-Caveat Lector- >From http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAOBKCF50D.html
>>>At last the light is piercing the fog. We are beginning to see the shift from the government's socialistic experiment that it owns everything and everyone. I am not in favour of people indiscriminately going out and jumping off of bridges or becoming human torches or doing anything that causes still others to go on a litter- gitty patrol to dispose of the messes thereby created. This imposes too much on others for achieving a self-serving personal goal. Bad Karma, too. A person is owned by no other person than the immediate person, her- or himself. This goes for marriage, employment, or political affiliation, among others (except maybe for politicians but they've made their own beds). To suggest that the government is exercising its wisdom in protracting people's lives when the ill have no hope of recovering and their lives are irrevocably diminished to the point of almost constant pain and an otherwise meaningless existence, to accept this is suggesting that a citizen never becomes an adult in the eyes of the parent government. Or if they do become an adult, they somehow revert to another childhood. Who better to determine what's good for a person than the person her- or himself? We realise that Mr Ashcroft and his ilk of oil self-anointers might have some religiously ethical problems with this - on their own specific and personal levels. Yet, Mr Ashcroft's (et al's) responsibility is limited to ensuring that there is no coercion on the part of anyone (doctors, heirs, evil-doers in general) against people who have a need to terminate, that no one is making the decision except the terminee, that the decision is sound and informed, that the termination is done correctly and not performed in some back alley. Mr Ashcroft ain't gonna accompany nobody up to them Poily Gates and plead one way or the other. The person gets to go it alone. Even John Ashcroft. And he wants to face how long a line of people with scores to settle when he gets to the beyond? That he is making his decision to impose the Federal government on the citizens of Oregon based on his presumption that termination substances served no "legitimate medical purpose" is more than a little devious and misguiding. By the same token, ANY drug that the terminally ill take to "prolong" their lives would fall under the same directive, using the same logic. But this is not in line with the intent of the AMA and their drug company sponsors (the "Mengelesians") to maximise their bottom line. In this sense, the "Mengelesians" are certainly not the owners of the owners' bodies (although they may "own" the policy makers). Good on the courts! Now all they have to do is get the government back off of our backs on some other victimless consentual practices and we might be able to be freinds again! A<>E<>R <<< }}}>Begin Apr 17, 2002 Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Oregon Assisted Suicide Law, Criticizes Ashcroft By William McCall Associated Press Writer PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the U.S. Justice Department lacks the authority to overturn a voter-approved Oregon law allowing physician-assisted suicides. U.S. District Judge Robert Jones scolded Attorney General John Ashcroft, saying Ashcroft "with no advance warning to Oregon ... fired the first shot in the battle between the state of Oregon and the federal government." Jones said Ashcroft attempted to "stifle an ongoing, earnest and profound debate in the various states concerning physician-assisted suicide" with a Nov. 6 directive declaring that assisted suicide was not a "legitimate medical practice." "The citizens of Oregon, through their democratic initiative process, have chosen to resolve the moral, legal and ethical debate on physician-assisted suicide for themselves by voting - not once, but twice - in favor of the Oregon act," Jones wrote. The Justice Department was considering an appeal. If filed, it could lead to years of litigation. The Oregon Death With Dignity Act was approved by voters in 1994 and overwhelmingly affirmed three years later when it was returned to the ballot following a failed legal challenge. The state law allows terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to request a lethal dose of drugs after two doctors confirm the diagnosis and judge the patient mentally competent to make the request. Jones said Wednesday that the state had followed the wishes of the Supreme Court by striking a proper balance between the interests of the terminally ill and the government's responsibility to protect them. Gov. John Kitzhaber, a physician, signed the assisted suicide law in 1998. Since then, at least 91 people have used the law to end their lives, most of them suffering from cancer. But Ashcroft issued a directive on Nov. 6 that would have banned any lethal prescriptions, deciding they did not meet a "legitimate medical purpose" under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers challenged the directive in court. Supporters of the Oregon law contended a ruling in favor of Ashcroft would have had a "chilling effect" on nationwide care for the terminally ill because doctors would fear that administering too much pain medication could invite federal prosecution. Opponents of the law, such as Dr. Gregory Hamilton of Physicians for Compassionate Care, said such arguments are scare tactics. He said Ashcroft made it clear that "aggressive pain management" is considered legitimate medical care even if it may increase the chance of a patient's death. Steve Bushong, a deputy Oregon attorney general who has defended the state law, argued that regulating doctors has always been the sole responsibility of the states. Bushong said Congress intended only to prevent illegal drug trafficking by doctors under the Controlled Substances Act, and it left any decisions about medical practice up to the states. Attorneys representing an Oregon doctor, a pharmacist and several terminally ill patients joined the state against Ashcroft, arguing that even if he did believe he had authority to ban the Oregon law, he did not follow proper procedure to issue the directive. Judge Jones criticized Ashcroft in court early in the case, calling the directive an "edict" that Ashcroft issued without hearings. Ashcroft's order reversed a 1998 opinion by former Attorney General Janet Reno. --- On the Net: Compassion in Dying: http://www.compassionindying.org Physicians for Compassionate Care: http://www.pccef.org AP-ES-04-17-02 1250EDT This story can be found at : http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAOBKCF50D.html End<{{{ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
