Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

California lawmakers push assisted-suicide

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • California lawmakers push assisted-suicide

    SACRAMENTO -- In a move expected to spark emotional and divisive debate, two California lawmakers plan to introduce a bill next month legalizing doctor-assisted death for terminally ill patients, officials said Monday.

    The bill being drafted by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, and Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Santa Rosa, is based on a voter-approved law in Oregon, the only state in the nation allowing what has become known as doctor-assisted suicide.

    Berg, chairwoman of the Assembly Committee on Aging, and Levine, a panel member, plan to join Portland-based Compassion in Dying in launching a campaign designed to blunt the kind of opposition voiced Monday by religious and physician groups.

    The lawmakers expect to get the majority-vote bill through the Democrat-dominated Legislature and figure Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a social moderate, will seriously consider it. Schwarzenegger aides declined comment.

    "We wouldn't be doing it if we didn't think we could get it passed," said Stuart Waldman, chief of staff for Levine, who was traveling overseas and could not be reached for comment. "There's a lot of concern that terminally ill people are suffering needlessly."

    The lawmakers also believe that the potential departure of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has been legally battling Oregon's one-of-a-kind law, would remove another hurdle to physician-assisted suicide -- an issue the U.S. Supreme Court has left to individual states to legislate.

    "We're working closely with Oregon, and we've had a couple other states interested in working with us as well, because as California goes, so does the rest of the nation," Berg said.

    Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, passed in 1997, allows a doctor to prescribe life-ending drugs to a terminally ill patient who has been diagnosed as having no more than six months to live if the patient is a mentally competent adult who renews the request within 15 days.

    Supporters of importing Oregon's law to California said polls show that public opinion has shifted heavily in their favor since the 1999 failure of a bill by former Democratic Assemblywoman Dion Aroner of Berkeley and voter rejection of a 1992 California ballot initiative.

    But assisted-suicide opponents, such as the Catholic Church and the California Medical Association, said there's been no change in public attitude.

    "Catholic Church teaching respects life from conception through natural death," said Tod Tamberg, a spokesman for Cardinal Roger Mahony and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

    "While we recognize that extraordinary means are not necessary to preserve life, the taking of life under other circumstances is rejected by our faith."

    Tamberg said Mahony would not comment directly on this particular proposal, unless it is considered at some point by the full California Catholic Conference.

    California Medical Association spokesman Ron Lopp said his group has yet to take a position on the proposed bill but that it opposes assisted suicide in general.

    However, the CMA has argued in federal court that Ashcroft's attempts to stop doctor-assisted death in Oregon could discourage physicians elsewhere from giving terminally ill patients enough pain medication.

    Ashcroft's efforts, the group argued, would result in needlessly painful deaths for many patients.

    The legal battle began after Ashcroft announced that physicians who prescribed lethal medication would lose their federal licenses to dispense controlled substances. In a lawsuit filed by Oregon, federal courts ruled that Ashcroft overstepped his bounds because medical practice is regulated by the states.

    The decisions have been applauded by the Oregon-based advocacy group Compassion in Dying.

    "We think the people of California should have the same choices that those in Oregon do," said Carole van Aelstyn, a spokeswoman for the California affiliate of the group. "But I'm sure this (legislative proposal) will kick up a storm."

    Meanwhile, the primary figure of the 1990s movement to gain legalization of doctor-assisted suicide, Jack Kevorkian, 76, remains in a Michigan prison serving a 25-year sentence for his conviction on second-degree murder charges. He claims to have assisted in the suicides of more than 130 people.

