Wednesday, October 05, 2005

SCOTUS Hearing Assisted Suicide Act

From what I've been reading it looks like the division in the court really appears to split on who has the final say on what is the proper use of a drug. Does the DEA determine the valid uses or is it up to the state who regulates medicine locally? And does the Attorney General have the authority to stop doctors from applying state approved uses of drugs?

This one is very difficult. There are valid arguments either way.
The Controlled Substances Act per the DEA:
The CSA places all substances that are regulated under existing federal law into one of five schedules. This placement is based upon the substance's medicinal value, harmfulness, and potential for abuse or addiction. Schedule I is reserved for the most dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use, while ScheduleV is the classification used for the least dangerous drugs. The act also provides a mechanism for substances to be controlled, added to a schedule, decontrolled, removed from control, rescheduled, or transferred from one schedule to another.

Proceedings to add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may be initiated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the DEA, the agency begins its own investigation of the drug.

The DEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon information received from law enforcement laboratories, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information.

Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the DEA Administrator, by authority of the Attorney General, requests from the HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of the HHS. Then, the HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.

The medical and scientific evaluations are binding to the DEA with respect to scientific and medical matters. The recommendation on scheduling is binding only to the extent that if HHS recommends that the substance not be controlled, the DEA may not control the substance.
The question really comes down to, is use of a controlled drug for assisted suicide an invalid use. That isn't addressed here. Most drugs used in assisted suicide have other legitimate uses. From what I see, the state defines legitimate uses as well.

Lastly, is the Attorney General qualified to determine what is a legitimate use? I think not.

Maybe the end topic is more complex. Though it really shouldn't be.


3 comments:

XFI MMA said...

http://republicanvet.blogspot.com/2005/10/assisted-suicide-cowards-of-suicidal.html

Nylarthotep said...

I went and read the "Republican Vet" post linked above, since they deemed it neccessary to comment with a link.

Here is my comment to their post.

What unutterable RUBBISH.

You file all people who seek a dignified end as cowards. Have you seen many who have died from terminal cancer? I have seen several freinds and relatives die that way. Slowly deteriorating while they remain numbed into unconciousness by pain killers. When lucid they are disgusted with their inability to control simple bioligical functions and then dismay.

You seem to miss the most basic christian concept that people have free will. That means they can decide where they go with their life. As you point out, the Bible doesn't go into condemnation of soul for suicide. But the premise of free will leaves the decision of condemnation to God alone, not to you.

You also miss that America is a multi-cultural society where your extreme beliefs are not the norms. Apparently you would oppress others rights to follow your so called ethical superiority. Sorry, but that isn't even at issue with the present case befor the supreme court.

Oh, and maybe you've been missing the newest dread of the terminally ill gun owner. Families have gone into their homes and taken their final way out. For some reason I see you as one of those animals.

Well, Personally, I hope you suffer from the pains that you are so willing to force onto others so that you will come to understand the indignity and suffering that you would so sanctimoniously saddle others with.

geekwife said...

Ha. I just went to RepublicanVet's site. He calls you an atheist liberal. Which is really hysterically funny. Anyone who knows you knows how inaccurate both those labels are.

You big leftie, you. Man, I'm gonna be giggling about that for days.