Attorney General Ashcroft Plays "Doctor" in Oregon! [Doctor assisted suicide and a new liberal site]

www.TheAngryLiberal.com ^ | Nov. 16, 2001 | The "Angry Liberal"

[summer]

Attorney General Ashcroft Plays "Doctor" in Oregon!

Just for fun, let's say you're captured by terrorists. After a twelve-second-long trial, you are convicted of "Crimes Against (insert a religion you think is silly here)." You are sentenced to die in one of two ways: 1) quickly and painlessly, or 2) slowly and agonizingly over a period of months while your family is forced to watch. Which death would you choose? Death #1? Really? Guess what? Attorney General John "Major League" Ashcroft is working hard to take Death #1 off of our list of choices and force us to endure Death #2. With the simple issuance of a directive, Ashcroft has signaled that he will ruin physicans in Oregon who help terminally ill patients choose Death #1 under the state's Death with Dignity Act. So much for Compassionate Conservatism.

Ashcroft, former Missouri senator who lost his senate seat to a dead Democrat (Missourians figured that Mel Carnahan at room temperature was better than Ashcroft at 98.6 degrees), was quickly scooped up, along with other Republican losers around the nation, to form the perfect loser administration under presidential second-place finisher George W. Bush. After deciding that a religious fanatic would be a good choice for U.S. Attorney General, Bush's short list included Ashcroft and two others. Bush was then informed that fellow Texan David Koresh was a currently a pile of soot and the Asian community vote-magnet Shoko Asahara had said through an interpreter, "I'd sooner ride the subway," so the nod went to Ashcroft.

Now Ashcroft is taking time that could be otherwise wasted pursuing terrorists in order to pursue doctors. On November 7, Ashcroft issued a directive stating that physicians who helped their terminally-ill patients end their own lives under Oregon state law could have their licenses to distribute federally controlled drugs revoked.

Why would Ashcroft do this? This stunt violates the following Republican principles:

1) The government should stay out of people's lives.

2) If government is needed, decisions are best made at the local level, not in Washington, D.C.

3) If federal oversight is needed, it should be done via legislation and not unilaterally from another branch of government (Republicans whine about "legislating from the bench," except when deciding presidential elections, remember?).

It also violates the following American (as opposed to Republican) principles:

1) Decisions about medical treatment should be made by the patient and the doctor, not a third party.

2) People should be allowed to own their own lives.

3) Government officials should check their religious beliefs at the door when they enter their offices.

American Principle number three is certainly Ashcroft's biggest constitutional nemesis, and his opposition to it probably precipitated his actions in this case. After all, suicide is a sin to Christians, right? If God sees fit to give you an unbearable disease, who are you to argue with Him? Ashcroft' s belief in this principle appears to trump not only his vocational responsibilities, but his political affiliation as well. He is apparently a "Christian" first, a Republican second, and an Attorney General third. We ain't payin' ya for the first two, pal.

Personally, I'm a believer in assisted suicide. If death is to be soon, certain, and agonizingly painful, what better way to go than by looking God right in the eye and saying, "You can't fire me. I quit." Herein lies the rub for Ashcroft. Suicide is disrespectful to his god. Kind of like a woman who shows her face on the streets of Kandahar, right, Johnny?

A federal restraining order is currently keeping Ashcroft at arm's length in Oregon, affording the terminally ill some tangible, if short-lived relief. Imagine having to request legal relief from our own Attorney General.

Suddenly, Ed Meese doesn't seem like such a bad guy after all. . .

. . .The Angry Liberal

11/16/01

[Aunt Polgara]

Interesting you should bring up the Hemlock society. I don't remember all the details, but I believe that Derrik Humphery, founder of the Hemlock Society, "encouraged" his first wife to commit suicide when she got breast cancer. When his second wife came down with the same malady, I think he was unsuccessful in getting her to commit suicide. There was a big blowup in the papers about it a few years ago. I don't remember the whole story. Maybe someone else here does. My dear husband wants his dinner now, so I'll have to leave you all for a while. If no one remembers the story, I'll try to track it down later tonight. Have fun here on FR. TTYL.

