Hillary and Obama on Assisted Suicide and Medical Marijuana

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:55:27 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, medical marijuana (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Oregon has a law allowing assisted suicides. Yesterday, the Register-Guard conducted an interview with Hillary and asked her views on the topic;

Q: What’s your attitude toward Oregon’s assisted suicide law?

A: I believe it’s within the province of the states to make that decision. I commend Oregon on this count, as well, because whether I agree with it or not or think it’s a good idea or not, the fact that Oregon is breaking new ground and providing valuable information as to what does and doesn’t work when it comes to end-of-life questions, I think, is very beneficial.

Q: Would you have voted for it if you were a resident of the state?

A: I don’t know the answer to that. I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are in difficult end-of-life situations. I’ve gone to friends who have been in great pain and suffering at the end of their lives. I’ve never been personally confronted with it but I know it’s a terribly difficult decision that should never be forced upon anyone. So with appropriate safeguards and informed decision-making, I think it’s an appropriate right to have.

In March, the Medford Mail-Tribune asked Obama his views: (More...)

Q: A couple of other issues of interest to Oregonians involve initiatives passed by the voters that have come into conflict with the federal government: physician-assisted suicide and medical marijuana. Do you support those two concepts?

A: I am in favor of palliative medicine in circumstances where someone is terminally ill. ... I'm mindful of the legitimate interests of states to prevent a slide from palliative treatments into euthanasia. On the other hand, I think that the people of Oregon did a service for the country in recognizing that as the population gets older we've got to think about issues of end-of-life care. ...

Obama gave yet another version of his position on medical marijuana:

As for medical marijuana ... I'm not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed, but I think the basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate. ... I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.

In November, he said:

When a voter asked Obama if he was for the legalization of medical marijuana, Obama said that he wasn't in favor of legalization without scientific evidence and tight controls. Citing his mother who died from cancer young, Obama compared marijuana to morphine saying there was little difference between the two.

"My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that's something I'm open to because there's no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain,” Obama said. “But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.”

But he added that he was concerned that the reasons for the use of marijuana would grow and create a "slippery slope."

The question, I think, is what he would do as President to change the federal marijuana laws to allow medical use. I suspect he'd order a study that would last throughout his presidential term, resulting in no action.

Here's what he told another newspaper:

When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. My attitude is that if it's an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.

I would not punish doctors if it's prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law. I will tell you that...the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely. What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We've got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with." (my emphasis)

More on Obama and marijuana here and here.

Hillary's views on medical marijuana (at least she's consistent, more evidence for my devil you know theory) are here and here: more research, end the federal raids.

Update: A suggestion from the comments below, which I will follow in the future:

Those involved in the movement to advocate for end-of-life choice prefer to use value neutral terms such as "aid in dying", "patient directed dying" or "physician aid in dying". It's helpful if people recognize that a mentally competent, terminally ill patient who self-administers medication to bring about a peaceful death is not committing "suicide", nor does a physician who prescribes such medications engage in "assisted suicide". Speaking accurately about this important choice is critical for continued growing acceptance.

< The DNC Stripping Of The FL Delegates: Brazile "Sends A Message To FL" | San Francisco to Undocumented Residents: You're Safe Here >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary and Obama on Assisted Suicide and Medical Marijuana | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Come again (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by dmk47 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:15:38 PM EST

He keeps saying the same thing in all the contexts you cite --- he's open to the idea and wouldn't want to punish states or doctors who determine that medical marijuana is sound policy. Is the charge here supposed to be that he doesn't literally repeat himself verbatim every single time he's asked about this? I can't for the life of me see what's supposed to be sinister about this.

did you read (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:39:19 PM EST

this and this?

The point is, in November he said he didn't know if it had any real benefits, he's have to study it. Now he says it's okay with a proper doctors script in states where it's legal. But, he says, changing federal law isn't something we should expect of him.

When it's suited him, he was past being open to the idea. He was for legalization, then decriminalization, then neither.

