High Court Weighs in on Assisted Suicide (Oregon's Death with Dignity Law)

[kostya]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051005/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_assisted_suicide;_ylt=AqD_XiToGteepKcgbT.0ZHGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

WASHINGTON - Newly installed Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday sharply questioned a lawyer arguing for preservation of Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, noting the federal government's tough regulation of addictive drugs.


The 50-year-old Roberts, hearing his first major oral argument since succeeding William H. Rehnquist at the helm of the court, seemed skeptical of the Oregon law, and the outcome of this case was as unclear after the argument as before.

At the outset, Roberts laid a barrage of questions on Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson before he could finish his first sentence.


There's no question in my mind how this goes down if Miers is put in place in the SCOTUS. As an Oregonian, I highly resent Aschroft's and now Gonzales' meddling here. - K

[TheFarseer]

1. Didn't they learn their lesson from Shiavo?

I hope their continued meddling will kill them at the ballot box next year. They are walking a tight rope trying to keep fundies happy and keep normal people from thinking they are out of their minds. I don't think it's working. They are only succeeding in pissing off both groups.

[AndyTiedye]

28. Yes. The Lesson They Learned Is "Have the Supreme Court Do It"

That way, we can't do anything about it.

[nvliberal]

32. Re Schiavo.

Once again most liberals didn't understand why the federal government intervened, with BOTH Democrats and Republicans voting for it.

It was a chance for somebody to represent Terri Schiavo's interests, which were NOT, repeat NOT, represented throughout all the litigation.

It wasn't butting into anything, and unfortunately again, most liberals didn't understand the case AT ALL and had a total tin ear to the issues involved.

They were too obsessed with the right-to-lifers supporting the Schindlers to even care about what really was the issue.

Her civil rights were violated, and unfortunately we have flaws in guardianship laws and such which make it too easy for relatives with obvious conflicts-of-interest to kill off the profoundly disabled.

[TheFarseer]

42. I only understand

that she was dead for all practical purposes and a handful of people couldn't accept that. It's a sad thing to have happened, but they have to let her go. There are better things to spend our money on (and ultimately it is our money with Medicaid and all that). There are plenty of people who have hopes of a full recovery that that money could be spent on. Vegetables with no hope of recovery should be cut loose. It only prolongs their agony and delays their entrance into heaven. This issue was to fire up the conservative base, pure and simple. Remember Tom Delay pulled the plug on his own vegetable father so anything he has to say on this is disingenuous at best. I imagine that to be true with most of them.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

43. How many judges and doctors need to rule an individual

brain dead?

"Brain dead" is not disabled, it is dead for all practical purposes.

[BootinUp]

53. Used to be

one doctor didn't question another on diagnosis, especially if all you got is a video to question it.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

55. Yea, that was before self proclaimed Super Frist,

who didn't know if spit could transmit the HIV virus, decided to make a diagnosis based on some small amount of videotape.

Without knowing how much more videotape there was or how representative it was of all the videotape.

:dunce:
Frist

[Zhade]

56. Your second line is wrong, or a lie.

NT!

[napi21]

2. I think you're reading more into this questioning than you should.

I've listened, many times, to the reporters talking about the questions asked by the ddifferent justices on the SC in past cases. The end of their analysis is always the same. You just couldn't tell which way they were leaning by what questions were asked.

Roberts plead quqite a few cases before the Sc in the past, and he knows how to do just that! Don't tip your hand.

I'm just hoping the cases they're hearing NOW are ruled on before O'Connor leaves. I heard one reporter say that THIS case was important enough that the SC wouldn't let it be decided by just 8 justices and would be reargued after the new justice too the seat.


If Shrub cam walking by me, I'd....

[kostya]

6. OK, we'll see, but my point was really concerning Miers.

I think there's no question that her fundie born-again values would prejudice her to vote to strike down Oregon's law, even though the arguments they are using (federal control of drug dispensing) is totally irrelevant to both the purpose of the law and the issue of states rights. - K

[stevedeshazer]

3. Next up - Medical Marijuana

:grr:

[Gloria]

4. Wouldn't let the guy finish his first sentence? Jeebus....

eob

[saigon68]

7. HE'S AN ARROGANT THUG AND DISRESPECTFUL

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissB]

9. Welcome to DU

enjoy your stay.

[FrankLee]

11. Thanks. Is that sincere, or sarcastic??

It's hard to tell sometimes. They deleted my message. Why? What did I say?

[MissB]

14. Quite sincere.

One suggestion: read the rules, especially the ones concerning use of certain words.

If you're still unsure as to why your message was deleted, email the admins.

