Gonzales v. Oregon
Gonzales v. Oregon 04-623
This case is before the Supreme Courtand is about state-assisted suicide, or more plainly, the states allowing doctor-assisted suicide. The justices will be deciding whether the federal courts could/should block, or control, the states in this matter. John Ashcroft originally brought up this case, and then Alberto Gonzales has taken over.
Chief Justice John Roberts thrust himself in the middle of his first major oral argument he has presided over. He asked over a dozen tough questions, and seemed to be a defender of federal authority to block state-assisted suicide. Roberts has just recently replace William H. Rehnquist who recently passed as a result of thyroid cancer.
Antonin Scaliaand Roberts both seem to be skeptical of Oregon's claims. To me, from what I have read they seem tobe trying to find a black and white line for this issue, which is tricky. Morphine was one example that was used. Morphine can be used to make someone comfortable, but with too large of a dose, you will die. So their stance seems to be let the federal government regulate narcotics that are prescribed.
SandraDay O'Conner seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but with the new judicial nominee, Harriett Miers, the vote could be delayed until she is sworn in. Should that happen, what O'Conner would vote would be irrelevant.
Three of the sitting judges have personally battled cancer. Sandra Day O'Conner (breastcancer), John Paul Stevens (prostate cancer), and Ruth Bader Ginsberg(colon cancer) survived their battles, and have personal experiences with these terrible diseases in which many die from regularly. StephenBryer's wife is a counselor for children with cancer.
My interest in this case is pretty high due to having seen several relatives die of terminal diseases, and watching the end of life experience. My grandfather had succumb to prostate cancer after a long battle, my grandmother had a long battle with ALS (Lou Gehrig'sdisease), my other grandfather died of acute renal failure (his kidneys quit working), my last surviving grandmother is in the throws of dementia and Alzheimer'sand my wife's only surviving grandmother is in the beginning stages ofAlzheimer's
The case that Iwill share is why I believe stronglyin the patients right to die. My grandfather had a quadruple bypass surgery in 1993. All was well, but they discovered he was diabetic at this time, as well as hypertensive. Then in 2001 he was going to the hospital for an angiogram to see if his heart was health enough for a valve surgery, had a mishap when they injected the die, and his kidneys shut down. So then as he teetered on death, the conundrum arose. He could not have heart surgery because he had no kidney function, and he could not have a kidney transplant because he did not have a healthy heart. So dialysis was his onlyoption, and that only works for a few years on average.
Anyway, fast-forward a couple of years and he finally decided to stop torturing himself. When he would get the transfusions, the last few times that he did, he would pass out, and the doctors told him it was just a matter of time. He made the decision to stop dialysis, which I admired him for such a brave decision. Brave based on the fact that our most primitive instinct is to survive, and he openly accepted the inevitable, and chose to not fight it. Well, the doctors said with no dialysis it could be two days to two weeks, and unfortunately, it was two weeks. Fourteen days to be exact. We could not give him water, only a moistened sponge on his tongue. He was miserable,and on day 7 asked me how much longer until it was over. I had no answer. He asked my cousin to shoot him,which wasn't an option, but he was desperately hurting. When he finally passed, I was both sad for his loss, yet relieved he wasn‚t suffering anymore.
Had he been able to be administered the endof life medication when he decided to end it,he would not have suffered, and the end result would be the same.Personally, I believe if a terminally ill patient, who has been diagnosed with certain death, with absolutely no chance of survival orrecovery, it is absolutely asinine not to allow the patient this humane option.
Why is it we will kill a dog after he has been hit by a car, or has a cancer or the such, and call it humane, but when it comes to doing the same for a human we call it murder, or at least our laws. We would rather keep a human on a machine to extend life past its natural intention, even against the patients‚ wishes. A good example of that is the Terry Schaivo case.
So back to the case,
I believe the votes will go like this.
Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens against Oregon
And Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and O'Conner for Oregon
Which will be a 5 to 4 ruling against state rights. I have come to this conclusion from the Raich case from 1996, and assuming Scalia will uphold his belief in states rights. Also I believe Roberts will vote opposite ofhow Rehnquist voted in Raich, though we may find he has different beliefs. Either way, I think Oregon will loose, but time will tell.
