http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_assisted_suicide;_ylt=AsqAiKlz_IGQW1.FROOZY Gas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

I am really happy to see this. Maybe now the Bushies will leave us Oregonians alone to die in whatever way we see fit.

Yes! Heard about it driving to work today.

Kind of alarming the the newly confirmed Roberts voted against it.

Now I can't quite understand how they can approve this medical use of drugs and not marijuana.

The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."

Sometimes, the people win.

I particularly appreciated the pointed rebukes to the attorney general.

A good decision, of course. Unfortunately, Congress can just turn around and write a more specific law, since there is no constitutional right to die in the United States.

Yeah, but they'd get a ration of **** from a lot of us if they do.

These deaths are easily performed using Potassium Chloride.

Not exactly a controlled substance.

It is sold as a Salt substitute.

And a fertilizer amendment, iirc.

It dissolves rapidly in water.

Needles are relatively easy to get a hold of.

The death, I have been told, is extremely painless. It is the preferred form of lethal injection.

It is not some radical or obscure neurotoxin. We give it frequently, by mouth and in IV solutions all the time for CHF patients. But when injected IV non-diluted it simply will make the heart painlessly slow down and stop. There will be a burning sensation at the injection site, though, reason for the local anesthetic that Dr. Deaths(or is it Drs. Death?) use.

One an related topical note...

California just executed some murderer last night. He was a diabetic, and his last meal included dessert which was sugar free. Just like the old George Carlin routine, absurd /smile.

LOL! Judging from how his physical condition was described it almost sounds like it was a pretty darned good way for him to die versus what was surely in store for him.

I don't understand why the administration got involved in this in the first place, but perhaps I'm missing something.

But I am happy with the outcome though.

California just executed some murderer last night. He was a diabetic, and his last meal included dessert which was sugar free. Just like the old George Carlin routine, absurd /smile.

But was that because that was the government covering its ass or because it's what the prisoner requested?

These deaths are easily performed using Potassium Chloride.

Not exactly a controlled substance.

It is sold as a Salt substitute.

Oregon's assisted suicide law forbids a doctor or anyone aside from the patient from administering the drugs. In other words, you have to be able to take the drugs on your own to make use of the law. The only thing the doctor does is write the prescription (which is how Ashcroft tried to go after the law, saying the doctors were outside federal controlled substances act). In most cases, a doctor wasn't present during the actual administering of the dose, nor at the time of death.

There have been surprisingly few people who have made use of this law, which is one of the reasons I find it so sad that this administration has put so much time and effort into trying to get it overturned.

600 people decided to die on their own terms. Let's sink millions into legal expenses trying to overturn the law that allowed that to happen. Where will we get the money? Oh, those poor people who want to live...they don't need medications anyway, we'll take the money from the medicare budget. *sigh*

Found this little tidbit in a different article than the one linked above:

Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before, most recently in 1997 when the court unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die.

I sure hope the lawyers are around when I die, to explain to mother nature that I shouldn't be dying because I do not have the constitutional right to do so.

What a sad state of affairs we humans have gotten ourselves into when we spend so much effort on silly legal games as if they mean a damn thing when it comes to life and death. And how arrogant we've become to think that our government can give us the "right" to die.

Apparently this administration believes that they can actually impact dying by simply saying we don't have the right to do so.

I don't understand why the administration got involved in this in the first place, but perhaps I'm missing something.Actually, it seems to be SOP with this administration to test their limits with the other branches and states just as a two year old would with his parents. The main difference is that parents learn very quickly to say "no". Those within the governmental entities first ask "what will I lose if I say 'no'?" and weigh the consequenses. They then decide to wait until enough others *notice* what they have before deciding to cry "foul!"

LOL! So if you do die, your constitutional rights have been denied and you can sue whatever caused you to die! I assume you'd have to sue Life.

Arienne, at least with a 2 year old you could spank it and deny it TV privileges until it behaves better. :\

You can spank the administration too.

I'm not gonna defend this administration, but to some extent all 8 term presidents test their limits in thier second term.

So if you do die, your constitutional rights have been denied

*brain warp*

I don't think you could sue anyone because you'd be suing them for a violation of a right you don't have in the first place. If you don't have the constitutional right to die, then nothing has been violated when you do die.

Or something.

My brain hurts.

Yeah, but they'd get a ration of **** from a lot of us if they do.That never stopped the religious zealots before from imposing their religious beliefs on everyone. Didn't you know? You can't die because "god" (speaking through me of course!) says so; "he" would rather have you writhing in pain until the last moment.

I have been a nurse for over 15 years, mostly in the critical care. I have seen many deaths in those years. I also was a home infusion specialist for 2 years and worked with cancer patients. Death is never easy, no matter what the circumstances are.

If a patient has decided to end their own suffering, that they no longer wish to be in agony every day, to be burden to those they love, then I believe they have the right to stop taking treatments and if they so choose, to take the medication that would hasten their inevitable death.

The issue is, doctors are taught (and nurses) to do no harm. What it comes down to is.. is it harmful to give a medication that has the potential to end their life? It is a tricky question, and one I am sure that every healthcare provider struggles with when faced with this situation.

I have given medication that I knew would hasten someone's death. I have even withheld medication that I knew would increase someone's chance at living another 12 hours. Did I feel like I was killing someone? No. I understood that I was assisting my patient with their healthcare plan, even though that meant dying.

The one thing I wanted to really say is in response to the Potassium issue. Potassium is given to death row offenders to stop the heart. But it is an extremely painful death. It literally floods your cells with potassium, causing the electricity not to be conducted, therefore stopping your heart. It is why they give them a sedative and paralytic prior to the administration of the potassium.

The most common way someone is assisted in dying, is giving them some type of medication that makes them unconscious - like morphine prior to the administration of the potassium. You may have seen Dr. Kavorkian's "Death Machine" It had 3 different bottles hooked up to an IV administration kit. These were so that the patient could be comfortable and unconcious prior to the administration of the "killing" drug.

Whether or not you personally believe that assisted death is right, I think the question that needs to be asked is, "Does anyone have the right to decide what is right for someone else?" My sister has told me numerous times that she intends to fight until her last breath. That she would never consider giving up or want to be euthanized. That is her wish, and I know that if I must watch her suffer, then that is what she wanted.

Conversly, when I get my diagnosis... hook me up to the morphine baby and let me go with all of my hair. I have no desire to linger on every day hoping for a treatment or cure for whatever ails me. This is my decision and I should have the same right to refuse treatment and expect pain management as my sister does to want to try everything.

Politics and Medicine rarely are a good mix... and I think that we saw that with the woman in Florida whose husband wanted to finally end the suffering of his wife. The government had to get involved and made her suffering and torture a public display. Does anyone really think the person she was prior to her accident would have wanted to be seen and remembered that way? Wasnt it her right to have dignity of dying alone and quietly?

I know I have rambled, but this is such an explosive issue, and one that is close to me as I have stated. It is my sincere hope that everyone is able to choose if they want this type of death. If it is not your choice, then good! But, if it is your choice, then it should still be good, and the government should not have the right to tell you its not.

It was difficult with my Dad at the end. He didn't want any sort of life support. He had pneumonia and we didn't even let them give him antibiotics for it. That was his wish. But it was at that point, when we were going over the End of Life orders for him that we realized he wasn't going to come back to us. Very difficult thing to do.

If I had it to do over, I would've gotten Hospice out there right away, but I suppose it hadn't really occured to me that the end was at hand.