To: Lane3 who wrote (10997 ) 4/26/2002 4:15:55 PM From: Neocon Read Replies (2) | Respond to For the record, this was my initial response:I am not acquainted in detail with the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. As far as I can see, the ruling hinges on whether Ashcroft had authority, under the Act, to forbid the use of controlled narcotics for assisted suicide. I simply don't know....... By the way, the voters of Oregon do not have the right to re- institute slavery, under the Constitution, nor to allow polluters to ignore the Clean Air Act. From a political perspective, there is reason to wonder if the issue of assisted suicide ought to be debated nationally, rather than creating an open breach in the current ethical norms under which physicians operate in one state only to see what consequences it has over time throughout the country. Finally, there is plenty of reason, besides fundamentalism, to think that assisted suicide should not be legal, even if it is treated leniently. Therefore, I have no ready response to Ashcroft's position, and would be curious to know if he acted with due discretion in choosing his legal basis...... I am generally in favor of trying things out in the states, and I have not said that I stand behind Ashcroft. I have raised some questions, one of which is whether this carries such implications as to be a national rather than local issue. I have no recollection of what I was doing on the 17th which might have affected my propensity to respond. I might not have gotten involved in this had it not been directly posted to me........ That is not, in fact, the question. You want to put a bullet through your brain, that is your business. To say that the state will prevent you belies the fact that a determined person can easily kill himself, and that someone who chooses a conspicuous route is practically begging to be stopped. The question is whether it is a good idea to involve someone else, most especially a physician, in the suicide..... Of course I can [sympathize]. That is one of the reasons that I claim the right to be uncertain of my position [on assisted suicide itself]..... There are a limited number of patients that might be so incapacitated that they could not kill themselves, for example, those with sever spinal cord injuries. Maybe we should reserve assisted suicide for that limited class of persons. Generally, though, I do not mind the idea of testing someone's resolve to die by not making it too easy. It is like requiring an "absolute majority" (3/4ths) for some questions, because they are so important that one wants real determination, not a close, easily changeable vote. If someone wants to die, he should be firm enough to get it done himself.......