    http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...522428,00.html

  • #2
    Originally posted by Gio
    the primary figure of the 1990s movement to gain legalization of doctor-assisted suicide, Jack Kevorkian
    They shouldn't make that guy the primary figure. He's not worth the effort.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • #3
      "While we recognize that extraordinary means are not necessary to preserve life, the taking of life under other circumstances is rejected by our faith."
      Thats nice Catholic church, and now doubt you will move on to claim its rejection by your faith is grounds to deny the rights of terminally ill patients to end their suffering, irrespective of faith? Legalize euthanasia and let the churches try and convince their followers of what they will! Bah, I am feeling particuarly anti-church today for some reason.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Kieran Bennett
        Thats nice Catholic church
        It's nice they're free to have their own views.
        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kieran Bennett
          Thats nice Catholic church, and now doubt you will move on to claim its rejection by your faith is grounds to deny the rights of terminally ill patients to end their suffering, irrespective of faith? Legalize euthanasia and let the churches try and convince their followers of what they will! Bah, I am feeling particuarly anti-church today for some reason.
          Wow, it's like you can read my mind or something. Who the heck cares what the church says about whether this law passes or not. What ever happened to the good old theory of secularization? Seperation of church and state? Since when does the church govern what laws are passed? If the church prohibts it's followers from taking advantage of euthanasia, fine, that's their business, but leave the rest of us to make our own decisions.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pyken
            Wow, it's like you can read my mind or something. Who the heck cares what the church says about whether this law passes or not. What ever happened to the good old theory of secularization? Seperation of church and state? Since when does the church govern what laws are passed? If the church prohibts it's followers from taking advantage of euthanasia, fine, that's their business, but leave the rest of us to make our own decisions.
            So you're saying religious people shouldn't get to vote?
            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Confed999
              So you're saying religious people shouldn't get to vote?
              Complete and utter misinterpretation of my words. Yes, religious people get to vote, just like those who are not religious. I'm just saying that this law should be based entirely on the voting. The church can tell it's followers how to vote, like I've said, that's their business, and I'm fine with that. It's when they try to force their views on the rest of the people that I start to have a problem.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pyken
                It's when they try to force their views on the rest of the people that I start to have a problem.
                Then I guess you have no problems, nobody is being "forced".
                No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Confed999
                  Then I guess you have no problems, nobody is being "forced".
                  This is an entirely different debate about Christians attempting to force their views on others who they believe are wrong. I won't take away from the actual topic of this thread by debating it here.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Pyken
                    This is an entirely different debate about Christians attempting to force their views on others who they believe are wrong. I won't take away from the actual topic of this thread by debating it here.
                    LOL :) You brought it up with the "when does the church govern what laws are passed" statement.
                    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Confed999
                      LOL :) You brought it up with the "when does the church govern what laws are passed" statement.
                      Again, a misinterpretation of my words. Take it in context. I was discussing the common belief that United States law and governance is secular, when this is not the case.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Pyken
                        Again, a misinterpretation of my words. Take it in context. I was discussing the common belief that United States law and governance is secular, when this is not the case.
                        How is that not the case? How does the church control what laws are passed, if you're not speaking of voting? I don't think I'm misinterpreting your words.
                        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Common sense and faith are blurred by this issue.

                          For making the final decision, is it better to have someone who has no vested interest in the continuing survival of a terminal patient or to have someone who, perhaps, is a little too emotionally involved to make the final medical disposition of the person without bias?

                          I freely admit that I don't know the answer.

                          But I do know that making it a matter for legislation will only create an atmosphere of divisiveness that resolves nothing with regard to a deeply personal decision.

                          The problem, as I see it, is that we are relying upon a decision--even when drawn out--that is being made in the heat of the moment. I would not question the decision of a Living Will, when the person's medical condition is comatose and beyond dispute. However, I do question the mental state and decision-making capacity of a lucid person who may be suffering from intense physical pain or emotional suffering--a person whose judgment may be clouded by feelings of self-pity. While the former may be self evident, the latter is often more difficult to discern.

                          This is one of those issues that is not discussed openly. Instead, we relegate it to box office ballot initiatives that speak to the cloistered decisions of those beyond a drawn curtain. While we may feel a sense of freedom in such methods, we do not actually resolve the issue.

                          Personally, I feel that it is an individual choice--subject to moderation by a reasonable and dispassionate outsider.

                          Any opinion on the subject begs the inevitable question of "What if...?".
                          Last edited by Lucien LaCroix; 11 Nov 04,, 05:15.
                          "If I see further than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Prediction: If this passes both the legislature and doesn't get a veto from the governor. Oppostion to it will build and California will have a referendum on it and voters will reject it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My prediction: The opposite. In the event that it passes, I think that it will survive. Califronia is largely Democratic, so I think there is a good chance it will hold. But no-one can truly and accurately predict the reactions of masses of people in this manner.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X