"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art." THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH - CLASSICAL VERSION 4th Paragraph
"You shall not murder." God - Exodus 20:13 
Today, in the hallowed halls of our most powerful political institution, six judges decided it was OK for physicians in the State of Oregon to administer "a deadly drug" to patients who want to die! In a 6-3 judgment, our U.S. Supreme Court opened a Pandora's box of death for the other 49 States in this great nation and once again demonstrated that the blacked robed ones have entirely too much power and influence upon the course of this land. The irony of this is that pro-life people around America have set this week aside as a time to honor the Sanctity of Human Life.
So much for the Hippocratic Oath! Many physicians today are living according to the Hypo-critic Oath as they claim to care about preserving life, while they insert a needle into a living human being which carries death-filled poison. Those that support the Oregon Law claim that it is "humane" and well written with a number of protections that prevent abuse like the fact that it "covers only extremely sick people — those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind, and after at least two doctors agree they have six months or less to live."
The problem with this reasoning of course is that it assumes the inherent goodness of human beings and the ability to make judgments about the "dying" person. History and the Bible make it ever so clear that we are not all that good, but rather, we are all fallen and depraved human beings with potential to do horrible things to one another. All we have to do is look at what a "woman's right to abortion" has got us (other than 45 million dead Americans), namely, a multi-billion dollar industry pedaling murder as a right and alternative. I can only imagine what kind of sophisticated riff raff is lining up to "make a killing" in this new and terrible industry. God help us all. Oh, it is a sad day for life in America!
CLICK HERE FOR THE LINK TO THE USA TODAY STORY
So... Did you take the USA today's word on this as the absolute truth? If you look closely at the case law, and the items of record you will see that the "black robes" did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do. They took the case, which was based on former AG Ashcrofts threats to prosecute Oregon doctors for prescribing drugs that when taken to excess lead to certain death. This, on it's face, is outside the power of the AG. The AG is only allowed to prosecute for ILLEGAL drugs. So, based purely on the merits, the "black robes" ruled CORRECTLY on the case. In the 6-3 decision, the merits of the case were specifically cited in the ruling.
ReplyDeleteThis leaves the door wide open for Congress to pass a law that outlaws this practice. Had the court ruled in that direction, they would have been legislating from the bench.
What needs to happen now, is for people to write their congress people and senators and urge such legislation.
When that happens, then the issue can be resolved.
Now that's a bit of interesting news their HOKFOTA; I did not know this. Any sources? for some informative reading?
ReplyDeleteDoug, if this is indeed just another vote in the direction of allowing docs to murder people.......I weep. What a low point in American history.
I can see it now. Local citizen goes into their RiteAid Pharmacy and gets the "new" over the coutner version of what used to require a prescription.
"Now you too can end your own life at home without a prescription!"
Here is the Supreme Court decision.
ReplyDeletehttp://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/17jan20061050/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-623.pdf
The argument for and against in this case are based mostly on the controlled substances act, and former AG Ashcroft's interpretation of a portion of it relating to Schedule II narcotics. It's a good read, if you're into that kind of thing.
Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
ReplyDeleteChoose to end your life....approved by the state.
Choose to have California news vs. Spokane news on our television......denied by the state.
Some things just don't make sense. All the more reason to instill in our children Godly priciples to make the right choices and to make a difference.
Hokfota, it would seem that the AG can state that acting in a manner that is unethical, or unsafe to the general population, is indeed an act that is outside the normative standard of medicine. Clearly the "overdose" amount of these normally unharmful drugs can be construed as above the practice of normal medicine.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone is put to death by the State, they don't inject them with unharmful drugs, but just in excess so that they will be killed by them; the stuff isn't good for you at any dose.
I think I'd have to side with the AG on this one. Doctors should not be allowed to decide when a human life is "okay" for murdering.
Thanks for the information by the way; it was very informative. And NO, I didn't read all 62 pages of the Court's findings. :)
Even when we install Godly principles in our children-it is only when THEY yield to the Holy Spirit to work on thier hearts and become circumsised from the old man and not make decisions from what they have been taught but make decisions based on true convictions of the Holy Spirit, and know that anything less grieves God. Until we, they, realize we are no longer our own and was bought for a price, can we make a difference. God-Help-we need you!!!
ReplyDeleteI read a book (no surprise there) that upset me terribly at the time I read it. Mainly, I think, because I didn't know whether the author was condoning the plot or exposing it or dealing with a this is where we could all end up scenario. The book was called "The Giver". In it everyone is 'safe'~ they don't have to deal with hormones because there is a pill for those, nor do they have to deal with death because they may "released" from life whenever they choose (which amount to a lethal injection). There is no hunger, obesity, lawlessness, or temptation... there is also no love. The people have no memory of war, famine, or hostility because they chose to allow al of that to be held and protected by only one member of their society - "The Receiver". Their governing elders made the choice to remove feeling and rememberance of these things, & in doing so, they lost the ability to love.
ReplyDeleteSee, what is wrong with giving Dr.'s so much "lisence to kill" isn't that they are able or unable to make judgements about a dying person, or what is humane or inhumane, but that loss and suffering and injustice and struggle is part of living ... and of love. The right to life is more than simply the right to breath and walk, or to communicate or pursue a dream, though they are valuable. It is also the right to hurt, to question, to wonder, to hunger, to be tempted, and to overcome.
Life is not secure, it is not safe. It is not ours to take, no more than it was ours to give. We would do well to remember - to embrace pain as well as joy, and struggle as well as ease, and in purity & holiness guard our right to it instead of looking for a way out.
Absolutely Dea and Shelly. :)
ReplyDelete"This leaves the door wide open for Congress to pass a law that outlaws this practice. Had the court ruled in that direction, they would have been legislating from the bench."
ReplyDeleteHOKFOTA, that's exactly the reason I have to approve of the SCOTUS decision. I'm revolted by the slippery slope we're approaching as far as euthanasia; you have onnly to look at Holland to see our future. But if the federal government has precedence in this sort of state affairs, it will make it well-nigh impossible for states to pass euthanasia or abortion restrictions without federal approval. The blade cuts both ways on this one.