2004:

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama said during a debate at Northwestern University. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana.

At the debate in 2007:

For example, in MSNBC's Oct. 30 presidential debate, Mr. Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare he opposed decriminalizing marijuana. [video clip provided]
When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations to The Times in less than 24 hours. At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting that his 2004 statement was correct. Then after The Times posted copies of the video on its Web site, www.washingtontimes.com, yesterday, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use.

: All he's doing is hedging more now (none / 0) (#24)
by Korha on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:39:21 PM EST

When you go from a liberal senator to a mainstream contender for the Presidency, you shade your positions to the center to make them more palatable to the electorate. I don't know why you're acting shocked, shocked that this be would the case. Like Clinton, or just about any other ambitious politician for that matter, hasn't done the exact same thing.
There's no contradiction, Obama's just shading his position right. First he supported "rethinking" and "decriminalizing" marijuana laws. Now he supports a more limited rethinking and conditioned decriminalizing (i.e. for medical use). He also tells you straight out that this whole issue is not a political priority for him. Okay? What is unexpected and surprising or sinister about this?

: I read all the stories that you cited (none / 0) (#46)
by marcellus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:17:36 PM EST

and Clinton's and Obama's positions both sounded non-committal, (panderingly) indecisive, playing both sides of the issue, and otherwise pretty much exactly the same. I doubt this will be a major campaign issue either for the primary or the general election, but if it were, I could not see the distinction you were trying to draw--that only Clinton's position was clearly defined.

Yeah, seriously (none / 0) (#21)
by Korha on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:27:32 PM EST

Obama's answers are exactly the same. I guess you could make the case that he's gone right rhetorically since 2004 or whenever when he was a state senator (i.e. he hedges his statements more now) but the actual substance is identical. Clinton's position is also identical to Obama's entirely consistent statements:

"With respect to medical marijuana, you know I think that we have had a lot of rhetoric and the federal government has been very intent upon trying to prevent states from being able to offer that as an option for people who are in pain. I think we should be doing medical research on this. We ought to find what are the elements that claim to be existing in marijuana that might help people who are suffering from cancer and nausea-related treatments. We ought to find that out. I don't think we should decriminalize it, but we ought to do research into what, if any, medical benefits it has."

So, what exactly, is the basis for Jeralyn's attack on Obama (but not Clinton) even though the two of them have identical political positions? Would Obama do nothing to change the federal marijuana laws to allow medical use, as she "suspects"? Very possibly. But what would Clinton do in the same situation? Almost certainly the exact same thing. Legalizing medical marijuana is not a high political priority for either of them. If there's a low political cost involved, then they'll do it; if not, then they won't. I don't see this point made anywhere in Jeralyn's post. There doesn't seem to be any recognition that neither of them as president would do much in this area and neither would really be better than the other.


: Even his campaign (none / 0) (#49)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:51:04 AM EST

acknowledged his answers were inconsistent, hence, their attempts at clarifying them.

one thing that really bothers me (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by cpinva on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:41:18 PM EST

about sen. obama's comments: he continually compares pot to morphine, as though they inhabit the same chemical world, they don't. either he doesn't know any better (in which case, he should shut up and stop embarrasing himself in public), or he's doing that intentionally, as a way of backdooring into continuing doing what he's stated he wouldn't as president: using DOJ resources to go after medical pot, by claiming it's similar to morphine.

last time i checked, no one's ever OD'd from, or become physically addicted to pot.

Perhaps (none / 0) (#12)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:51:03 PM EST

The comparison has more to do with classification than effects. Morphine has a legal medical use. In that sense by comparing it to morphine he manages to suggest that if reclassified it can be controlled just as strictly.

Of course those who are familiar with MJ know that once the cat is out of the bag it will be as easy to get as prozak.


In Oregon it is as easy to get as (none / 0) (#15)
by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:52:29 PM EST

Prozac!


Yes (none / 0) (#16)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:53:46 PM EST

And so it should be.


