[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

So the government can be neutral on the issue of life, according to your reading of the Constitution? Even with abortion they only reasoned that the child can be killed because he/she is not a person yet (stupid reasoning, but it's not this). After that was out of the way, they decided it was an issue of freedom for the mother. But first they had to make the child a non-person. This is a new frontier.

I sympathize with the states rights argument, but states can't do certain things. Taking a life really should be one of them. I further sympathize with the issues of pain and slow death, but the dangers the other direction are just way too great.

Now the difference between murder and legal "suicide" is nothing more than a legal document -- AND THE MOST IMPORTANT WITNESS IS DEAD!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I sympathize with the states rights argument, but states can't do certain things. Taking a life really should be one of them.

Oregon's law is highly regulated. You (or immediate family members) have to sign notarized documents if the patient has a terminal illness. There is no slippery slope here. It's not like anybody can just have the physician put them to death.

Again, excellent ruling by SCOTUS.

[antiRepublicrat]

I sympathize with the states rights argument, but states can't do certain things. Taking a life really should be one of them.

I take it you're against the death penalty.

But aside from that, read the law. The state doesn't take the life, the terminall ill person does.