Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (9389)	4/17/2002 1:18:40 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The "something" I had in mind was more like "AIDS is not the scourge among the heterosexual population that it is among the gay male population." Quibbling with words obscures my point, which was quite obvious. To add to my last post, if we take your figures that new AIDS cases are approximately 4:1 gay males, and add the fact that the ratio of gays to the general population is 1:9, then my math skills (quite limited) tell me that a gay male is 36 times more likely to contract AIDS today than a heterosexual. Actually, even higher than that when comparing males -- since the "5" above are gay males where the "1" above is heterosexuals of both genders. If the heterosexuals were evenly divided between men and women, then the likelihood of the gay males versus the hetero male would double to 72 times more likely. Also, the 10% population ratio of gays also includes both genders. If gay males are only half of that, then the likelihood of gay males to hetero males doubles further to -- well, you see the point. If you care to discuss this further, why don't you address that point? Or maybe, AIDS is no longer just a gay problem in North America... does it for you.

To: Lane3 who wrote (9389)	4/17/2002 1:39:56 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

April 17, 2002 Judge Rules in Favor of Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 1:23 p.m. ET PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the U.S. Justice Department lacks the authority to overturn a voter-approved Oregon law allowing physician-assisted suicides. U.S. District Judge Robert Jones scolded Attorney General John Ashcroft, saying Ashcroft ``with no advance warning to Oregon ... fired the first shot in the battle between the state of Oregon and the federal government.'' Jones said Ashcroft attempted to ``stifle an ongoing, earnest and profound debate in the various states concerning physician-assisted suicide'' with a Nov. 6 directive declaring that assisted suicide was not a ``legitimate medical practice.'' ``The citizens of Oregon, through their democratic initiative process, have chosen to resolve the moral, legal and ethical debate on physician-assisted suicide for themselves by voting -- not once, but twice -- in favor of the Oregon act,'' Jones wrote. The Justice Department was considering an appeal. If filed, it could lead to years of litigation. The Oregon Death With Dignity Act was approved by voters in 1994 and overwhelmingly affirmed three years later when it was returned to the ballot following a failed legal challenge. The state law allows terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to request a lethal dose of drugs after two doctors confirm the diagnosis and judge the patient mentally competent to make the request. Jones said Wednesday that the state had followed the wishes of the Supreme Court by striking a proper balance between the interests of the terminally ill and the government's responsibility to protect them. Gov. John Kitzhaber, a physician, signed the assisted suicide law in 1998. Since then, at least 91 people have used the law to end their lives, most of them suffering from cancer. But Ashcroft issued a directive on Nov. 6 that would have banned any lethal prescriptions, deciding they did not meet a ``legitimate medical purpose'' under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers challenged the directive in court. Supporters of the Oregon law contended a ruling in favor of Ashcroft would have had a ``chilling effect'' on nationwide care for the terminally ill because doctors would fear that administering too much pain medication could invite federal prosecution. Opponents of the law, such as Dr. Gregory Hamilton of Physicians for Compassionate Care, said such arguments are scare tactics. He said Ashcroft made it clear that ``aggressive pain management'' is considered legitimate medical care even if it may increase the chance of a patient's death. Steve Bushong, a deputy Oregon attorney general who has defended the state law, argued that regulating doctors has always been the sole responsibility of the states. Bushong said Congress intended only to prevent illegal drug trafficking by doctors under the Controlled Substances Act, and it left any decisions about medical practice up to the states. Attorneys representing an Oregon doctor, a pharmacist and several terminally ill patients joined the state against Ashcroft, arguing that even if he did believe he had authority to ban the Oregon law, he did not follow proper procedure to issue the directive. Judge Jones criticized Ashcroft in court early in the case, calling the directive an ``edict'' that Ashcroft issued without hearings. Ashcroft's order reversed a 1998 opinion by former Attorney General Janet Reno.