In New York.... (none / 0) (#58)
by kdog on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:54:48 AM EST

it's easier to get than Prozac. You need a script for Prozac, you only need 20 bucks to get a dub.

Come to think of it, both are pretty damn easy to get, though the black market demand for reefer is a lot higher than Prozac.


: For Some (none / 0) (#59)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:53:19 PM EST

In NCY mj is easier to get, but for most in NYC and everywhere else in the US prozak is much easier to get, more expensive though unless it is covered by insurance.

I had the same reaction: Pot is not the same as (none / 0) (#14)
by jawbone on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:52:09 PM EST

morhphine.

And it's uses are not simply for pain control, but also for appetite increase, which is not, afaik, "palliative."

Sounds like a talking point, not a considered opinion after review of various aspects and evidence.


: Palliative (none / 0) (#52)
by marcellus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:07:38 AM EST

is defined as a treatment that reduces suffering. So, yes, pot used, for example, to increase appetite in a patient with a wasting disease could indeed be considered palliative.

Obama on euthanasia (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Plutonium Page on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:05:12 PM EST

That was a rambling non-answer. And what is he talking about here:

On the other hand, I think that the people of Oregon did a service for the country in recognizing that as the population gets older we've got to think about issues of end-of-life care. ...

What, he thinks only old people should have the right to die with dignity, to choose euthanasia? That younger people - gasp, even his age - don't become terminally ill with cancer, for example?

His answer is a cop out, and it doesn't even make sense. If he's uncomfortable with euthanasia, he should say so, although that would break his record-breaking streak of equivocation.

Agree (none / 0) (#22)
by suisser on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:34:38 PM EST

Very silly reply. Shows how little thought he has given issues that, perhaps today, don't play in his own life. Mr Marlboro man is missing the point


Than you (none / 0) (#25)
by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:39:45 PM EST

I know he does not care for boomers, but he constantly brings this up the population that is getting older, particularly in this respect its a bit of a concern. He mentioned it also in terms of medical costs.


How did you reach this conclusion? (none / 0) (#43)
by halstoon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:02:04 PM EST

He states very clearly that he supports palliative care, and he notes that discerning palliative care from assisted suicide/euthanasia is an important issue, one Oregon has done us all a service by addressing. Palliative care does mean making death painless, as opposed to triggering death, right?

You may not have liked the answer, but he gave one. It was Hillary who gave a "y'all can do what you want but I don't wanna take a stance" answer.


Actually it's more nuanced than that (none / 0) (#51)
by marcellus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:46:41 AM EST

The original post by Jeralyn is invalid, see her additional comments in response to bumblebums. The "words" change the entire meaning and interpretation of this issue. I was in Oregon over this debate and even took a biomedical ethics class in college dealing with this, so I'm a minor expert on the topic. Partly due to people freaking out over the terms "suicide", "euthanasia", and "dr. death", Oregon voters chose to use the terminology that is outlined above. By using this same terminology, Obama actually shows a great command of the issue. (Hillary uses different language but her answer is also similar.) Jeralyn and the commenters on this blog are wrong.


I thought palliative care was a way of saying (none / 0) (#60)
by halstoon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:33:34 PM EST

"assisted suicide" without saying the word "suicide." Are you saying that is right?

Obama was much more clear than Clinton in his answer that he supports people being allowed to die with dignity when they reach the end of their road. Clinton did say it's a nice right to have, but only in terms of living in Oregon. Obama's answer, therefore, signaled more of a willingness to address the issue on a federal level, whereas Clinton seemed to indicate a preference for keeping it at the state level. Is that accurate at all?


That's right (none / 0) (#61)
by marcellus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:05:17 PM EST

In this case, palliative care is a nicer way of saying suicide without saying suicide. In actual medical terms, for terminally-ill patients, the line is very,very grey between upping the dose to reduce pain and a dose that reduces life. The Oregon law specifically spells out that physician-assisted suicide is permissible. For states where this is not spelled out, doctors can and do use the grey line reasoning to increase pain medications to a level that controls pain (even if it reduces life).

