The Right to Die Has Been Upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court!
Posted by kennc at 05:13, 18 Jan 2006http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the state of Oregon's assisted suiside law by a vote of 6 to 3! Alito's vote would not have made a difference! It is a great day!
What do you think?
kennc
Bookmark/Search this post with
- kennc's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
2 March 2005
5 years 18 weeks
Too often in human history, especially the last 26 years, governments and religious authorities have deprived individuals of their inalienable rights. Today an inalienable right of individuals has been returned to individuals! It ia a great day!
What do you think?
kennc
30 April 2004
5 hours 42 min
Hi KennC,
I've edited your title to remove the all upper-case. This is commonly considered to be SHOUTING in internet communities, and is not a desired way of announcing a title. Thanks.
Peace and Respect
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
2 March 2005
5 years 18 weeks
Greg
I wasn't thinking. It will not happen again. And, thank-you for editing it.
kennc
22 February 2005
4 years 10 weeks
I can take the ear plugs out now.....Greg turned the volume down!!!!
This is a very interesting outcome. Do these doctors leave themselves open for future incrimination???? If you were to prescribe a lethal dose of anything.....then you are liable for the death.
The doctor death trials in Australia and the subsiquint law changeing was due to polititions to scared to face a sensitive subject.
Doctor death suplied the equipment and the knowledge on how to use it. Therefore it was a chose of the person. BUT to have a doctor prescribe a lethal dose and then administer it could open doors to mis use or application.
What do you think....;-{)
DISCLAIMER: the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and are not those of others or of TDG. Any similarities are by chance only.
2 March 2005
5 years 18 weeks
thefloppy2
Firstly, murder is not and never has been a federal crime in the United States, except under very specific circumstances! And then, technically the charge usually isn't murder, i.e. treason, sedition, civil rights violations, etc..
Secondly, This law perscribes a proceedure that must be followed. The patient and/or the patient's family must opt for the right to die. No Doctor in Oregon can initiate this proceedure. When a patient and/or a patient's family opts for this inalienable right and after proper proceedure has been followed, an Oregon Doctor is allowed to administer a lethal does of medicine.
Thirdly, this was a test case brought by the U.S. Government to determine the Constitutionality of the law. The Constitutionality was upheld and, as such, the law is valid. Before the U.S. Supreme Court made its decision, the law was valid. If the Supreme Court had not upheld the law, the Doctors would not have been opened to future incrimination; because, the law was valid at the time that they assisted in the suicides.
Fourthly, This is a victory for the inalienable rights of people! The right to die is an inalienable right!
What do you think?
kennc
2 March 2005
5 years 18 weeks
thefloppy2
The fact that the substance abuse led to the death of patients would have made the penalty more sever; but, they would not have been charged with murder. The substance abuse charges would probably have been overturned by the court if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way; because, the Doctors were obeying a Oregon law and they were lisenced to administer the substances.
kennc
24 April 2005
1 year 36 weeks
But maybe Kennc thinks that's great news and something to shout about? We already get enuff censorship from our beloved leaders, I never thought it'd be practiced here... ~Inkslinger
30 April 2004
5 hours 42 min
Well, there's censorship, and then there's sensible moderation and advice to keep some form. Anarchy is not the best way to operate a forum (despite it apparently being quite popular).
Peace and Respect
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
2 March 2005
5 years 18 weeks
Dorenob
I really appreciate your comment and I really did feel like shouting the news from the roof tops! But, it wasn't very nice of me to shout! I feel bad about doing it and I'm mad at myself for not exerting more self-control! But, it was very nice of you to come to my defence! Thank-you very much!
kennc
26 February 2005
2 years 29 weeks
Thank God, someone is getting it together. We discussed this a bit ago, the right to die and assisted passing. I am very happy. I hope others are to follow.
I am glad I know now about the Caps....but, is that on all titles or can some caps be on for a few words to emphasize since there is not a bold function?
I do not know protocol ....
So, if I were to write a title , I am not to put it in caps? But, is it OK to put a few words in caps? I know I do that at times...
I would like to know...I mean , I can see it as shouting if you are using angry language, or rudeness, but, I am not quite sure where the limits or line is drawn, it could prove to be embarrassing...
So, maybe you can write what is acceptable and what is not so that we can know. I have probably shouted and not known it...I mean I know in a few of my posts I use caps on words and then I did on titles at times, but, please, could you explain a bit more..
Sorry to get off track of dieing and it being legal to do so...I guess there are two topics running here.
Shoot, I never even logged off from when I was on here before I just noticed....
Ok, thanks, just if you could give a few examples like
The MOON was so bright it was BEAUTIFUL....