This is a great, progressive message board. :hi:

[FrankLee]

16. certain words ....

I wish I could remember my exact post. I don't think it was offensive in the least...

"But they said he was nice, and mild-mannered...

and something about this being the first case he's examined or the first case discussed.

Do you think I would get an answer if I emailed an admin?

[MissB]

18. Yes, you would.

Emailing the admins would be the best course of action.

[saigon68]

12. adios

[FrankLee]

13. Trying to remember exactly what I wrote here....

to get deleted...didn't seem as bad as "He's a thug and disrespectful" but I am getting old and the brain sometimes has a hard time remembering everything...

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissB]

19. well...

not to beat a dead horse here, but it is best to email the moderator if you feel that your post was deleted in error. If you go to the lobby, you'll see that under each board (Late Breaking News, General Discussion, Lounge) there are moderators listed. Click on one of the names listed for the specific board where the message was deleted and you'll be able to post a message to them.

There was a word that you used in your post. It happens to be one of the words specifically against the rules. It coarsely describes a piece of female anatomy.

[FrankLee]

22. oh, oh, oh, THAT

Did I use that Republic---s here? I know I've used it on other boards with no problem. I really don't remember using it here, because I tend to jump around between boards, but I'll take your word for it that I did.

I did email the Mod/Admin with no reply.

Thanks for responding.

[Miss Chybil]

5. Again, in upside-down world, Republicans don't believe in state's rights.

Learn to walk on your hands. Things are like that, now.

[central scrutinizer]

10. addictive drugs? for somebody with days to live?

excuse me, but isn't that ridiculous?

[ninkasi]

24. It's not only ridiculous

Yes, it is extremely ridiculous. In addition to being ridiculous, it is also mean spirited and cruel. Very often, the only way to control excruciating pain is to increase the medication to the point of causing death. If the patient only has a few days left to live, why, in the name of common decency, is it so important to be sure that those days are spent in unrelenting agony, in order to prevent "addiction" to a drug they won't live long enough to get addicted to?

This is one of the things that angers me so much about some conservatives, that they are willing to condemn another human being to the torture of extreme pain, just because they get on their moral high horse and cite their beliefs in the sanctity of life. If life is, indeed, sacred, then the responsibility of whether to continue to live under some conditions should be left to the one whose life it is.

[central scrutinizer]

27. It's all about the money

Repugs don't want anybody to die until their assets have been completely vacuumed up, including their house, which they will lose because they took out all of the equity, maxed out all of their credit cards and can't declare bankruptcy anymore.

[Judi Lynn]

17. Partisans Press Case on Assisted Suicide

Partisans Press Case on Assisted Suicide
By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, October 5, 2005

(10-05) 12:52 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Gayle Hafner, a member of "Not Dead Yet," a group that opposes assisted suicide, came to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to express her feelings about an Oregon law permitting physician-assisted suicide, a law the Bush administration opposes.

The woman from Towson, Md., said failure to ban the practice could justify killing anyone who is not able-bodied or suffers from a disability.

"They are treating (patients) as a commodity," she said.

There were demonstrators representing both sides as the Supreme Court considered the law.
(snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/10/05/national/w125246D21.DTL

[Ayesha]

20. I used to like Not Dead Yet, but

The idea that the Oregon law will lead to the deaths of people with disabilities is ridiculous. It specifies that to receive physician-assisted suicide one must have a terminal illness AND be likely to die anyway within a short period of time. There are a lot of safety measures in the law to protect the patient from pressure from family members, etc. It simply couldn't be applied to the people NDY represents.

[KamaAina]

23. Many people with disabilities don't think it's ridiculous

I know someone down on the Big Island who uses a wheelchair. She tells me that people come up to her all the time and say, out loud, "I'd rather be dead than be like you"! And this is in Kona, not Freeperville. :puke: What if one of the people who said that ended up as her doctor? :scared: And think, for everyone who's rude enough to actually say that to someone, there must be ten or twenty people who are thinking it to themselves... :puke:

Marilyn Golden from the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund in Berkeley has this penetrating analysis of why assisted suicide is wrong, written from a progressive point of view. I have met Marilyn, and she's at least as progressive as I am, despite a disconcerting habit of working with right-to-lifers around this particular issue.

http://www.dredf.org/assistedsuicide.html

The very small number of people who may benefit from legalizing assisted suicide will tend to be affluent, white, and in possession of good health insurance coverage. At the same time, large numbers of people, particularly among those less privileged in society, would be at significant risk of harm....