Your interpretations of Obama's and Clinton's positions is correct. A nuanced difference, but their positions are essentially the same.


: Thanks. (none / 0) (#62)
by halstoon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:53:53 PM EST

I appreciate the education and affirmation.

Those involved in the movement (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by bumblebums on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:32:35 PM EST

to advocate for end-of-life choice prefer to use value neutral terms such as "aid in dying", "patient directed dying" or "physician aid in dying". It's helpful if people recognize that a mentally competent, terminally ill patient who self-administers medication to bring about a peaceful death is not committing "suicide", nor does a physician who prescribes such medications engage in "assisted suicide". Speaking accurately about this important choice is critical for continued growing acceptance.

: thank you (none / 0) (#48)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:47:54 AM EST

I am going to update the post to include your terminology. I will also use those terms in the future.

This is just more evidence for not real difference (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by fuzzyone on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:23:24 PM EST

between the two, as BTD so often points out. You have to really stretch to think there is any light between them on this. Either way the states can do their thing and nothing will really change on the federal level because neither will use political capital on this issue. Next.

Obama voted for an Agricultural Hemp Bill (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Ben Masel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:25:06 AM EST

as a State Senator in 2000.

Republican sponsor, passed overwhelmingly, vetoed by Gov. Ryan, no overide vote taken.

Hillary dodges the question (none / 0) (#1)
by MKS on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:07:54 PM EST

Leave it up to the states...

Obama is consistent......

: The Oregon right-to-die law IS a federal issue (none / 0) (#37)
by Peter G on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:43:48 PM EST

as well as a local one. Remember, Bush had his Dept of Justice go to federal court to bar Oregon doctors from prescribing federally controlled substances to aid patients' decisions to end their life when no hope of recovery exists and suffering has become unbearable. Just like the anti-"states rights" Bushies did with medical marijuana. This is definitely a federal (i.e., Presidential) policy issue. The question to ask a presidential candidate is not how s/he would have voted on a particular state's initiative. Is it: Will they have their DoJ take a hands off posture to state regulation of medical practice, or won't they?

he dodges and flip flops (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:11:12 PM EST

worse in my opinion, you can't count on him one way or the other.

Hillary contradicts herself (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by MKS on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:16:09 PM EST

in her comment above:

Q: Would you have voted for it if you were a resident of the state?
A: I don't know the answer to that. I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are in difficult end-of-life situations. I've gone to friends who have been in great pain and suffering at the end of their lives. I've never been personally confronted with it but I know it's a terribly difficult decision that should never be forced upon anyone. So with appropriate safeguards and informed decision-making, I think it's an appropriate right to have.

In general, Obama is quite candid about his ambivalence and concerns....Hillary tends to give more dogmatic sounding answers but is really stradling the issue too.


no contradiction at all (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:31:09 PM EST

It's an appropriate right provided there are appropriate safeguards and informed choice, but she doesn't know how she would have voted on it. She's being honest, she wasn't asked to vote on it, it wasn't before her, there are pros and cons to the law and she'd need to reflect further.


: I agree with you Jeralyn (none / 0) (#26)
by Korha on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:44:36 PM EST

Clinton's statement is fine. Now let's suppose Clinton said these two things quoted below:

"My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that's something I'm open to because there's no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed."

When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. My attitude is that if it's an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.
Suppose Clinton said them. Would you now agree with me that these two statements are not contradictory in any way?

use a dictionary, look up (none / 0) (#8)
by cpinva on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:35:49 PM EST

"contradict", clearly you haven't a clue what it means.

Q: Would you have voted for it if you were a resident of the state?

A: I don't know the answer to that. .........I think it's an appropriate right to have.

where exactly did she contradict herself? you assume something not stated; that because she thinks it's an approriate right, that she'd have voted for it, even though she actually stated she didn't know.

that's your mistake, not her contradiction.


