I was pleased very much with this decision. Not only with the outcome, but with the reasoning used to reach the decision and the resulting precedent that will result from the decision. A Libertarian victory.

Go to the following link. Then click on Gonzales vs. Oregon. It is a 62 page .pdf document, but fear not, the summary is at the beginning and is 5 pages long. I would strongly recommend reading the summary.

After you do that, I also recommend clicking on Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, another decision of interest to libertarians.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html

BTW:

Kennedy, O'Conner, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter were in the majority, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas were the dissenters.

So let's get this straight according to the SCOTUS a doctor can help a patient die with lethal drugs, but can't help a patient live and relieve pain with medical marijuana. Go figure

My only question and/or fear is "What is the definition of competance?". What if someone is incompetant? Does the Family Member or Guardian sign the papers? Personally, the Courts and Government should stay out of Health Care and allow the Physician and Patient [and/or Families/Guardians] decide what is best for themselves.

Judge Roberts shot his was on his 1st vote. Where is all the 'upholding Constitutional contraints' he promised in his hearings? Seems to me states rights are a basic tenant of the Constitution.

I am strongly and emphatically against doctor assisted sucide and euthanasia, but I agree with the holding by the Supreme Court in stating that the federal government, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft, overstepped their authority.

The Oregon case was totally a states rights issue. The citizens of Oregon twice voted in favor of doctor assisted suicide. The federal government had no right to get involved in a state issue.

For those whom believe in states rights, this is a great victory. For those who are anti-euthanasia, I guess they are going to have to work at educating, changing hearts and then seeing to it to change the law through the Democratic Process. I personally hope they are successful.

I thank Alex for his thoughtful notes and his views.

Can somebody explain why Clarence Thomas dissented on this decision, and also dissented on the ruling last year that wouldn't let Californians legalize medical marijuana?

Remember Jack Kevorkian as he rots in a cell for daring to challenge the world and losing. The only reason why medical euth. is not accepted is becuase you would cut the profit center right out of the medical industry/business.

The great majority of money to be made in medicine is to be made in extending the life of the serious/terminally ill as far as possible, and you say I'm cynical, then ask yourself is health care a business? If the answer is yes, (and we all know that it is) then why would they not attempt to structure the business for maximum profit, just like any other business would be?

Kevorkian is a hero - but you cant buck the system too far or they will come after you until they put you away or kill you, if you gain any success. He dared challenge the profit center in medicine, and he was winning the argument, so they put him away, now forgotten by most.

The government, either federal or state, has no business in the personal decisions made between a terminally ill patient and that person's doctor. We either must retain complete ownership of our lives or, by default, we relinquish that responsibility to others, namely the government. Bravo for the decision of the Supreme Court and the rebuke to former Attorney General Ashcroft.

"We either must retain complete ownership of our lives or, by default, we relinquish that responsibility to others, namely the government."-CMMC

Wouldn't letting a doctor decide be relinquishing that responsibility to others? What ever happened to Self-Determination?

"Can somebody explain why Clarence Thomas dissented on this decision, and also dissented on the ruling last year that wouldn't let Californians legalize medical marijuana?"-J

My guess would be that he is trying to be consistently pro-life.

Paleolib...if the Oregon Law is executed in the fashion it is written, then no there is no personal responsibility on the part of the patient that is relinquished to the doctor. The issue of self-determination is squarely placed on the patient and his/her decision making capabilities. I assume that in cases of incapacitation of the patient, then the responsibility rest upon the facts of the case and if there was a living will executed by the patient, if not, then no action, according to my understanding of the law can be executed without the patient's consent.

Hooray for the Supreme Court to finally get one right. Roberts and the others came as no suprise to me, for all their posturing about the constitution they are first and foremost Right Wing "social" Conservatives. The guys and gals who want you to live your life in the way THEY think you should. Ideologues.

It is the tenant of Libertarianism to let people live and die free to choose how (when possible). To you anti-euthanasia Libertarians, live by your principles, argue them vigorously if you feel the need, but do not attempt to employ legislative force on those who do not share your views. That makes you no better than the dissenters in this ruling.

I am in total agreement Chuck. In fact, I would go further in stating that the State (both Federal and Individual State Republics) have no business in the decision making of any individual on any level. Each individual should take full responsibility for his/her life and in doing do, bear the consequences of those decisions. No contract or agreement between individuals on any level, nor an individual's personal decisions about his/her life should be infringed upon by any government or agency of the government.