Perhaps the most significant problem is the deadly mix between assisted suicide and profit-driven managed health care. Again and again, health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and managed care bureaucracies have overruled physicians'treatment decisions. These actions have sometimes hastened patients' deaths. The cost of the lethal medication generally used for assisted suicide is about $35 to $50, far cheaper than the cost of treatment for most long-term medical conditions. The incentive to save money by denying treatment already poses a significant danger. This danger would be far greater if assisted suicide is legal....

The deadly impact of legalizing assisted suicide would fall hardest on socially and economically disadvantaged people who have less access to medical resources and who already find themselves discriminated against by the health care system. As Paul Longmore, Professor of History at San Francisco State University and a foremost disability advocate on this subject, has stated, "Poor people, people of color, elderly people, people with chronic or progressive conditions or disabilities, and anyone who is, in fact, terminally ill will find themselves at serious risk" (Longmore, 1999).

[kostya]

25. Again, this is slippery slope talk with no specific arguments

related to the Oregon law, therefore it's irrelevant on the surface. It's just vague fear-mongering with no data to back it up. - K

[KamaAina]

29. The Oregon law is discussed specifically further into the piece

Assisted suicide proposals and Oregon's law are based on the faulty assumption that it is possible to make a clear distinction between those who are terminally ill with six months to live, and everyone else. Everyone else is supposedly protected and not eligible for assisted suicide. But it is extremely common for medical prognoses of a short life expectancy to be wrong. Studies show that only cancer patients show a predictable decline, and even then, it's only in the last few weeks of life. With every disease other than cancer, there is no predictability at all (Lamont, 1999; Maltoni, 1994; Christakis and Iwashyna, 1998; Lynn, 1997). Prognoses are based on statistical averages, which are nearly useless in predicting what will happen to an individual patient. Thus, the potential effect of assisted suicide is extremely broad, far beyond the supposedly narrow group its proponents claim. The affected group could include many people who may be mistakenly diagnosed as terminal but who have many meaningful years of life ahead of them....

Neither do other alleged safeguards offer any real protections. In Oregon's law and similar proposals, physicians are not permitted to write a lethal prescription under inappropriate conditions that are defined in the law. This is seen as a "safeguard." But in several Oregon cases, suicidal patients engaged in "doctor shopping." When the first physician each of these patients approached refused to comply with the request for assisted suicide because the patient didn't meet the conditions of the law, the patient sought out another physician who agreed. The compliant physicians were often assisted suicide advocates. Such was the case of Kate Cheney, age 85, as described in The Oregonian in October 1999. Her physician refused to prescribe lethal medication, because he thought the request, rather than being Ms. Cheney's free choice, actually resulted from pressure by her assertive daughter who felt burdened with care giving. So the family found another doctor, and Ms. Cheney soon used the prescribed drugs and died.

Another purported safeguard is that physicians are required to discuss alternatives to assisted suicide. However, there is no requirement that these alternatives be made available. Kate Cheney's case exemplifies this. Further, the Kate Cheney case demonstrates the shocking laxness with which safeguards in Oregon are being followed. Ms. Cheney decided to take the lethal medication after spending just a week in a nursing home, to give her family a break from caretaking. The chronology shows that Cheney felt she had only three choices: burdening her family, the hell of a nursing home, or death.

[nosmokes]

30. many of us with disabilities want this option.

so please, don't be speaking for me, ok? if i can have the fucking humsnity to put my dog down because her her quality of life has so degraded that it isn't worth bothering with anymore, then i should damn well have that same option for myself w/o having to do omething like doctor shop for the drugs or go get street drugs or some such bullshit. why shouldn't my doc b able to write a scrip and allow me the dignity to make my own choice? in my own time? if you don't believe in suicide, physician assisted or otherwise, then don't take your own life. but leave me the option to do what's right for me, ok?

[kostya]

21. Gayle Haffner is probably not being honest about her reasons

for opposing the law.

The constraints on who can take advantage of it are pretty strict and it is well-supervised. It's up to the patient and not put upon anyone against their will. I suspect Ms. H. has another agenda and tries to use this slippery slope argument that makes it sound like people are being ordered killed by physicians as simply a scare tactic.

The people choosing to end their own life on their terms are people who are terminally ill, with no hope for recovery, and suffering terribly. The law has worked well for the past several years and all the "horrible" consequences that opponents brought up have been disproven.

The issue here all revolves around compassion, something the RW'rs seem only to pay lip service to.

:grouphug:

[Ayesha]

26. Exactly

I have a serious physical disability, so I do have concerns about assisted suicide, but I also think it's possible to construct laws narrowly enough to allow the truly dying to end their suffering without disabled people being put to death.

