Why the U.S. doesn’t allow assisted dying (euthanasia).

[Britvik]

They say you learn something new every day. For me, as a non-American, it was this:

Washington v. Glucksberg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Court felt that the ban was rational in that it furthered such compelling state interests as the preservation of human life and the protection of the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. It further protected those moved to end their lives because of financial or psychological complications. The Court also felt that if it declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, it would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia."

 

[LifeHasNoOptIn]

It further protected those moved to end their lives because of financial or psychological complications.

Thus guaranteeing we continually suffer until nature mercifully lets go. Gee wiz, thanx so much Uncle Sam.

The funny part of this is the 2nd Amendment pretty much guarantees there is always a very violent, messy option available for about 200 bucks with no questions asked. Go USA...

 

[callme]

Well, snog me sideways and tell me the state isn't outright telling its voters, not just residents, it takes no responsibility for the people that need help the most. In fact, openly condemns them without trying. All they needed was the necessary generic statement but they ended up barbarically sounding.

Continually protected right, as in, unlike slavery and nowadays, the 2A? This is a shade of all-American stupidity I've never heard before.

Speak about "medical imbalance". I think Washington lawmakers and lobbyists are having a temporary consciousness deficiency disorder.

 

[unkuto]

I think in the future we will reach the point where assisted suicide is going to be more common and socially accepted.
I don't see it's happening in next 50 years though.

 

[thedaywillcome]

I am a Swiss citizen and it is very I would go to Exit for drinking Nembutal if I had any sever medical issues or terminal diseases.

But I am so depressed in this life, that I will commit suicide anyway much earlier.

 

[Ligottian]

I'm an American and I had no idea that a right to die case had ever made it to the Supreme Court. Telling that even the most "liberal" justices voted to uphold the ban.

 

[eternalflame]

Because you have to join the army (or oil company as they name it). Well just some stereotype from nonUS.

 

[YourNeighbor]

The decision here was correct. The conclusion that the state rule was "rational" does not mean it was the best possible rule as a matter of policy, or even good policy, only that it was defensible. This test is a very permissive test and easy to satisfy, as it is not the Court's job to review laws for how good a policy is. Laws are only reviewed to see if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution. And remember, the proper test for what is protected in the U.S. Constitution (as opposed to what can be addressed by legislation) is not "what do I agree with." The Constitution is limited, and no one could reasonably argue it was meant to protect the right to medical aid in dying. That right was never considered by the Framers. Finally, healthcare standards are generally reserved to the states.

Montana has recognized a constitutionally protected to MAiD, by the way. A number of states have also passed laws creating MAiD. Some state supreme courts have considered cases seeking state constitutional protection of the right to die with dignity. Montana is the only one that recognizes such a constitutional right, but it's possible other states would follow.

 

[Britvik]

The decision here was correct. The conclusion that the state rule was "rational" does not mean it was the best possible rule as a matter of policy, or even good policy, only that it was defensible. This test is a very permissive test and easy to satisfy, as it is not the Court's job to review laws for how good a policy is. Laws are only reviewed to see if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution. And remember, the proper test for what is protected in the U.S. Constitution (as opposed to what can be addressed by legislation) is not "what do I agree with." The Constitution is limited, and no one could reasonably argue it was meant to protect the right to medical aid in dying. That right was never considered by the Framers. Finally, healthcare standards are generally reserved to the states.

Montana has recognized a constitutionally protected to MAiD, by the way. A number of states have also passed laws creating MAiD. Some state supreme courts have considered cases seeking state constitutional protection of the right to die with dignity. Montana is the only one that recognizes such a constitutional right, but it's possible other states would follow.

Do you think a country's government should make/uphold laws supporting assisted suicide? And, if so, what safeguards do you think it should include?

Personally, how would you like to die, given your prognosis? Feel free to ignore both this and all of my questions

 

[Red Scare]

The decision here was correct. The conclusion that the state rule was "rational" does not mean it was the best possible rule as a matter of policy, or even good policy, only that it was defensible. This test is a very permissive test and easy to satisfy, as it is not the Court's job to review laws for how good a policy is. Laws are only reviewed to see if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution. And remember, the proper test for what is protected in the U.S. Constitution (as opposed to what can be addressed by legislation) is not "what do I agree with." The Constitution is limited, and no one could reasonably argue it was meant to protect the right to medical aid in dying. That right was never considered by the Framers. Finally, healthcare standards are generally reserved to the states.