I worry that assisted suicide is a substitute for (none / 0) (#31)
by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:27:02 PM EST

good pain control.

I've gone to friends who have been in great pain and suffering at the end of their lives.

Instead of helping to kill people, why don't we put time and money into palliative care? And physician/nurse continuing education on relieving pain. Medically we have very powerful pain-control medications now. We can also treat depression, anxiety, etc very well. The best treatment plans combine meds with other therapies: massage, music, counseling, accupuncture, whatever works for the patient.


palliative care (none / 0) (#38)
by DeanOR on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:44:10 PM EST

Research has shown that the Oregon debate over assisted suicide actually resulted in improved palliative care due to the focus on terminal care including treatment of pain. Most of the people who use assisted suicide do not do so because of pain. The issue for most is the quality of life they have in their last months of life. They choose to have the opportunity to administer a drug to themselves to end their life by choice when they have been screened for psychiatric disorder and have less than six months to live. In traditional medical practice this is sometimes done through what is known as the "double effect" principle which says it is ethical for a physician to administer a dose of pain medication which might be fatal in order to reduce pain. That principle considers only pain and leaves too much up to the physician instead of the patient. People in this State are very, very glad to have the option provided by the Death With Dignity act. Just knowing that the option is there provides a lot of relief even if the person ultimately does not use it. And it's called "Dignity" for a reason.


: Rebuttal (none / 0) (#54)
by marcellus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:24:31 AM EST

Palliative care does not equal pain management (only, although it is a vital component). Palliative care is a treatment that reduces suffering and the voters of Oregon then expanded this definition to include physician-assisted suicide for Death with Dignity. This was the entire logic used in the creation of this law. People in Oregon will be very appreciative that Obama used the correct terminology on this. Hillary Clinton (while essentially providing the same answer) did not show a detailed grasp of this local issue with her choice of terminology.

Obama's (none / 0) (#20)
by bjorn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:25:28 PM EST

opinions aren't generally as informed as Hillary's. She really does a memory to die for and can absorb hordes of information. And she works at it too. I don't think Obama has the same breadth and depth to his opinions.


: I guess it takes (none / 0) (#23)
by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:35:14 PM EST

a lot of experience and understanding of an issue to say that you don't agree or disagree with either side of it and to say that it is neither a good or bad idea to implement a law about it.

After watching (none / 0) (#5)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:23:17 PM EST

my mom die from cancer.. I am SO FOR legalization and some sort of Doctor guidence to when they can "HEAVILY DOSE a patient regardless of outcome".

I watched my mom "waste away" with decreased appetite and increased pain. And yes we did help her get some relief. (My brother is a rebel!! Glad he didn't get caught.)

The two days that she was out of it did nothing to enhance her life.

These issues ARE divisive... I doubt anything will come of them should Sen Obama make it to the WH. Should Sen Clinton make it .. she most likely WILL NOT get support on the issue if she was to push it.

I glad Oregon is pushing this issue.

I love debating (none / 0) (#11)
by bjorn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:42:08 PM EST

these two issues with my freshman college students. I am always surprised how relatively conservative they are on both issues. Obama is probably aware that a lot of people have serious doubts. And while I can't know Hillary's or Obama's mind, I hope if they had lived in Oregon and knew the facts they would have voted for physician assisted suicide. I just think most of the country is so uneducated about it that they are knee-jerk against it and politician's have to dance around that instead of talking about it in a way that educates people.


: Too Right (none / 0) (#28)
by allimom99 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:03:30 PM EST

: bjorn (none / 0) (#55)
by marcellus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:29:44 AM EST

Why do you call Obama's opinions uninformed when he uses the correct framing and terminology for this debate? Are you a college professor teaching ethics? I took biomedical ethics in Oregon during the 90's and we had some fascinating discussions about assisted-suicide while the law was being created. I can guarantee you that Oregon voters will be appreciative of Obama's nuanced and in depth knowledge of this issue.

