Reply
Thu 14 Jul, 2005 10:53 am
The righteous Christian right is at it again. The Schiavo case is barely behind us that the current Bush administration and its pundits are trying to save again a life against the express wishes of the person asking to die with dignity and the State law adopted through referendum in Oregon.
Jack's Death, His Choice
Quote:
(Excerpts)
Jack Newbold is a 59-year-old retired tugboat captain who is dying of bone cancer. It's one of the most painful cancers, and he doesn't want to put his wife and 17-year-old daughter through the trauma of caring for him as he loses control over his body.
So Mr. Newbold faces a wrenching choice in the coming weeks: should he fight the cancer until his last breath, or should he take a glass of a barbiturate solution prescribed by a doctor and put himself to sleep forever? He's leaning toward the latter.
"I've got less than six months to live," he said. "I don't want to linger and put my wife and family through this."
I don't know what I would do if I were Mr. Newbold, nor if I were his wife or daughter (they're both supporting him in any decision he makes). But I do believe that it should be their decision - not President Bush's.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is fighting to overturn the Oregon Death With Dignity law, which gives Mr. Newbold the option of hastening his death. Oregon voters twice passed referendums approving the law, which has been used since 1998, and it has wide support in the state.
The Bush administration issued an order that any doctor who issued a prescription under the state law would be prosecuted under federal law. Oregon won an injunction against the order, John Ashcroft lost an appeal, and now the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall.
"I'm just grateful I live in the state of Oregon, where we have this option," Mr. Newbold said. "I'm just sorry the John Ashcrofts of the world want to dictate not only how you live, but also how you die. There's nothing more personal, other than childbirth, than passing on."
Mr. Newbold faces an excruciating choice in the coming weeks, and he's got enough on his mind without the White House second-guessing him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/opinion/10Kristof.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20Kristof
How much of the State powers does the Bush administration want to invade. Shouldn't people be allowed to die with dignity as they choose?
I agree that it is none of anyones business. I am not sure the State should be involved in what is basicly assisted suicide either.
There are plenty of other ways this person could kill itself.
Hello woiyo
If you read the article I quoted you might have seen that the State is not really involved. It allows under strict guidelines doctors to prescribe lethal doses of non painful drugs to patients that choose to end their lives:
Quote:Two doctors must confirm that the patient has less than six months to live, and the patient must make three requests over at least 15 days. Typically, the drug is secobarbital - the powder is removed from the capsules and mixed into water or applesauce - or pentobarbital, which comes as a liquid. Patients typically slip into a coma five minutes after taking the medication and die within two hours.
Many patients who get the barbiturates do not in fact use them, but derive comfort from having the choice. Over all, 208 patients over seven years have used the law to hasten death, according to the Compassion in Dying Federation of Oregon, which helps patients work their way through the legal requirements.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/opinion/10Kristof.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20Kristof
The state is involved - the make sure that the laws are followed and they keep careful track of who uses the law. Doctors and the people who fill the prescriptions must report all instances to the state.
But the decision is strictly between the doctor and patient.
The recent rulings about medical marajuana show that the federal government is starting to pick out state laws that they feel violate federal laws -- that could spell trouble for Oregon's PAS law.
I hope it doesn't -- I voted in favor of PAS both times it was on the ballot.
PN - Sure the State is involved as Boomerang states. The State probably needs to oversee this.
Too bad there is not a political party of relavence in this country that actually defends individual and States rights. I would not blame this entirely on the current administration as the alternative party offers no advantage either.
When Clinton was in office the DEA tried to step in and prohibit the law and Janet Reno stopped them.
Then Ashcroft started trying again.
But this most certainly is not a Republican v. Democrat issue. I know many Republicans in favor and many Democrats against.
Our governer at the time was a Democrat and he opposed the law but as it had been put to two votes and the answer was clear that Oregonians wanted this option, he signed it into law.
I really do fear that the law is in danger - who knows what is going to happen with the Supreme Court.
Still though, doctors all over the country currently help their terminal patients die at their request. Outlawing didn't stop it in the past and it won't stop it in the future.
Just to give you an idea of how much the state is involved you can year each year's report on PAS here:
http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ar-index.shtml
They record all relevent demographics: marital status, level of education, insurance, age,race, disease, etc.
I think the state definately needs to administer such laws carefully.
Thanks Boomerang for your input. While it might not appear as a partisan issue, the last show in the Shiavo case appeared so.
Hello wyiao
I didn't mean that in some respect such as matters of control of the process the State didn't have a say. I meant that it still remained within a patient-doctor relationship. The state issued some legal requirements that in effect protect the doctors and allow the patients access to dignity in dying as he so chooses.
PAS wouldn't have had any effect at all in a case like Terry Shiavo's though.
In the upper eschelons of power Shiavo certainly was partisian but I think among the rank and file it wasn't so much.
I think the Republicans have squeakier wheels and more grease than the Democrats do!