The most interesting part of the opinion was teh lines from Scalia's dissent where he admits that regulating recreational drug use is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. Makes you wonder then how could he vote with the majority in Raich?

Justice Thomas' dissent was, in quite a few ways, a backhanded slap to the rest of the court effectively admitting confusion as to how they could have supported shooting down this decision, while upholding the Commerce Clause in Raich, when clearly this case actually did involve something the federal government supposedly has a right to regulate (namely interstate commerce of drugs.)

Despite the apparent dissent in this case, Clarence Thomas still turns out to be the most libertarian of all the judges, IMHO. Lots of good commentary on it can be found on the Reason blog, if I remember correctly.

To Chuck,
Those who say that anti-euthanasia forces in the Libertarain Party and outside of it, are trying to impose their views on the rest of society, the reverse can be said as well. That the pro-euthanasia forces are trying to impose their views on all Americans.

Let this issue be argued in the state legislatures and by the people in each respected state. Through the free and open exchange of ideas, opinions and debate, and through the Democratic process. I think that that is the best way to approach this issue. Let it be done.

The Supreme Court finally did something right! What is democracy without personal choice?

Honestly, Alex, I don't think that's the case. Pro-euthanasia positions aren't talking about *mandatory* euthanasia. They are supporting the individual's right to make (or not make) that choice without interference from others (government and otherwise).

The anti-euthanasia position is seeking, whether through federal or local coercion, to deny someone the right to make that choice. They are not being imposed upon by somebody else's decision about his/her own fate, but are trying to limit the freedom of another who does not feel the same way.

(Yes, I know the whole issue is messier than that, but legislative action is a poor option. I'll make my own decisions about my life as each new situation arises, and if it doesn't break your arm or pick your pocket, it's really none of your business. "You" in the general sense, not a flame. ;) )

Alex:

This Libertarian does not impose his personal morality on others, nor does he support legislating "morality". Each of us has differing views EQUALLY valid. Putting force of law behind one point of view is to crush the other or force it into the underground. That is the tyranny of the majority. Haven't you had enough of that in politics yet? Perhaps you are too young to remember the relative horrors of the "back alley abortionist" prior to 1973. Governments job is to govern not to impose one person or groups concept of "morality" on another. When government started down that slippery slope, the social chaos this country now enjoys began. No, I am not referring to the Civil Rights movement. Our founders were wrong to consider members of the human race as "three-fifths of a person". I am referring to the private choices people are sometimes forced to make in their lives. Each to their own conscience. I do not have the right to dispose of the life of another except in self-defense, but I claim the ABSOLUTE right to claim my own should I choose to do so. Again, if YOU believe something is not right, don't do it, but mind your own business as to the next person.

With that in mind, each of us should leave clear instructions regarding end of life issues to avoid as much uncertainty as possible. Where no instructions are left, or no one understanding an individuals wishes would be around as spokesman, I would personally agree with you Alex and err on the side of life.

Man oh man. Do you guys do "interventions"? I have a friend who has a fairly "fresh" blog and consistently comes down on the side against matters such as this one, which I consider to be a keenly Libertarian issue. He's a lawyer and no dummy at that. I completely respect and admire him. But he refers to himself as a Libertarian (or an "LWOP" or "Libertarian Without a Party"). I am actually a Liberal Democrat and find myself often taking the Libertarian point of view in any discussion on his blog. I think he's really a neoconservative, but can't face the horror. (heheh, that's my liberal humor.)

Anyway, his blog is just starting out and he has zero traffic except for me and he could use some supposedly like-minded people to discuss with. I'm doing my part because he's my friend.

http://newworldman.us/

"But he refers to himself as a Libertarian (or an "LWOP" or "Libertarian Without a Party")...I think he's really a neoconservative"-bujeeboo

Does he support the war in Iraq? If so then he is probably a Neoconservative or maybe a neolibertarian.

So let's get this straight according to the SCOTUS a doctor can help a patient die with lethal drugs, but can't help a patient live and relieve pain with medical marijuana. Go figure
Posted by: paleolib

Those are my sentiments exactly! Actually this topic came up in my "Social Ethics" class. I guess we can celebrate, after all the states won!

Its nice to know that the United Snakes of America have decided to permit me the privileage of deciding when to dispose of the body that I maintain, feed and build at my expense, and that the government taxes.

I really hope their is a G-d up there. We sure do need him.