Medically the goal is relief of pain (none / 0) (#29)
by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:08:11 PM EST

or that should be the goal. (Speaking as a prescriber myself). Unfortunately not all clinicians prescribing for patients in end-of-life and severe pain cases are well educated in pain relief.

Medically there is no upper limit to narcotics for pain -- just titrate up to an effective dose. If we do this too fast, there is risk of fatal overdose, usually by slowing breathing too much.

Many, many prescribers are up-to-date on pain medicine guidelines in hospice/palliative/terminal disease care. They do indeed raise the dose as necessary to control pain, regardless of side effects. The side effects are usually less significant than the media show. Nausea, constipation -- we can and should treat these.

If pain control is the goal -- even if the drug might slightly decrease the patient's life span due to side effects, it should not stop an ethical medical prescriber from relieving the pain. This scenario is a frequent topic in medical ethics classes.

I am sorry to hear about your mother. You and your brother showed your compassionate hearts. She must have raised you well!


Thank you (none / 0) (#34)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:43:28 PM EST

for the additional informatio... very interesting.

My mom passed away in 1998. She was in tremendous pain. I was in the room when she asked the nurse for additional meds for her pain. The nurse refused. That's when we wentaround the system. It got to the point that it didn't help... problem with dosage.

My mom sat up in the bed, grabbed my shirt and begged for help. The look in her eyes was just too much. That was my mom!!

I worked for the Ocology Doctor's office at the time (I found another job...just couldn't get over seeing all those people who may have their life ended like my mom).

I called the head Doctor. He investigated the situation... an hour after I called... she had additional meds.

I tell this because... the individual doctors will approach the to the treatment of end of life and pain.


: PiP, Sorry for your loss (none / 0) (#56)
by marcellus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:46:27 AM EST

I helped to vote the physician-assisted suicide law into Oregon in 1997-8. It was one of my first acts as a citizen (also voted for Bill Clinton), so I'm very proud of it. I'm very encouraged that a Democrat elected to the White House could make a difference in introducing this legislation in many more states. If you recall, in the late 90's with Dr. Kevorkian operating in Michigan there was a national freak-out over the term "euthanasia", and we(Oregon voters) found it better to shift the terminology of the debate away from "suicide/euthanasia" onto "reducing suffering" and "palliative care". It really is a sliding scale in the first place with a grey area as to where the exact definition from pain management to physician-assisted suicide is. Now that the Oregon law has proved effective, many other states could be receptive in the future.

At Least (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:34:24 PM EST

Both promise not to continue the Federal Raids on States that allow for Medical MJ. Neither candidate is going to give a straight answer to this one, Obama obviously has to take a harder line regarding drug laws at this point, therefore the slippery slope concept. Most people who used it in SF before it was medical now have scrips.

I have no problem with that considering that prozak et al are so prevalent that trace amounts are now in the water supply.

I have lived in Oregon for 28 years (none / 0) (#13)
by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:51:31 PM EST

and I believe my vote would go to Obama. At least he puts his opinions out there. Clinton just wraps them up in a pretty bow and says I would touch these but I respect that you have the guts to bring them up.

Since we are all about bias threads can someone link what Clinton has said about these issues over the past few years. Something tells me we will have a field day with those comments.

: Why don't you look it up? (none / 0) (#18)
by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:04:05 PM EST

I generally hit da google when a question like that pops in my head. comes in handy on checking different views etc. ;)

McCain (none / 0) (#17)
by magster on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:58:55 PM EST

Sep. 30, 2007:

"Every medical expert I know of, including the AMA [American Medical Association], says that there are much more effective and much better treatments for pain than medical marijuana...I still would not support medical marijuana because I don't think that the preponderance of medical opinion in America agrees with [the] assertion that it's the most effective way of treating pain."

[request: please more mccain stuff so that we can compare and contrast mccain against either Clinton or Obama].

