Considering that this issue will be debated amongst the US Supreme Court, I figure this is an appropriate thread. Your thoughts?
:::
:::
Euthanasia test for Supreme Court
Wednesday, 5 October 2005, 15:14 GMT 16:14 UK
The US Supreme Court is hearing its first case under new leadership, concerning the emotionally charged issue of assisted suicide.
The federal government will argue that a law in the state of Oregon, allowing terminally ill patients to end their own lives, should be overturned.
The court's ruling will have implications across the US.
It will also be closely watched for indications of the court's direction under new Chief Justice John Roberts.
Mr Roberts was appointed after the death a month ago of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
State v country
Mr Roberts is Catholic and considered a conservative, and so might be expected to vote against euthanasia.
However, he is also seen as an advocate of a state's right to rule its own affairs, against interference from federal government.
Oregon is the only US state to permit euthanasia, following a 1997 law that was backed in a state referendum.
Since then 208 people, mostly cancer patients, have elected to die under the law, which has strict conditions.
A patient must have less than six months to live, must be deemed by two doctors as mentally fit to take the decision, and must present one written and two oral demands over a certain period.
He can then obtain lethal medication from his doctor, but must administer it himself.
The Bush administration has had the Oregon law in its sights for some years.
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to annul the law in 2002, saying it depended on an improper use of medication by doctors and violated federal drug laws.
His order was overruled by an appeals court.
The government will on Wednesday use a similar argument before the Supreme Court, while Oregon's lawyers will argue that the government cannot interfere with state medical matters.
If the court rules that the Oregon law is constitutional, several states are poised to introduce similar legislation of their own.
Swing vote
The court itself has personal experience of terminal illness.
Mr Rehnquist died of an untreatable cancer.
Three of the nine justices have had cancer and a fourth has a wife who counsels dying young cancer patients.
Meanwhile Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a former breast cancer patient, is due to step down from the court when Congress confirms her replacement.
Ms O'Connor has often had the swing vote on contentious court rulings. She provided the key fifth vote in a 1997 decision that patients have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide, but that allowed individual states room to experiment.
If she steps down before the case is completed, her vote will not count.
In the event of a 4-4 tie, the court will probably order the case to be heard again.
President George Bush has nominated White House lawyer Harriet Miers to replace Ms Day O'Connor.
:::
:::
Euthanasia test for Supreme Court
Wednesday, 5 October 2005, 15:14 GMT 16:14 UK
The US Supreme Court is hearing its first case under new leadership, concerning the emotionally charged issue of assisted suicide.
The federal government will argue that a law in the state of Oregon, allowing terminally ill patients to end their own lives, should be overturned.
The court's ruling will have implications across the US.
It will also be closely watched for indications of the court's direction under new Chief Justice John Roberts.
Mr Roberts was appointed after the death a month ago of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
State v country
Mr Roberts is Catholic and considered a conservative, and so might be expected to vote against euthanasia.
However, he is also seen as an advocate of a state's right to rule its own affairs, against interference from federal government.
Oregon is the only US state to permit euthanasia, following a 1997 law that was backed in a state referendum.
Since then 208 people, mostly cancer patients, have elected to die under the law, which has strict conditions.
A patient must have less than six months to live, must be deemed by two doctors as mentally fit to take the decision, and must present one written and two oral demands over a certain period.
He can then obtain lethal medication from his doctor, but must administer it himself.
The Bush administration has had the Oregon law in its sights for some years.
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to annul the law in 2002, saying it depended on an improper use of medication by doctors and violated federal drug laws.
His order was overruled by an appeals court.
The government will on Wednesday use a similar argument before the Supreme Court, while Oregon's lawyers will argue that the government cannot interfere with state medical matters.
If the court rules that the Oregon law is constitutional, several states are poised to introduce similar legislation of their own.
Swing vote
The court itself has personal experience of terminal illness.
Mr Rehnquist died of an untreatable cancer.
Three of the nine justices have had cancer and a fourth has a wife who counsels dying young cancer patients.
Meanwhile Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a former breast cancer patient, is due to step down from the court when Congress confirms her replacement.
Ms O'Connor has often had the swing vote on contentious court rulings. She provided the key fifth vote in a 1997 decision that patients have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide, but that allowed individual states room to experiment.
If she steps down before the case is completed, her vote will not count.
In the event of a 4-4 tie, the court will probably order the case to be heard again.
President George Bush has nominated White House lawyer Harriet Miers to replace Ms Day O'Connor.
