This quote from Justice Scalia, I take direct issue with:
"If the term `legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," [Scalia] wrote.
What Justice Scalia either fails to understand or refuses to accept is that the state of Oregon has agreed with some doctors and with citizens of Oregon in that there are times when ending life in a controlled way is a legitimate medical purpose. You would think a conservative would side against big government and for states' rights, pulling away from having a Federal government that oversteps its Constitutionally-granted authority over interstate issues and external matters but leaving as much as possible to local and regional governments. Or has Justice Scalia, like so many in the Republican leadership these days, forgotten what it means to be a conservative in their lust for increased power?
Honestly? I think the issue boils down to two interpretations of what "medical purpose" means in this context. For Scalia and crew, it comes down to medicine is there to save life. For the others, medicine is there to reduce suffering. The real crux to all of this is that to both sides of the issue, they think they're fighting for the same thing.
See, that to me is one of the big problems with the religious right. Because they have so much invested in an afterlife, suffering in this life is, depending on who you're talking to/what day it is/which way the wind is blowing, our penance for original sin, supposed to build character, all in your head, who knows. The condition of life itself -- no matter what condition your condition is in [/Randee of the Redwoods] -- is all that's really important. The idea that there are different ways for life to end, some with considerably more dignity/less expense/less trouble and waste than others, and that someone might in fact be ready to end things on their own terms, seems to elude them every time.
Of course there is no one oath that all physicians take. There are literally dozens of versions of what could be referred to as -a- Hippocratic Oath. According to Nova Online, only 14% of those oaths world-wide prohibit euthanasia. Only 11% make any reference to a God. 8% prohibit abortion, and 3% prohibit sexual relations with patients... and of course, most do not at any point have a phrasing resembling "do no harm". The oath the AMA uses actually specifically says that it may be within a doctor's purview to take a life, and the doctor must consider this with humility and responsibility.
Physicians by in large see the oath itself as just a formality, and the respective medical associations have extremely large and detailed texts on their Code of Ethics which leads me to believe that the oath is just a 'rite of passage' sort of thing, and by no means a binding agreement.
That's the claim, anyway. We don't have his written word to know how he'd feel about dying. We don't have his written word to know how he'd feel about anything, for that matter. It's all hearsay that we are told is unquestionably the truth and correct. It's the world's longest running scam.
Well, he may very well have not wanted to die (although, again, that's the point of the entire religion). The point, in this context, is that it was his choice as to how to die. He could've fought; he could've run; he could've jumped off a cliff.
I disagree; I don't think that was the point of the religion at all. I doubt he wanted to die, seeing that from context clues, he seemed to enjoy his life and his friends and followers. Either way, it's still not the point of Christianity in either of the two extreme forms available, either Christianity or Leviticanism/Paulism. Christianity isn't a path to death, it's a path up a hill that passes through death into a life with a loving Lord, a path with some signposts left by a friend who has already passed there before us.
As for Paulism or Crosstianity, the point isn't about his life or choices. So long as he died on the cross, we receive a Get Out of Hell Free card. Kiss his Father's ass, cause without Jesus' blood on the sand, his Dad would be smoking our rump roasts on a barbeque bigger than all outdoors... and Daddy likes his dead flesh BEYOND well done.
True. I wonder why Scalia dissented, though. Is his dissent based on the law, or on his opinion of what serves the public good? If the former, I don't see it, but fine. If the latter, that's not his job. The legislature is there to craft laws in the public interest. The SCOTUS is there to make sure that this law does not violate the Constitution. Scalia seems to be violating his stance as a conservative; is he in fact a conservative at all or a neo-con?
Some of each, depending on the subject. He strongly prefers statutory to Constitutional rulings, though, and so I'm not surprised that he gave a plain text interpretation of the statute rather than getting into the question of whether the Constitutional principle of federalism gave Oregon the right to be the ones defining that statute or not.
Kennedy is a pseudo-liberal "conservative". He believes in civil rights sometimes.
Scalia is a real conservative, as in the kind of conservative the people at FreeRepublic refer to whenever a Republican does something moderately humane and they gnash their teeth and vow to fight for a real conservative. One who will stop coddling the people and will instead hit them, hit them hard, make them obey.
