How, then, can the federal government now adjust its penalties under the Controlled Substances Act to confirm and enforce Oregon's discriminatory policy on assisted suicide -- where the vulnerable condition of the victim turns a crime into a "legitimate medical practice"? Any "states' rights" argument on this issue is contradicted by the plain language and intent of the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Euthanasia involves a physician actively injecting a patient with a legal drug in order to end life (Engdahl 16). However, this is not the case when it comes to physician-assisted suicide. According to “Assisted Suicide Overview” by Lee Stingl and M. Alexander, physician-assisted suicide is any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide. Typically this is done by providing access to a lethal dose of medication, which the patient then self-administers. In other words, physician-assisted suicide is when a physician helps a patient end their own life by prescribing lethal drugs (Engdahl 16).
Glucksberg claimed that Washington 's ban was unlawful. Glucksberg felt while working with terminally ill patients that he would be up for assisting them end their lives rather than allowing patients to go through the excruciating terminal pain should be able to end their lives rather than living a life full of pain. The District Court agreed with Glucksberg, however the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not agree. At that point, in the wake of rehearing the case en banc, the Ninth Circuit turned around the prior board and certified the District Court 's case. The case was contended before the United States Supreme Court on January 8, 1997.
in Lachman 121). Physician-Assisted Suicide is what it says, suicide. In the United States the controversy of the “Right to die” is not new. According to Vicki D. Lachman a Clinical Associate Professor, after the Supreme Court decision in 1997, it was determined that there is not a constitutional right to die. The Supreme Court is allowing states to pass laws to legalize Physician-Assisted Suicide.
The means, to which he refers, is a toxic substance and the directions for administration, which will produce death. Humphry argues for legal reform in order to make such acts lawful, calling them: "...the ultimate civil liberty, the freedom to select one's own manner of dying without interference from others, but with help if we choose." My academic research on Minerva 2000 produced 0 hits on the topic: US Practice of Physician-Assisted Suicide. Certainly, the three types of presently legal and justifiable grounds for assisting other people in taking their lives which Humphry enumerates, all exclude freedom, free will or civil liberty. Why haven't the US Legislature, and the US medical community chosen to legislate and practice PAS on behalf of patient rights to exercise free will and autonomy?
In “Euthanizing Life,” John F. Kavanaugh discusses an anorexic patient who was illegally euthanized and presents Judge Miner’s offered opinion based on equal protection of the law. In “Why Physicians? Reflections on the Netherlands’ New Euthanasia Law,” Welie introduces the audience to the origin of the law and states his opposition to it. The next few paragraphs describe the history of article 40 of the Dutch penal code and how it excused physicians from euthanizing at a time when it was illegal. “Article 40 waives the liability to punishment for anyone who commits a crime while compelled to do so by force majeure, that is, by a psychological or moral force so strong that the perpetrator could not resist it” (Welie 42).
Many people argue that “forcing the welfare recipient to concede to waive their rights to random drug testing is unconstitutional and could be considered, blackmail.”(Drug Testing American Civil Liberties Union). Then one should ask why is it okay to require people to consent to drug testing for many types of occupations such as fire departments, police departments, emergency medical departments and the U.S. military? Under the new law, people applying for Utah’s Family Employment Program (FEP) — part of the federally funded Temporary Aid For Needy Families (TANF) — must take the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory or SASSI test, a tool that identifies individuals who have a high probability of addictive behavior. Each SASSI costs One dollar and twenty five cents— totaling Five thousand, nine hundred twelve dollars and fifty cents for four thousand, seven hundred thirty applicants. The actual drug testing cost twenty five thousand, six hundred fifty-four for a combined total of thirty one thousand, five hundred sixty-six dollars and fifty cents.
10-16-00 In the article that I chose there are two opposing viewpoints on the issue of “Should Human Cloning Ever Be Permitted?” John A. Robertson is an attorney who argues that there are many potential benefits of cloning and that a ban on privately funded cloning research is unjustified and that this type of research should only be regulated. On the flip side of this issue Attorney and medical ethicist George J. Annas argues that cloning devalues people by depriving them of their uniqueness and that a ban should be implemented upon it. Both express valid points and I will critique the articles to better understand their points. John A. Robertson’s article “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation” raises three important reasons on why there shouldn’t be a ban on Human Cloning but that it should be regulated. Couples who are infertile might choose to clone one of the partners instead of using sperm, eggs, or embryo’s from anonymous donors.
357). He argues Bishop Sullivan’s essay on legalizing euthanasia; the slippery-slope: if a killing was allowed, it would make the world a bad place. According to Philippa Foot, she thinks that active euthanasia is morally right in some individual case (Luper and Brown, p. 358). Active euthanasia should be acceptable because elderly or ill people who are suffering and wants to put an end to their life. However, according to Rachel, he says that “we ought to enforce a rigorous rule against it.” (Luper and Brown, p. 358).
The choice of physician assisted suicide may be an irrelevant issue to some, but when it comes to terminally ill patients, it is definitely an observable option. These people must realize that taking a life, whether someone else’s or their own, is dishonorable. Assisted suicide should be against the law in all states because it would have an affect on medical procedures, persuade doctors to make the wrong decisions, and change the morality of people around the country. The people of this country are partially represented by the United States Supreme Court. In fact, the United States Supreme Court is going to become the final judge of this important issue because two United States Court of Appeals decisions have recently ruled laws forbidding physician-assisted suicide unconstitutional (Court 1).