YOU SORRY SON OF A GUN......
HEY, Check this out !
OK, OK, Things are allright now...
If all humans were created in the eyes of GOD would that mean we would all be GODS? Or just CLONES?
Would that be considered shouting?
Thanks,
Colette
Dr. Colette M. Dowell ND
Circular Times
Moving Forward Publications
22 February 2005
4 years 10 weeks
SHOUTING.....mmmm, well its not really a protocol. It is something that has grown over time on the net. Started in chat rooms and spilled over to forums and now blogs. Its not a case of emphizing a word as such but more to do with conveying emotion online in real time.
Forums and blogs are not real time so maybe it dosen't apply here.
But when chatting in real time it is a very good way to convey how you are feeling about something right then and there. It makes it a little more like talking to someone face to face. BOLD would be better but you can see how that would not work in a chat room. But now they have emoticons so you do not need to use caps in chat rooms.
Clear as mud.
DISCLAIMER: the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and are not those of others or of TDG. Any similarities are by chance only.
1 May 2004
6 weeks 1 day
Hi Kennc,
What do i think ? I think when did we loose the right to die, why does it need high court confirmation ? What do i see ? I see a cynical smiling george bush saying " You all have the right to die ! ( and we'll decide how and when, haha)"
It saddens me this right to die, and its incorrect it should be ... right to termination ( time and method).
" do unto others as you would have them do unto you "
2 March 2005
5 years 18 weeks
toxilogic
We are in agreement! But, in reality, the Supreme Court is necessary and no President has ever been able to control the Supreme Court. To paraphrase the word of Sir Winston Churchill, Up with that, the Supreme Court will not put! The legal dam has been breeched and the flood gates are being forced open. By the end of the year, atleast 18 states will have `Right to Die` laws, as well as, other laws that will prevent the imfringement of other Inalienable Rights. The 6 to 3 vote in the Supreme Court was a message to George Bush! It told him that his nominee wasn't going to change anything! Chief Justice Roberts didn't bother to write a desenting opinion, very interesting! I think that things are about to change drastically!
What do you think?
kennc
16 July 2005
3 years 16 weeks
A few observations...
1. It is, perhaps, a good day but not a "great" day. It would be a "great" day if we in the United States actually took politicians seriously.
2. The actual vote may have been 6-3 but the decision was 7-2. Justice Thomas came directly to the point when he dissented by noting that the US Supreme Court had only recently "decided" this issue in its ruling on the California Medical Marihuana law and that this earlier decision flies directly in the face of the present Oregon decision (access to Thomas' dissent is in the sidebar to the Washington Post article). In essence he is saying that the US Supreme Court is also bound by its decisions and is not allowed to rule by whim or convenience.
3. It is sad (and enlightening) that neither the majority decision nor the dissenting decisions touched on the 9th and 10th ammendments to the US Constitution.
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
A plain reading of these amendments clearly indicates that the states (California and Oregon) and the people (those in these states who proposed and ratified their respective laws) have the right of interpretation and implementation. The US Attorney General does not.
For TDG readers and supporters outside of the US, I agree that our governance is confusing at best and frightening at worst. I apoligize for your consternation and confusion.
However, you may take some comfort in knowing that most Americans don't take our government all that seriously. What it forbids today, it will require tomorrow. We call this annoyance, "the cost of doing business".
In short, expect the Oregon "Right To Die" decision to open the door to revisiting the California "Medical Marihuana" decision promptly followed by a major Donnybrook over the "Real ID Act". This is how we amuse ourselves when there is nothing good on television.
Michael Scott
An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoil
2 March 2005
5 years 18 weeks
Michael
I agree! This decision is, however, a step in the right direction. If politicians in the United States would start taking the People seriously, as well as, the Constitution, the People might start taking them seriously. The problem, in my opinion, is that Politicians in the United States don't take the People seriously and they walk on the Constitution. And, this being the case in my opinion, why should the people take them seriously?
What do you think?
kennc
16 July 2005
3 years 16 weeks
Kennc,
You ask, "why should the people take them [Politicians] seriously?".
Aside from the fact that they have the guns, control the money and operate the courts, I cannot think of a single reason to take them seriously (tongue planted firmly in creek).
On a somewhat more serious note, your summary of the relationship between the American people and our governments is precise, concise and well worthy of others' notice.
Perhaps if former Governor Davis (California) had the benefit of your insight he might still be Governor. Hmmmm. Perhaps we should keep this little secret to ourselves.
Michael Scott
An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoil
2 March 2005
5 years 18 weeks
Michael Scott
It's our secret! But maybe, we can tell our friends on `TDG`(tongue planted firmly in cheek).
What do you think?
kennc