[nvliberal]

31. I totally agree with the disability rights groups in opposing

this piece of trash legislation.

People have the right to kill themselves already. Nobody's stopping them.

The problem is getting the medical community involved in assisting it, and given our current health care system, you KNOW where this is headed.

First it's "voluntary," and then it becomes INvoluntary.

I am against it, as anybody who is a thinking progressive/liberal would be.

Most people who support this crap aren't thinking this issue through.

[nosmokes]

41. don't tell me i'm not thinking it through, i'm living it.

it's a personal choice, and i would want my physician involved because she's the expert. sure, i could grab a pistol and do the job, what a great gift to leave my wife and family. see, that's my point. you know zip about my situation, it ain't none of your bidnes. it's between me and mine and my doctor. period.

[sandnsea]

62. So sorry

I hope there's a chance for recovery?? I live in Florence. I was skeptical at first, I think I even voted against it. But I was wrong, this is a good law. There's no reason to extend people's suffering.

[oldcoot]

60. We are already there

Under the leadership of George Bush, the state of Texas passed a law allowing hospitals to decide whether or not to terminate the care of "hopeless cases" without the consent of their family members. I personally find this law far more repulsive than the Oregon law and wonder why the Texas law has not sparked more outraged.

[sandnsea]

63. Ain't that the truth

It sure is an upside down world.

[sandnsea]

61. 200 deaths in 8 years

You couldn't be more wrong. It just isn't happening. People have to be of sound mind and have to administer the medication themselves. They have to talk to two doctors. All the doctor does is prescribe the medication. It isn't like Kervorkian at all. And people aren't being pressured into killing themselves because they're medical burdens and all the rest. Turns out, most people love their parents and want them around as long as they are comfortable to be around.

[MindLikeAParachute]

33. High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide (Roberts aggressive)

WASHINGTON - New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives.
...
It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer.
...
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has had colon cancer, talked about medicines that make a sick person's final moments more comfortable.
David Souter, in an emotional moment, said that it's one thing for the government to ban date rape drugs and harmful products but "that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here."
...
Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. He interrupted Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson in his first minute, then asked more than a dozen more tough questions.
...
"I was wondering if the new chief would hold back and wouldn't ruffle other people's feathers. It appears clear he's not waiting for anything or anyone," said Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke University and a former Supreme Court clerk.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051005/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_assisted_suicide;_ylt=Av_586dWyIqTw5yI2.Kdp86s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[bemildred]

34. Deeply concerned about personal liberty, I see. nt

[Arugula Latte]

35. Fuck you, Roberts.

May you die a slow, painful death and beg for mercy in your final months -- to no avail.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

36. Feds attacking state's rights. Activist judges overturning laws.

The repubs scream about such things, don't they.:sarcasm:

[HockeyMom]

37. Teri Schiavo Law Next?

Ban Living Wills which go against "god's laws"? All brain dead people MUST be kept alive indefinitely using all artificial means possible?

This is what happens when judges impose their religious views on cases.

[castiron]

38. And will Roberts so vigorously defend the feds

when environmental laws kick into high gear under the future progressive leadership in D.C., oh, say, circa 2010?

[AX10]

39. So Roberts is already looking to be a "FundiFacsist" on his first case.

:eyes:

POS!

[brentspeak]

40. Roberts asking aggresive questions offends me

Simply because he himself refused to answer questions put forth to him during his confirmation hearings. Roberts feels that he's exempt from the same treatment that he dishes out to others. Which is to say, he's typical of most other Republicans today.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

44. I highly recommend an old book "The Brethren" by Bob Woodward

and co-author Armstrong.

It tells an absolutely fascinating and unexpected, to me at least, story of how cases are or were decided.

I heard Randi Rhodes wondering why we can't have tv in the court room.

If it works the way it did back during the time this book describes, the courtroom isn't where the real decisions are made anyhow.

[0rganism]

45. Roberts is still sore from the initiation rituals

Not surprised he'd be grumpy for the first few hearings.

[The Sushi Bandit]

46. High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide

http://channels.isp.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1154&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20051005%2F1915936680.htm&sc=1154&floc=isp-08&related=off

WASHINGTON (AP) - New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives.

<snip>

Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. He interrupted Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson in his first minute, then asked more than a dozen more tough questions.


Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose and ``it suggests that the attorney general has the authority to interpret that phrase'' to declare that assisted suicide is not legitimate. Roberts asked three questions of the Bush administration lawyer, noting that Congress passed one drug law only after ``lax state treatment of opium.''