Montana has recognized a constitutionally protected to MAiD, by the way. A number of states have also passed laws creating MAiD. Some state supreme courts have considered cases seeking state constitutional protection of the right to die with dignity. Montana is the only one that recognizes such a constitutional right, but it's possible other states would follow.

This is very interesting as Montana is not one of the states that currently allows assisted suicide for terminally ill patients (California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Washington). In all the states that do, it is only available to people with less than 6 months to live. And they still make it cost prohibitive, I think in Oregon the necessary medication cost over 3000 dollars, though they recently said that they would allow it for terminally ill people residing outside of Oregon.

I wonder if a non terminally ill person could argue for their right to die in Montana, or how that currently works. Very interesting though.

 

[YourNeighbor]

This is very interesting as Montana is not one of the states that currently allows assisted suicide for terminally ill patients (California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Washington). In all the states that do, it is only available to people with less than 6 months to live. And they still make it cost prohibitive, I think in Oregon the necessary medication cost over 3000 dollars, though they recently said that they would allow it for terminally ill people residing outside of Oregon.

I wonder if a non terminally ill person could argue for their right to die in Montana, or how that currently works. Very interesting though.

There is a constitutional right (under the state constitution) to assisted death in Montana. In other words, the state cannot criminalize a dying person from seeking and receiving an assisted death. The problem is that, because there are no laws in place providing clear guidance and cover on the issue, few if any doctors are willing to participate. This is an issue that must be addressed by state legislatures. Most probably will not touch it any time soon, but there is (slow) progress.

 

[Ligottian]

The decision here was correct. The conclusion that the state rule was "rational" does not mean it was the best possible rule as a matter of policy, or even good policy, only that it was defensible. This test is a very permissive test and easy to satisfy, as it is not the Court's job to review laws for how good a policy is. Laws are only reviewed to see if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution. And remember, the proper test for what is protected in the U.S. Constitution (as opposed to what can be addressed by legislation) is not "what do I agree with." The Constitution is limited, and no one could reasonably argue it was meant to protect the right to medical aid in dying. That right was never considered by the Framers. Finally, healthcare standards are generally reserved to the states.

Montana has recognized a constitutionally protected to MAiD, by the way. A number of states have also passed laws creating MAiD. Some state supreme courts have considered cases seeking state constitutional protection of the right to die with dignity. Montana is the only one that recognizes such a constitutional right, but it's possible other states would follow.

Just curious. Why do you think Rehnquist cited Roe vs Wade in his opinion when he voted against that ruling? Is there not any greater right to privacy than to one's own life?

 

[YourNeighbor]

Just curious. Why do you think Rehnquist cited Roe vs Wade in his opinion when he voted against that ruling? Is there not any greater right to privacy than to one's own life?

Rehnquist wasn't really relying on Roe to reach his conclusion. In fact, he kind of glossed over it, and maybe for good reason, as he of course did not like Roe v. Wade all too much.

To get into the weeds a bit, let's follow the Court's analysis. The preliminary question was not whether someone has a protected right to die or to commit suicide, but whether there is a fundamental right to medical assistance from third parties in committing suicide. Because this right is obviously not in the text of the Constitution, the Court next looked to whether this was a right protected by the American legal tradition. The answer was no because assisting suicide (and even suicide itself) has a long tradition of being outlawed, like it or not.

Because medical aid in dying was not a fundamental right, the challengers had to show Washington had zero reasonable arguments to outlaw it to prevail, an almost impossible burden to meet.

A different court could have reached a different result (like the 9th Cir. did), but this is not the type of decision the Supreme Court was likely to impose in the country. I wouldn't be opposed to the Court revisiting the issue, but one can't objectively state the Court was incorrect. And our current court would never take up the issue.

 

[ornitier199]

They say you learn something new every day. For me, as a non-American, it was this:

Washington v. Glucksberg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Court felt that the ban was rational in that it furthered such compelling state interests as the preservation of human life and the protection of the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. It further protected those moved to end their lives because of financial or psychological complications. The Court also felt that if it declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, it would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia."

Translation:
"Forced living."
'You live by my volition not your own.'

I don't think so.
Like it matters anyways, that's just a method, one method. Would it be preferable for a peaceful way out? Of course, but I know I won't ever get that, so I'm okay with a painful one.