Brian
This case is before the Supreme Courtand is about state-assisted suicide, or more plainly, the states allowing doctor-assisted suicide. The justices will be deciding whether the federal courts could/should block, or control, the states in this matter. John Ashcroft originally brought up this case, and then Alberto Gonzales has taken over.
Chief Justice John Roberts thrust himself in the middle of his first major oral argument he has presided over. He asked over a dozen tough questions, and seemed to be a defender of federal authority to block state-assisted suicide. Roberts has just recently replace William H. Rehnquist who recently passed as a result of thyroid cancer.
Antonin Scaliaand Roberts both seem to be skeptical of Oregon's claims. To me, from what I have read they seem tobe trying to find a black and white line for this issue, which is tricky. Morphine was one example that was used. Morphine can be used to make someone comfortable, but with too large of a dose, you will die. So their stance seems to be let the federal government regulate narcotics that are prescribed.
SandraDay O'Conner seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but with the new judicial nominee, Harriett Miers, the vote could be delayed until she is sworn in. Should that happen, what O'Conner would vote would be irrelevant.
Three of the sitting judges have personally battled cancer. Sandra Day O'Conner (breastcancer), John Paul Stevens (prostate cancer), and Ruth Bader Ginsberg(colon cancer) survived their battles, and have personal experiences with these terrible diseases in which many die from regularly. StephenBryer's wife is a counselor for children with cancer.
My interest in this case is pretty high due to having seen several relatives die of terminal diseases, and watching the end of life experience. My grandfather had succumb to prostate cancer after a long battle, my grandmother had a long battle with ALS (Lou Gehrig'sdisease), my other grandfather died of acute renal failure (his kidneys quit working), my last surviving grandmother is in the throws of dementia and Alzheimer'sand my wife's only surviving grandmother is in the beginning stages ofAlzheimer's
The case that Iwill share is why I believe stronglyin the patients right to die. My grandfather had a quadruple bypass surgery in 1993. All was well, but they discovered he was diabetic at this time, as well as hypertensive. Then in 2001 he was going to the hospital for an angiogram to see if his heart was health enough for a valve surgery, had a mishap when they injected the die, and his kidneys shut down. So then as he teetered on death, the conundrum arose. He could not have heart surgery because he had no kidney function, and he could not have a kidney transplant because he did not have a healthy heart. So dialysis was his onlyoption, and that only works for a few years on average.
Anyway, fast-forward a couple of years and he finally decided to stop torturing himself. When he would get the transfusions, the last few times that he did, he would pass out, and the doctors told him it was just a matter of time. He made the decision to stop dialysis, which I admired him for such a brave decision. Brave based on the fact that our most primitive instinct is to survive, and he openly accepted the inevitable, and chose to not fight it. Well, the doctors said with no dialysis it could be two days to two weeks, and unfortunately, it was two weeks. Fourteen days to be exact. We could not give him water, only a moistened sponge on his tongue. He was miserable,and on day 7 asked me how much longer until it was over. I had no answer. He asked my cousin to shoot him,which wasn't an option, but he was desperately hurting. When he finally passed, I was both sad for his loss, yet relieved he wasn‚t suffering anymore.
Had he been able to be administered the endof life medication when he decided to end it,he would not have suffered, and the end result would be the same.Personally, I believe if a terminally ill patient, who has been diagnosed with certain death, with absolutely no chance of survival orrecovery, it is absolutely asinine not to allow the patient this humane option.
Why is it we will kill a dog after he has been hit by a car, or has a cancer or the such, and call it humane, but when it comes to doing the same for a human we call it murder, or at least our laws. We would rather keep a human on a machine to extend life past its natural intention, even against the patients‚ wishes. A good example of that is the Terry Schaivo case.
So back to the case,
I believe the votes will go like this.
Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens against Oregon
And Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and O'Conner for Oregon
Which will be a 5 to 4 ruling against state rights. I have come to this conclusion from the Raich case from 1996, and assuming Scalia will uphold his belief in states rights. Also I believe Roberts will vote opposite ofhow Rehnquist voted in Raich, though we may find he has different beliefs. Either way, I think Oregon will loose, but time will tell.
Brian
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home