Re: Right to Die -- State Death With Dignity Law -- Whit
pngirouard wrote:The righteous Christian right is at it again. The Schiavo case is barely behind us that the current Bush administration and its pundits are trying to save again a life against the express wishes of the person asking to die with dignity and the State law adopted through referendum in Oregon.
Jack's Death, His Choice
Quote:
(Excerpts)
Jack Newbold is a 59-year-old retired tugboat captain who is dying of bone cancer. It's one of the most painful cancers, and he doesn't want to put his wife and 17-year-old daughter through the trauma of caring for him as he loses control over his body.
So Mr. Newbold faces a wrenching choice in the coming weeks: should he fight the cancer until his last breath, or should he take a glass of a barbiturate solution prescribed by a doctor and put himself to sleep forever? He's leaning toward the latter.
"I've got less than six months to live," he said. "I don't want to linger and put my wife and family through this."
I don't know what I would do if I were Mr. Newbold, nor if I were his wife or daughter (they're both supporting him in any decision he makes). But I do believe that it should be their decision - not President Bush's.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is fighting to overturn the Oregon Death With Dignity law, which gives Mr. Newbold the option of hastening his death. Oregon voters twice passed referendums approving the law, which has been used since 1998, and it has wide support in the state.
The Bush administration issued an order that any doctor who issued a prescription under the state law would be prosecuted under federal law. Oregon won an injunction against the order, John Ashcroft lost an appeal, and now the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall.
"I'm just grateful I live in the state of Oregon, where we have this option," Mr. Newbold said. "I'm just sorry the John Ashcrofts of the world want to dictate not only how you live, but also how you die. There's nothing more personal, other than childbirth, than passing on."
Mr. Newbold faces an excruciating choice in the coming weeks, and he's got enough on his mind without the White House second-guessing him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/opinion/10Kristof.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20Kristof
How much of the State powers does the Bush administration want to invade. Shouldn't people be allowed to die with dignity as they choose?
For clarification, is your bitch with infringement on States' rights or on the right of an individual to kill him or herself?
Hello Finn.
Neither one as stated. And nor do I like the "bitch" characterization of the subject of the thread.
The right to die with dignity was the primary topic and the Bush administration propensity to meddle with it. Then obviously State's rights versus federal intrusions.
pngirouard wrote:Hello Finn.
Neither one as stated. And nor do I like the "bitch" characterization of the subject of the thread.
The right to die with dignity was the primary topic and the Bush administration propensity to meddle with it. Then obviously State's rights versus federal intrusions.
I regret that you took offense with my use of "bitch." Perhaps it would have been more acceptible if I had used "objection," "argument," or "beef."
In any case, I find it amusing that the Left (of which I assume, based on past encounters, that you are a member) would find it so convenient to argue in favor (even secondarily) of States rights, when virtually every political gain they have achieved as been thanks to the federal level of government.
But, I'm with you. Let's leave the legalization of abortion to the States.
I don't know. This is rough.
I read 'An Appointment with Doctor Death,' a biography of Jack Kevorkian, last year for a book report that was supposed to be about someone who had the career we wanted when we grew up; my teacher didn't find it funny. Nevertheless, I learned a lot about his procedures for assisted suicide and why he took so firm a stance on the right-to-die issue, and afterwards I found that I actually agreed with him.
Assisted suicide, and the right do die, should be granted, but only in very specific cases, and when certain chriteria have been met. Only terminally ill patients, or patients with incurable diseases that cause frequent and excruciating pain, who have tried all methods of cure and relief, can even be considered. Then, afterwards, it is only after numerous counseling sessions and psychiatric therapy attempts and the agreement of family members and the victim himself in print that the doctor can administer the killing dosage of the toxin, which incidentally ends life quickly, quietly, and painlessly.
Assuming all of this is true, a patient should be able to commit medicinal suicide, or be taken off life support if the case calls for it.
The patients whose lives were ended by Jack Kevorkian were all people who had tried all methods of rehabilitation and were insistent upon the ending of their own lives, even after many people, including Kevorkian himself, tried to steer them away from this course.
Whether it should be the state's right or the federal government's to decide whether this process should be legal doesn't strike me as being important. If it is, could someone smack me upside the head with something large and cumbersome and explain why?
pngirouard wrote:The right to die with dignity was the primary topic and the Bush administration propensity to meddle with it. Then obviously State's rights versus federal intrusions.
The Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965 created the Federal nightmare that allowed the Federal government to intervene in the decisions of a doctor when it come to what drugs can be prescribed and in what doses.
Why is Ashcroft being blamed for enforcing a law that's been on the books for 40 years and his precedessor gets a pat on the back for ignoring them? If you want PAS and medical MJ then push to have the FDAs regulatory authority rescinded and eliminate the Federal intrusion into states affairs and emove the AGs only legal argument in these cases at the same time.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace