To Live, Or Not To Live: That Is The Question
Terminal illnesses affect many people every year. Some patients simply cannot bear the pain. In 1994, Oregon passed the Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) which authorized physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients with only 6 months to live; this is referred to as physician assisted suicide. The DWDA consists of a list of procedures that a patient must undergo in order to receive assisted suicide. Once the patient has met all the requirements, the patient is given the lethal doses and passes away before the previous estimated time of death of six months.
However, in 1970, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was passed in order to regulate drugs. The CSA classified controlled substances into five different categories, schedule 1 being the worst substances. The U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that Oregon’s DWDA violated the CSA, and Ashcroft threatened to revoke medical licenses if assisted suicide was practiced. The questions at large is whether Ashcroft has the power to declare that the DWDA violated the CSA, whether State law can undermine Federal law, and can law take away a human’s right to life.
The District Court of Oregon issued an injunction against Ashcroft, and in favor of Oregon. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of Oregon but for different reasons than the District Court. The majority opinion did not think the statute gave Ashcroft authority to overrule how Oregon determined the appropriate use of medication that were not themselves prohibited.
The minority opinion argued that the ruling went against the reasoning in Gonzales v Raich and therefore the Sup...
... middle of paper ...
... speak for herself. Schiavo’s husband filed a motion to remove the feeding tube, but Schiavo’s parents argued she was conscious. The case was settled by previous case like the Cruzan v Missouri case which argued whether or not the Due Process clause permitted “Cruzan’s parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment on their daughter’s behalf” (oyez). The Cruzan case was ruled 5-4 in favor of Missouri because “under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights” (oyez). This ruling affected the Schiavo case because Schiavo’s parents and husband argued whether or not Terri Schiavo would have wanted to die. The final ruling for the Schiavo case was to remove the feeding tube because Terri Schiavo was able to communicate her wish to discontinue treatment. The Supreme Court upheld her decision as it is her right to refuse treatment.
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
481 U.S.C. 279. U.S. Supreme Court, 1987.
In February of 1990 a woman named Terri Schiavo collapsed at home suffering cardiac arrest in her home in St. Petersburg, Florida. She was resuscitated but had severe brain damage because she had no oxygen going to her brain for several minutes. Terri was severely brain damaged and in a vegetative state but could still breathe and maintain a heart beat on her own. After two and a half months and no signs of improvement, impaired vision, and the inability to move her arms and legs she needed a feeding tube to sustain her life since she seemed to be in a persistent vegetative state. For 2 years doctors attempted speech and physical therapy with no success. In 1998 Schiavos husband claimed she would not want to live in that quality of life without a prospect of recovery so he tried several times over the course of many years to pull the feeding tube so she could pass. Bob and Mary Schindler challenged and fought for a
Gonzales v. Oregon is a Supreme Court case that took place in 2005, with the verdict and dissenting opinions stated in January of 2006. The case is about the General Attorney’s ruling of a medical practice to be illegal. The Attorney General at the time was John Ashcroft, appointed under President George Bush Jr., who authorized that the usage of lethal doses of medicine on terminally-ill patients to be illegal under the Controlled Substance Act in 1970. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 is a federal United States drug policy which limits the usage of certain medications in a variety of ways. (Oyez, n.d.).
Did you know, about 57% of physicians today have received a request for physician assisted suicide due to suffering from a terminally ill patient. Suffering has always been a part of human existence, and these requests have been occurring since medicine has been around. Moreover, there are two principles that all organized medicine agree upon. The first one is physicians have a responsibility to relieve pain and suffering of dying patients in their care. The second one is physicians must respect patients’ competent decisions to decline life-sustaining treatment. Basically, these principles state the patients over the age of 18 that are mentally stable have the right to choose to end their life if they are suffering from pain. As of right now, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have legalized physician assisted suicide through legislation. Montana has legalized it via court ruling. The first Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) became effective in Oregon in 1997. Washington and Vermont later passed this act in 2009, and Montana passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 2008. One concern with physician assisted suicide is confusion of the patient’s wishes. To get rid of any confusion and provide evidence in case someone becomes terminally ill, people should make an advanced care plan. The two main lethal drugs that are used during physician assisted suicide are secobarbital and pentobarbital. Appropriate reporting is necessary when distributing these drugs and performing the suicide in order to publish an analysis. Studies found a large number of people accepted this procedure under certain circumstances; therefore, physician assisted suicide should be legal in the United States because terminally ill patients over the age of 18 that are...
Because the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against the removal of Nancy Cruzan’s artificial hydration and nutrition on the grounds that “clear and convincing” evidence of Nancy’s wishes was not provided, the Cruzan family appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court arguing that Nancy was being deprived of her right to refuse medical treatment. The Supreme Court ruling affirmed that competent patients have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but also noted that incompetent patients are not capable of exercising this right. Consequently, states may establish their own safe-guards to govern cases in which a substituted decision maker wishes to refuse treatment for an incompetent patient. This ruling therefore upheld the decision of Missouri’s Supreme Court.
America's War on Drugs: Policy and Problems. In this paper I will evaluate America's War on Drugs. More specifically, I will outline our nation's general drug history and look critically at how Congress has influenced our current ineffective drug policy. Through this analysis, I hope to show that drug prohibition policies in the United States, for the most part, have failed.
The historic case of Roe v. Wade was a pivotal case that changed the way the court system viewed a woman’s reproductive rights. To this day the topic of abortion has people torn between the legal rights of the woman and her right to choose what to do with her own body. This side is known as the pro- choice side. The other side of the debate wants to protect the moral rights of the fetus stating that the unborn child must have rights as well. The hard thing to do was to determine for some is when the life of the fetus can be considered a living person with rights. The state of Texas that was arguing on the rights for the fetus also known as the pro-life side. The state believed that the unborn child should have rights to life. For this reason
The Death with Dignity Act (hereafter DWDA) allows terminally ill patients who are Oregon residents to obtain and use the prescription from their physician to self-administer lethal medications. Under the Act, ending one’s life is in accordance with the law and does not constitute as suicide. The Death with Dign...
Cannabis, since its discovery, has been used for recreational and medical purposes. It was seen as a drug that was “safe” and did put the body at risk but benefited it. However, this is not the case anymore because the government under I Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 law banned the use of the narcotic and has the right to persecute anyone who attains the substance. Nonetheless, the question is not whether the drug is “safe” to use but whether the States should have the power to regulate marijuana or the federal government should continue having the control over the drug. Since 1996, 23 states including Washington D.C have passed laws that have legalized the medical use of marijuana, yet the federal government does not protect or even recognize the rights of users or possessors. The debate over marijuana has picked up momentum and many would agree that all this uprising conflict can be traced back to the constitution and the flaws it presents. The constitution is blamed for not properly distributing the States and Federal powers. Although the federal government currently holds supremacy over marijuana, States should have the power to regulate the drug because under the 10th amendment the federal government only has those powers specifically granted in the constitution, Likewise the States have the right to trade within their own state under the Commerce Clause.
"Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon ñ The Second Year." Amy D. Sullivan, Katrina Hedberg, David W. Fleming. The New England Journal of Medicine. February 24, 2000. v.342, n.8
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
In determining the ethicality of legalizing marijuana, it is necessary to understand the background of the issue, and to identify the most important stakeholders. In the 1930s, many states began outlawing the substance; ironically California was the first of these states (Rendon). In 1937, the federal government outlawed the substance, which pushed the growth and sale underground (Rendon). In 1970, President Nixon declared the substance a Schedule I Substance, which indicates that the substance has “a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use” (Controlled Substances Act). The federal government has specified that for marijuana to have an accepted medical use, it must “be subjected to the same rigorous clinical trials and scientific scrutiny that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applies to all other new medications” ("Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Marijuana"). There are numerous stakeholders in an ethical dilemma of this magnitude, which...
Glucksberg the right of physician assisted suicide is challenged. While not on the basis of if it was ok for the physician to assist but more so on the basis of is it legal to prescribe the amount of a drug needed to commit suicide. Washington presented a law to prohibit physician-assisted suicide. In turn was denied “ on the ground that it violated individuals, “right of privacy” and substantive liberty protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Chief Justice Rehnquist also delivered the courts opinion in this case. “The question presented in this case is whether Washington’s prohibition against “causing “ or “aiding” a suicide offends the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Which it does not. The choice of one person’s decision to end their life is constitutionally
Oregon passed the Death with Dignity law in 1994 and went into effect in 1997 (Death with Dignity, 2016). The death with dignity act is way for the terminally ill to end their suffering with the aid of a physician. It allows the terminally ill to die in a peaceful dignified manner. While it is a last ditch effort to end suffering the terminally ill do not choose to take their own life as a result of unanswered questions about their “meaningless” life. In fact they seem to have been able to find meaning while being diagnosed with a terminal illness. The terminally ill are in a different state of life. It is not a mental illness that is causing them to choose to end their life, but a disease that cannot be treated. It is important to understand the attitudes of this domain. Unlike Billy who was able to receive treatment and have a second chance at life a terminal patient will never have that opportunity. While the terminally also ill have the choice in divine intervention and hope, their likelihood of being saved will not ever come. There are two options in a medically assisted suicide: euthanasia and a physician-assisted suicide. The death is caused by a lethal drug prescription written by a physician. In a physician assisted suicide the patient directly takes the drug, while in euthanasia the physician commonly administers the drug in the dorm of