrote: devalue life?  from what?  who's putting a value on it currently?

Since this isn't a debate thread I won't start quoting Scripture. Suffice it to say that I could.

Now you've gone and done it! The mods moved it to the debate forum! Oh noes!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16616

sintekk wrote:

Bookworm wrote:

fragged one wrote: devalue life? from what? who's putting a value on it currently?

Since this isn't a debate thread I won't start quoting Scripture. Suffice it to say that I could.

Now you've gone and done it! The mods moved it to the debate forum! Oh noes!

Don't worry. The only Scripture I would have used would have been a verse about God creating us in His image. That may have started a creation debate, which isn't my intent, and the idea of what God's image means has so many possible interpretations that I can't claim mine is the only valid one. My only point was that the Bible influences my opinions about suicide, and I made that point without having to actually use a verse.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16618

Bookworm wrote: Are you saying that the basis for our laws is us "making the right choices" and not morality?

No, I'm saying the basis for our laws are to level the playing field and allow people to live life the way they deem proper for spiritual or personal reasons, without violating someone elses right to do the same.

Bookworm wrote: Is an opposition to suicide primarily a "Christian" morality issue?

No, your opposition to suicide is a Christian morality issue, for some it's a Karma issue, for some it's a respect issue. For others, it's a personal choice issue.


Sorry this is so quick, I'm on my way out.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16621

check this out

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16633

Bookworm wrote:

fragged one wrote:

Bookworm wrote: I've never heard those four things being used in the context of devaluing life before. I've usually heard it in the context of abortion or euthanasia, but I can see your point, especially in regards to prostition. Are you saying that the basis for our laws is us "making the right choices" and not morality? I didn't quite understand your sentence. Is an opposition to suicide primarily a "Christian" morality issue?

isn't morality a choice?

Good question. I believe there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong. For someone who does not believe in that concept, then morality does become just a series of choices. We just have a difference of opinion, that's all. We'll agree to disagee.

whether you believe there is absolute right and wrong has nothing to do with it. it's whether you choose to live by that belief that matters.

i can believe all day long that i will win the lottery, but whether i quit my job and make arrangements to buy extravagant items is my own choice.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16634

Comparing my belief in absolute right and wrong to a belief that you will win the lottery is like comparing apples to oranges. A more apt comparison would be a belief that a tornado will hit the United States next year. I cannot prove that one will hit, but at least there is a basis for believing that one will.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16636

I don't know, it seems that the belief that a tornado will strike the US next year is the same as the belief that someone will hit the lottery next year, neither has to happen, but the environment will exist for the possibility of both. Neither seems a good analogy for absolute right and wrong.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16648

MrSelf wrote: I don't know, it seems that the belief that a tornado will strike the US next year is the same as the belief that someone will hit the lottery next year, neither has to happen, but the environment will exist for the possibility of both. Neither seems a good analogy for absolute right and wrong.

His analogy was that HE would win the lottery, which is highly, highly unlikely, especially since he didn't specify that he would buy a ticket. His point seemed to be that it would be folly to actually act on that belief, and he was right. My analogy was a situation that, statistically speaking, is sure to happen. There is a very small chance that it might not be true, but people still need to be prepared for the likelihood of a tornado. Therefore, I thought it was a more apt analogy, but I'm not sure a perfect analogy for it even exists. His point about our actions being more important the basis for our actions has validity. The two of us could be obeying the law for two different reasons, but if we both obey the law, we'll get along great.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1296, old post ID:16660