That's hardly a new state of affairs. If we want to keep it recent, look at all the voter-approved medical marijuana statutes that have come into law on the state levels in California and a number of other western states. These laws conflict with Federal anti-drug laws, so the Federal laws trump them. Again, I don't see anything in the Constitution giving the Federal government the authority to regulate the growth, distribution inside a state, or use of hemp and its products.
"Or has Justice Scalia, like so many in the Republican leadership these days, forgotten what it means to be a conservative in their lust for increased power?"
That is what it means to be a Conservative, at least in American politics since Nixon. All that talk about smaller government is cow pies. They never believed that, and never will.
And btw? I just noticed the Bergen and Snerd reference. Only because I was amazed that I hadn't made a Mortimer Snerd joke about the Squadron Supreme yet...
(twitch. Hyperion and Nighthawk on the Supreme Court. twitch. twitch.)
OK, first time I read "A blow for the right to die with dignity," I saw that as "a blaw to the right..." and wondered why it was bad that the law was upheld...
I put it together myself from the Schlock Mercenary comic in question (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20050811.html)--feel free to grab it, and credit Howard Tayler for creating Schlock (and, if you want, me for the icon).
This had a lot to do with my parents' recent decision to retire to Oregon. We've watched too many people go too hard not to want some choice in the matter, if it comes to that.
"We're not going to kill you. The moral, Christian thing to do is allow you to die naturally, alone, in a pile of your own filth." - Frylock, "Little Brittle"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 04:07 pm (UTC)"If the term `legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," [Scalia] wrote.
What Justice Scalia either fails to understand or refuses to accept is that the state of Oregon has agreed with some doctors and with citizens of Oregon in that there are times when ending life in a controlled way is a legitimate medical purpose. You would think a conservative would side against big government and for states' rights, pulling away from having a Federal government that oversteps its Constitutionally-granted authority over interstate issues and external matters but leaving as much as possible to local and regional governments. Or has Justice Scalia, like so many in the Republican leadership these days, forgotten what it means to be a conservative in their lust for increased power?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 04:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 04:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 05:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 06:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 06:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 07:48 pm (UTC)Physicians by in large see the oath itself as just a formality, and the respective medical associations have extremely large and detailed texts on their Code of Ethics which leads me to believe that the oath is just a 'rite of passage' sort of thing, and by no means a binding agreement.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 09:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 10:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 11:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 07:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 08:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 08:59 pm (UTC)As for Paulism or Crosstianity, the point isn't about his life or choices. So long as he died on the cross, we receive a Get Out of Hell Free card. Kiss his Father's ass, cause without Jesus' blood on the sand, his Dad would be smoking our rump roasts on a barbeque bigger than all outdoors... and Daddy likes his dead flesh BEYOND well done.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 08:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 08:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 04:23 pm (UTC)Which, in the case of lethal injections, involves the prescription of drugs to produce death.
Monopolies are BAD, unless you're the government, who has a monopoly on extortion, murder, arms dealing, false advertisement...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 04:25 pm (UTC)A conservative did. His name is Anthony Kennedy, and he wrote for the majority.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 05:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 05:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 09:55 pm (UTC)Scalia is a real conservative, as in the kind of conservative the people at FreeRepublic refer to whenever a Republican does something moderately humane and they gnash their teeth and vow to fight for a real conservative. One who will stop coddling the people and will instead hit them, hit them hard, make them obey.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 08:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 08:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 09:50 pm (UTC)That is what it means to be a Conservative, at least in American politics since Nixon. All that talk about smaller government is cow pies. They never believed that, and never will.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 04:24 pm (UTC)(twitch. Hyperion and Nighthawk on the Supreme Court. twitch. twitch.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 06:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 12:36 am (UTC)Hey, maybe Bush is actually under the control of the Overmind...
Hyperion would sit there, looking very intent, and then do whatever Nighthawk told him to do.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 05:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 06:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 09:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 10:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-18 12:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 05:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-17 07:24 pm (UTC)