Judge Overturns California Right-To-Die Law

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia did not rule on the legality of allowing physician-assisted death, but he issued an oral ruling saying lawmakers acted illegally in passing the law during a special session devoted to other topics, said lawyers for supporters and opponents.

Judge Overturns California Right-To-Die Law

The court is holding its judgment for five days for the AG to respond. Hopefully Death with Dignity can be saved.

a reply to: ATruGod

Hes just pointing out that it look like they slipped it in. Same way pork finds its way. The issued itself should be able to stand on its own anyway. Yep. The control freaks dont want the public getting any ideas that they can even die with out proper papers and procedures. Hell if they start doing this they might wake up to the fact that living is defined for them by the freeks.

a reply to: ATruGod

theres always a way to die with dignity without a damn law.

Im so sick of frickin more and more laws. If you dont want to live, practice your basic constitutional right, and game over.

a reply to: BlueJacket


Yea whats that catch all amendment to the constitution? Says otherwise to but the freek out?

No man tells me or mine what I can do with my life, or they thiers.

Too many irresponsible breeders raising irresponsible children is the real problem.

the 2nd amendment provides an easy out, with a nice available forest and perhaps a pen and paper.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: ATruGod

theres always a way to die with dignity without a damn law.

Im so sick of frickin more and more laws. If you dont want to live, practice your basic constitutional right, and game over.

This is true, but if you want to acquire certain drugs, and/or want your loved ones with you when the deed is done, then those folks who helped you could be charged with manslaughter.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Not all suffering have that ability. For the ones that's the case for they have to burden a loved one with the responsibility and leaves open the potential for a substantial legal burden as well.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

oh sigh I agree, but thats the whole damn problem....legislating every last bit of our lives, and death is becoming the real problem. I get the potential for misuse and crime, but I am sick and tired of a handful of people and in this case 1 person making decisions for everyone else.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
No man tells me or mine what I can do with my life, or they thiers.

Too many irresponsible breeders raising irresponsible children is the real problem.

the 2nd amendment provides an easy out, with a nice available forest and perhaps a pen and paper.

Do a forest and pen and paper equate to Dignity? Is it dignified to have someone find You with Your brains all over?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Sookiechacha

oh sigh I agree, but thats the whole damn problem....legislating every last bit of our lives, and death is becoming the real problem. I get the potential for misuse and crime, but I am sick and tired of a handful of people and in this case 1 person making decisions for everyone else.

Whos the one person that made the decision for Everyone?

a reply to: ATruGod

There is no dignity of death, there is only death, vanity isn't a factor. There is however painful and painless, i'd suggest the later is considered more dignified.

a reply to: TheLead

Dignity is a factor to the remaining Family. Besides You don't think having a group of loved ones around You supporting You would make such a death less painful?

a reply to: ATruGod

Only as an emotiinal stabilizer for them, limiting regret and all that, which I insist still exist yet it seems to help some cope. I understand as you say for the person that finds you.

But from my perspective, I have always said if I die before I get to my resting place lay me in the woods and let my energy be consumed. I have no quarrels about the bugs and critters getting to me. In my opinion there could be nothing more dignified than fading into the earth, but could it be traumatic if someone was to discover me? If it's traumatic to that person was my death any less dignified?

The simple fact of the matter is we tend to want to legislate subjectivity which is insane. The problem lies in us, if all were true and just (we lived in the image we perceive ourself, or atleast the image we project to others) all laws would be null and void in 24 hours. The reason we need laws are the same reason laws don't work.

a reply to: TheLead

We aren't talking about simply Dieing before Our time, or the actual death being traumatic. Its about the Dignity to decide where, when and with who, with humane means and no consequences for People who may be there and Help or simply be present.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
No man tells me or mine what I can do with my life, or they thiers.

Too many irresponsible breeders raising irresponsible children is the real problem.

the 2nd amendment provides an easy out, with a nice available forest and perhaps a pen and paper.

Except if you have a life insurance policy with a no suicide clause.

a reply to: ATruGod

We were talking about the dignity of death, that's very much subjective. What's considered dignity to some is conscious will, some it's being painless or quick. What we are really talking about is on ones own terms.

I understand one with an illness that will eventually lose facilities should have that option, after power of attorney is agreed upon and the doctor makes the determination that there is no healing the ailment. It should just be a natural part of someone's will, but then you have to consider those that have to make that determination themselves, the have no one to pass that responsibility to. Can they do so before they lose their facilities? If not who makes the determination, the doctor, the state, the insurers? Does mental anguish apply? What about if it's illness based rather than what's considered the run of the mill blues? Can people posses the drugs? Do you have to be in the hospital to use them?

People already murder to collect insurance payouts and inheritance.

I'm not suggesting I have the answers, I'm just suggesting the laws that surround this won't either. In sentiment I agree with BlueJacket, it should be in house so to speak, but I also understand why that can't be legally or legislatively backed position.

a reply to: ATruGod
The definition of a dignified death is all up to the person wishing to go on their own terms. NOT anyone else, not laws, not you, not me. If a crippled, sick or even an elderly person wishes to die before --or after -- their body renders them an invalid beholden to others for survival, that's their call to make, and so is how to do it. If a person languishing decades in crippling depression that no meds or behavioral therapists, etc can help wants to go early, that's THEIR CALL TO MAKE.

I'm all for the freedom of choice right to literal death. Nobody ethical makes anyone else live in misery, and it's not up to ANYONE but the sufferer to call it that. Controlling whether or not people can die on their terms is despicable, and trying to bleeding heart soapbox the issue as "fixable" in your separate mind is low, and shows a sharp lack of respect & empathy for the wishes of that individual.

a reply to: ATruGod

In California , they want you to Continue Living so they can Still Tax the Hell out of You..........Sorry.

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: ATruGod
The definition of a dignified death is all up to the person wishing to go on their own terms. NOT anyone else, not laws, not you, not me. If a crippled, sick or even an elderly person wishes to die before --or after -- their body renders them an invalid beholden to others for survival, that's their call to make, and so is how to do it. If a person languishing decades in crippling depression that no meds or behavioral therapists, etc can help wants to go early, that's THEIR CALL TO MAKE.

Their call to make....unless they want to do it in the company of loved ones (because they could all be prosecuted), or in a humane way (ie Meds instead of Hanging or shooting or etc)

Controlling whether or not people can die on their terms is despicable, and trying to bleeding heart soapbox the issue as "fixable" in your separate mind is low, and shows a sharp lack of respect & empathy for the wishes of that individual.

I agree with the first part...very despicable, the second part is either an insult or a generalization (ill reply to the latter) If the individual wishes to die comfortably in bed with family around them how is fixing the "Issue" (ie allowing them the freedom) showing a lack of respect and empathy?

originally posted by: ATruGod
Their call to make....unless they want to do it in the company of loved ones (because they could all be prosecuted), or in a humane way (ie Meds instead of Hanging or shooting or etc)

Just my opinion on the variations of suicide, but I highly doubt people will opt for the more painful/slow/scornful ways to go before something as simple & straightforward as euthanasia.

I agree with the first part...very despicable, the second part is either an insult or a generalization (ill reply to the latter) If the individual wishes to die comfortably in bed with family around them how is fixing the "Issue" (ie allowing them the freedom) showing a lack of respect and empathy?

Yes, it was a generalized You, not you specifically. I'm sorry for not making that clearer.
The fixing of issues I was referring to was people on their diehard soapbox about how doing XYZ will solve their problems -- health or otherwise -- and make them reconsider their desire to die. That's lacking respect and empathy. And is incredibly condescending towards someone many have no way of understanding on such a deeply personal level.