[Greeby]

47. And so it begins

Get used to it

[classof56]

48. Well, guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

We Oregonian voters only passed this law twice. So much for states' rights.

Tired Old Cynic

[calico1]

49. Ironic isn't it? This is the Party that for so many

years defended states rights. Get used to it is right. We all better. And the younger generation of people who were not around during all the battles of the 60's better get ready to fight like their grandmothers before them because that is what it will come to.

[classof56]

52. Yep, looks like we'll have to do the equal rights for women,

right to privacy, Roe v Wade, maybe even the right to vote all over again.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Keep the merlot handy--we're gonna need it!

TOC

[shenmue]

50. For a party...

that used to define itself as the believers in non-intervention in someone's private business, boy do the Republicans just intervene out the wazoo these days. That's all they do, is muck around with your personal life! If the decision was made by the patient when they were of sound mind, they should be allowed. No one likes it but this is not something they would do if they were at all in salvageable physical health.

[BootinUp]

51. Wow, I guess that answers all my questions. n/t

[Scooter24]

54. I'm confused...

I fail to see the difference, at least in the context of federal drug laws, that using an overdose of drugs to end the life of a terminally ill patient is somehow different than that of a state using an overdose of drugs to end the life of a criminal.

The later right has always been given to the states. Each state votes on the death penalty and prescribes the method of which it is performed. How can the former situation fall outside of states rights?

This law is written specifically to allow doctors, after mulitiple dianosises, to prescribe a lethal overdose of a legal drug to their patient. Roberts incorrectly asserts that by allowing the states to do that, they effectively nullify enforcement of existing drug laws that are mostly written to prevent recreational use.

This case should be decided in favor of the states and voters.

[rodeodance]

57. High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide--oh no-Roberts is for the FED.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_assisted_suicide&printer=1;_ylt=AgxqCOcaEMmXtYlcdEhKvkZAw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives.

The justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has the final say on the life-or-death issue.

It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer.

The outcome is hard to predict, in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who seemed ready to support Oregon's law. Her replacement may be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now.......

[napi21]

58. How does the SC decide when to release opinions?

I heard some legal analist the other day explain that any arguments heard now while O'Connor is still on the court will either be decided before she leaves, by an eight member court, OR re-argued.

How do they decide, if they all can reach their opinion, when to say that decision is final?

[DaveColorado]

59. .

How does Roberts square his supposed support of state's rights for supporting Ashcroft's position?

[nvliberal]

64. Diane Coleman of Not Dead Yet

gives one food for thought:

Oregon has the highest elder suicide rate in the country. Not surprising in the face of constant social messages over nearly two decades that needing help in everyday living robs one of dignity and autonomy, makes one a burden and justifies state sponsored suicide. What looks to some like a choice to die begins to look more like a duty to die to many disability activists.

If the values of liberty dictate that society legalizes assisted suicide, then legalize it for everyone who asks for it, not just the devalued old, ill and disabled. Otherwise, what looks like freedom is really only discrimination.

***

"Right to die" is nothing more than "right to kill." As Coleman points out in her piece, why does one have to die to have "dignity"?

The euthanasia/eugenics crowd have done a hell of a con on liberals on the public at large.

[Solon]

65. That has jack to do with the law either...

I've seen people waste away to nearly skeletons, in agony and in pain, for months on end. No hope, nothing, and what do you expect them to do? Suffer? Heartless, just plain heartless.

[hayu_lol]

66. If this law is overturned, then the people of Oregon...

will rewrite it again and pass it again. It is a humane law and has all the safeguards needed to prevent abuse.

As for people doctor-shopping, what is that except getting a 2nd opinion?

[HuffleClaw]

67. EEEEP

holy crispy critters on a stick. this roberts guy is off to a real 'good' start eh? my oh my. what a complete asshole. comparing it to drug laws? what shit is that? really, this guy just has no clue.

[Disturbed]

68. Roberts does have a clue.

He know what he is doing. He is just a hotdog RW asshole and a fairly good actor. He acts like he is a nice, reasonable person but he is another RW mean spirited asshole.

[Puglover]

69. You would think

that these fundie nutsacks would be all for hastening peoples entrance into heaven. I don't get it.
:shrug:

[peacebird]

70. amazing....

WASHINGTON - Newly installed Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday sharply questioned a lawyer arguing for preservation of Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, noting the federal government's tough regulation of addictive drugs.
\\


Okay - now explain this to me? Roberts is arguing against assisted SUICIDE because he is concerned that the person who is taking a fatal dose of a drug MIGHT BECOME ADDICTED?

And this from someone the White House put forth as "one of the brightest legal minds of his generation"?