Actually, I agreed with SCOTUS on this one. They basically said, "Doctors are licensed by the state, so the State is the proper jurisdiction for regulating doctors' activities". Which, is true.

As for the issue itself, I think it's a red herring. Everyone whose conditions put them in the category required by most "assisted suicide laws (terminally ill with no hope of recovery in the foreseen future, intense pain, no quality of life... etc) already has enough meds to bring on the comfort of death. What exactly makes it necessary for a physician to be involved at all? The only thing I can figure is, if a doctor is involved, it somehow makes suicide more palatable to the person themselves and easier for the surviving loved ones to justify it.

If a person wants to kill themselves, ok, the fact is, they are going to do it, but why drag the medical profession into it?

If a person wants to kill themselves, ok, the fact is, they are going to do it, but why drag the medical profession into it?

I would think it comes down to *how* it is done.  Yes, most terminally ill people have enough meds to kill themselves, but how they die by taking them may not be as dignified or comfortable as it could be if a Dr. was involved.

I really don't understand why it is an issue with terminally ill people.  These people are going to die, and they are going to most likely experience extreme pain that requires them to be medicated into oblivion to begin with.  Why shouldn't it be their option to end it in a peaceful way if they choose to do so.  Why should they (and their families) have to suffer.

I had to put my dog down a few months ago.  I knew that I could either give him a quick, pain free death (my Vet uses an anesthetic before euthanizing) or I could let him suffer for a day or more until he died of starvation from not being able to keep anything down.  I chose to be humane and put him down.  Why?  Because as the vet said: "you gave him a good life, and you gave him a good death."  If my dog deserves as much, why wouldn't I deserve as much if I was in the same condition?

Considering that I experience chronic pain on a daily basis, this topic is one that I have a very clear view on.  If I were to have to experience daily pain that was much greater than what I experience now, I would have no quality of life, I would merely be existing and be a great burden to everyone that I know and to society.  Being given a good death should be an option to anyone in that situation.

I guess I will have to google the opinions, but I do agree with the ruling.  As it was 6-3, I think (dont know) that it was more a finesse part of applying the law.  Not a left right one, but again, not having read the ruling, I do not know.

Karma:

I would think it comes down to *how* it is done. Yes, most terminally ill people have enough meds to kill themselves, but how they die by taking them may not be as dignified or comfortable as it could be if a Dr. was involved.

So, instead of the patient just saying, "All I have to do is take all of these pain killers now, and it will all be over", it's "Hmmm, maybe I should get my doctor to administer all these pain killers to me, then it will all be over".

Believe me, people who have come to the point where suicide is the only option they have left usually think very rationally. They are even usually a bit happier than they have been in awhile (since they finally feel like they are in control again). If they have a bottle of pain killers, they will use them. Bringing the doctor into it doesn't change much.

If they have a bottle of pain killers, they will use them. Bringing the doctor into it doesn't change much.

You are also assuming that these people are at home and can administer themselves the pain pills.  There are many patients that are in medical centers hooked up to Morphine drips just waiting to die.

This is true, Karma, but their families can hook them up. All I am saying is, suicide is not something that requires a doctor. People have been doing it without "professional" help for almost as long as there have been people. There is no reason to drag your doctor into it, or the law.

I guess I will have to google the opinions, but I do agree with the ruling. As it was 6-3, I think (dont know) that it was more a finesse part of applying the law. Not a left right one, but again, not having read the ruling, I do not know.

Majority Opinion Link

Dissent Link

I guess I will have to google the opinions, but I do agree with the ruling. As it was 6-3, I think (dont know) that it was more a finesse part of applying the law. Not a left right one, but again, not having read the ruling, I do not know. Majority Opinion Link Dissent Link

My opinion stands. This was legalese. Not Political. But I do thank you for the links. just got home, so did not have time to google it.

Alito is right. Right and wrong is not a part of the SCOTUS. It is a matter of law. And this was a difference in law (and very wordy too!).

Karma: I would think it comes down to *how* it is done. Yes, most terminally ill people have enough meds to kill themselves, but how they die by taking them may not be as dignified or comfortable as it could be if a Dr. was involved. So, instead of the patient just saying, "All I have to do is take all of these pain killers now, and it will all be over", it's "Hmmm, maybe I should get my doctor to administer all these pain killers to me, then it will all be over". Believe me, people who have come to the point where suicide is the only option they have left usually think very rationally. They are even usually a bit happier than they have been in awhile (since they finally feel like they are in control again). If they have a bottle of pain killers, they will use them. Bringing the doctor into it doesn't change much.

Yeah but Ted you and I both know that most medicine related suicides fail. The reason is most people take the meds all wrong and throw-up before the meds can take effect. If the dr is involved that will not happen.

This is true, Karma, but their families can hook them up. All I am saying is, suicide is not something that requires a doctor. People have been doing it without "professional" help for almost as long as there have been people. There is no reason to drag your doctor into it, or the law.

Come on dude just how many people do you think can insert an IV needle?

The only concern I have about euthanasia or its euphamism, assisted suicide, is whether or not the doctor will be required to perform it. I don't believe any doctor should be forced to do it. Some may have legitimate objections, either through their interpretation of religion, ethics or the Hippocrates oath, and shouldn't be forced to carry out assisted suicide if they don't believe in it. That being said, it shouldn't be impossible to get one simply because the only doctor in the region refuses. In such cases perhaps roving doctors would be needed, despite the horrible imagery.