[summer]

In light of your post #37, then, would you rewrite in any way what you wrote, as quoted in my post #33?

[JRadcliffe]

"The cost is another matter that can be solved without making drugs legal and readily available to anyone. "

And just how would this be done? More government? The pills cost less than 5 cents to produce. They are sold anywhere from 6-10 dollars EACH. You are advocating price controls. Price controls are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (Besides the fact that they have never worked from a historical perspective)

California had a system of distributiuon, but that low-life Ashcroft sent in his storm troopers to shut them down. (Gee we must have won the War on Terrorism if he could spare that many people to shut down these distribution centers).

Why on earth should ANYONE be forced to pay for something that they can grow themselves anyway? That's not compassion. That's a shake-down for the benefit of the Pharmaceutical Complex.

[summer]

Re your post #41 - huh! I don't recall any of that, but I do remember hearing something about them trying to teach people how to committ suicide -- which I thought rather odd at the time. I think later I read such goal was the purpose of their organization.

[summer]

Re my post #42 -- And, BTW, I am not implying you should rewrite anything; I am just trying to follow your logic here. And, well, I can not align your subsequent stated position about you being pro-life with what I quoted from you originally. I just can not reach a "pro-life" conclusion by reading what you originally wrote.

[JRadcliffe]

"In light of your post #37, then, would you rewrite in any way what you wrote, as quoted in my post #33?"

I do not understand the question (I can be dense).

A person has the right to live their PEACEFUL life as he/she sees fit. Murder is not peaceful. It obviously infringes on other's rights -- ergo, abortion is not a right.

I am consistently pro-life -- even to my opposition to the death penalty.

[summer]

I was talking about what you wrote here, as this is what people who call themselves "pro-choice" usually say:

Actually, the AMERICAN principle is that decisions concerning one's body [a woman's body] should be made by that person [woman] ALONE. If he/she wishes to consult a doctor, that again should be THEIR CHOICE.

[JRadcliffe]

Yes but I clarified that statement -- I thought.

A person has the right to self-determination -- not the determination of others to their detriment.

Is that clear? Perhaps it would be helpful if you stated your position.

[Paulus Invictus]

What's the difference between assisted suicide and killing unborn babies? And how can medicos participate in either evil practice and still "do no harm?"

[summer]

It's not clear to me, because: does the line I put in bold above stand as you would like it to stand? That's all I want to know. Because: your line, in bold above, is the same line used by people who hold the OPPOSITE point of view (on abortion) than you! So, your line above, in bold, is a bit confusing, that's all! :)

[JRadcliffe]

"What's the difference between assisted suicide and killing unborn babies? And how can medicos participate in either evil practice and still "do no harm?"

It is quite simple. Suicide is a choice made by the individual. Abortion is murder because the one being killed does not have the choice.

To put it simply: Choice is the key.

[JRadcliffe]

OK Summer -- next time I will include the clarifying statement. ;-)

[JRadcliffe]

It would perhaps be more defining if I said that you may harm yourself, but you may not harm others. And that I believe that life begins at conception.

This of course puts an additional burden on women, but that is due to the biological nature of things, not some targeted attack on women. Perhaps one day technology will make this issue moot.

[Paulus Invictus]

You missed my point. I was referring to doctors helping people kill themselves (it's called self murder), by writing prescriptions for death dealing chemicals. Is that not doing harm? Abortion is pure murder.

[summer]

That clarified it for me. Thanks. :)

[anniegetyourgun]

If you don't like the federal law, move to have it repealed. Remember, WE are the government in this country.

[Aric2000]

That being said, I also don't think that it is in the best interests of society to license doctors to kill people. If people want to commit suicide, they can do it on their own.

Since you seem to be so up on scenarios, let me tell you a TRUE story.

A woman, torn with cancer, very aggressive type. Strong independent and loved her children. Her pride was great. Her doctors gave her pain medication for the pain of the cancer, but it was never quite enough, she was always hurting and weak. She continually asked for stronger medication to control the pain, but her doctors refused. She finally had had enough and had decided that she wanted to end it before her life became the living hell that it was threatening to become.

