Eff's Rambles (Archive)


Philosophy and morality over the Oregon case

I have not yet fully read, and I admit legal documents intimidate me, the CSA to confirm or debunk my initial beliefs. But, even so, I am glad that I am willing to take a position contrary to the interest of my own morality. It would be easy for me to say that a state has a limited right to use drugs in the manner prescribed, but what I must remember is that my morality might not have been a large motivator in the passage of the CSA and all parts within it relating to the Oregon case. But, in all honesty, it's not a case of being an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, it's that I don't want to intrude on the business of other people to that extent. Even if the use of the particular drugs is unlawful, it's temporary.

Another thing that makes me question the inherent wisdom of the state's rights argument is this notion that one must defer to them on matters of medical use, defining what is proper. But can "medically legitimate" be defined absent some moral basis, a Hippocratic Oath or some other standard? Is Oregon entitled to define proper use based on the tradition that states usually do, or they don't, but I'm not sure?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click