Eff's Rambles (Archive)



From my slight skimming (as it's far too complex for me to read through all of it, ok, I'm lazy) of the CSA, in reference to the Oregon assisted suicide case, although my empathy is with Oregon, I think the Feds will win. I doubt the allowance of a merciful death, though it is emotionally compelling, will be seen as a compelling public interest, especially in terms of public safety. I also don't think an argument of a traditional role of states determining medically legitimate uses, which I think is a major argument being made in defense of Oregon, is going to work when in reference to federally regulated opiates that fall under Schedule II definition, which does not seem to directly, if even tacitly, to sanction, let alone support, medically assisted suicide. Even if one argues that an absence of specific comment on this issue in the CSA should give the states default authority, it must still be argued how that would be good for the public safety. Public safety, being a broad term, could, I believe, more easily be used to argue against what is essentially the hastening of death for a person. I believe many philosophies and religions would define the quickening of a person's death as antithetical to the concept of public safety, though I realize not all would, or so I presume.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click