She found some sleeping pills and took the entire bottle, problem was that the cancer had spread to her stomach and she could not keep anything down. She tried hard to keep the pills down, but at last she threw them up. Some of the medication had had a chance to get into her system and she ended up completely bedridden. She was in extreme pain up to the day she died.

Let me tell you a few things. 1: most family members will have the last memory of her being in bed, weak, helpless and groaning in GREAT pain. The pain for her children, her husband, and the rest was extreme. They were helpless to help her in any way shape or form to get rid of the pain.

Their last memories of her are the pain, the bedridden hulk of what was once a happy, strong, and loving woman. If the Death with dignity act would have been in place, she 1: could have taken the medication before her stomach was so infected that it was impossible to keep them down. and known that that medication would do the job and NOT leave here in worse shape then she already was. 2: Her family would have remembered her as she wanted to be remembered, strong, loving, And physically and mentally there. 3: she could have taken the medications with her children there, and KNOWN that they were with her as she was dying. and 4: She would have died in peace and painfree, instead of the incredible pain that had wracked her cancer infested body.

If a person wishes to die with dignity, wishes to die in such a way that their family has last memories of them as they truly are, and wishes to die before thier lives become nothing but pain, and nothing else, who are you to say that they are wrong?

I believe that Terminally ill patients should be given that choice, to die with dignity and as painfree as possible, and the chance to end their lives at the time of their choosing.

Your life is yours, my life is mine, it is not my right to take your life, but it is my right to take my own, and if I am terminally ill, having a Doctor prescribe the drugs that he knows will put an end to my life in a painfree and dignified way, is NOT a license to kill, it is a license for the Doctor to be as nurturing to his terminally ill patients as possible.

THIS IS NOT THE FAMILIES NOR THE DOCTORS CHOICE, The Doctor is not even ALLOWED to bring it up as an option. THE PATIENT has to ask themselves!!

The opportunity to die with dignity is guaranteed in the state of Oregon, and of the THOUSANDS of patients that ARE terminal, ONLY a SMALL percentage have asked for that option. But here in Oregon, it is an OPTION THEY HAVE!! And it is not the federal governments decision, and to have them just come in and arbitrarily rescind that option with beuracratic nonsense is beyond the pale.

You don't have to agree with it, if you don't like it, then do not move here, do not visit here, and do not buy things that are made in Oregon, and do not allow your STATE to pass such laws. But, what we allow or do not allow in OUR state is none of your concern, and NONE of your business, if it is not unconstitutional, and this IS NOT unconstitutional!! SO STAY OUT OF IT!!!

[anniegetyourgun]

You're right....you'd have to give yourself the injection with mix, or pills provided by the physician. It really doesn't matter - it still ropes the medical profession into the killing. Suicide should be a private matter - as sinful as it is.

[breakem]

And your postion on the federal government making the decision when the folks in Ore have decided what they want?

[JRadcliffe]

"You missed my point. I was referring to doctors helping people kill themselves (it's called self murder), by writing prescriptions for death dealing chemicals. Is that not doing harm? Abortion is pure murder."

And just what would you suggest? I consider assisted suicide to be humane and compassionate. It is also a choice to be made by the sufferer, not some outside agency.

I do not believe that everyone will be running out to commit suicide should it be made "legal", anymore than I believe that everyone would be running out to take drugs, were they made "legal".

Life is all about choices. As long as those choices do not infringe on the unalienable rights of others, we should leave them alone.

A little background - both of my parents died in May, after protracted and painful illnesses. Both choose to live thier lives until nature took them. Both of them had the means necessary to end their own lives. Had they so choosen, I would have respected their decision, but I would not/could not have helped them.

Even now a selfish part of me wishes they were still alive, even though I am well aware of the pain they suffered before their deaths.

It is easy to oppose an "idea" until you are faced with the reality -- and you can place the face and the name of the ones you love to the circumstances.