That's medically mostly true (none / 0) (#30)
by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:16:55 PM EST

but some of it's wrong. As a prescriber, I would never say make such a blanket statement about any drug. Patients are just too individual in their response to meds, whether pain meds or blood pressure meds. Cannabis seems more effective for neuropathic pain than most narcotics, and doesn't itself cause nausea. Or constipation, the worse side effect, I hear, from patients on narcotics for chronic pain. The inhaled smoke administration isn't good for your lungs, as with any type of smoke. It's also used for spasticity, and for nausea, though in both those cases we have other drugs probably as effective.

Heh. I'm going to check PubMed to see if any studies mention cost effectiveness!


: OK (none / 0) (#32)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:29:15 PM EST

But at this point it is not a choice. The only reason it does not have FDA approval is political not medical. Let the Feds take it off the Schedule 1 list, approve it for medical use, and then let the doctors decide whether or not another drug is more effective.
Professor Lyle Craker, PhD, director of the medicinal plant program in the Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences, at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, has been attempting for six years to obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration Schedule I license to manufacture marijuana exclusively for privately funded, federally approved research. The federal government has a monopoly over the supply of marijuana -- but no other Schedule I drug -- and uses that monopoly to obstruct privately funded research. Craker's case is the focal point of the struggle to bring medical marijuana before the FDA to determine whether it meets the FDA's standards for safety and efficacy.
Craker's applications for regulatory approval, legal struggles, and proposed facility are sponsored by MAPS, which plans to design, fund, and obtain government approval for the clinical research necessary to develop marijuana into an FDA-approved prescription medicine. If successful, MAPS would bring smoked and/or vaporized marijuana to market under a nonprofit pharmaceutical model similar to the Population Council's development and distribution of RU-486.
MAPS

Perhaps (none / 0) (#27)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:01:24 PM EST

If there were more pressure put on the candidates by their supporters, rather than fan club adoration, they would be pressed to take a position.

The fact that Obama has moved to a pro medical MJ position is a good thing. Now we should be demanding the same from Clinton.

Medical Marijuana ProCon tracks the candidates on this issue. As of March 22 Obama had a pro medical mj position. Clinton is still on the fence.

: Both Candidates (none / 0) (#41)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:00:41 PM EST

Are not to be trusted. But at least MedMj is on the table, compared to McCain who will increase Federal raids and eliminate federal research on the drug.
The fact that nothing happened during the Clinton years can be seen as an argument for increasing the chances of legalizing medical mj. Changing laws take time and are affected by generational shifts. MedMj is more likely to pass now because most people who are al least sixty have tried mj and see is as no worse than alcohol.

: why? because (none / 0) (#50)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:53:45 AM EST

a wife is just an extension of her husband and can't form her own policies? What a sad premise.

Death With Dignity (none / 0) (#36)
by DeanOR on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:31:13 PM EST

Regarding our oft-misunderstood Oregon Death With Dignity law (sometimes called physician assisted suicide), Clinton showed that she is informed, liberal, and supportive. Obama showed that he is uninformed or simply wanted to duck the issue.

you just hit the (none / 0) (#40)
by cpinva on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:52:11 PM EST

political/econimic nail right on the head:

Heh. I'm going to check PubMed to see if any studies mention cost effectiveness!

wouldn't want to deprive the pharmeceutical industry of their pound of flesh, now would we? god forbid they were denied even one cent, whatever would their shareholder's say?

this whole nonsense about pot is pretty much just that, political nonsense. thank you harry anslinger! aside from the adverse consequences of smoking it, pot has been scientifically proven to be far less devasting a drug than most of the legal ones, for nausea control. but, black people use it, so it must be kept illegal!

: Hahahahah (none / 0) (#42)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:09:40 PM EST

pot has been scientifically proven to be far less devasting a drug than most of the legal ones
Good one.
It is too hard to control, since it is so easy to grow and high quality seeds are readily available. There is no better way to ingest it than using a medical vaporizer and the pharmas have failed to produce anything comparable, pricewise or qualitywise. . The pharmas and other corporations, do not stand to make a killing if the drug is legalized. imo. If they did it would legal yesterday.

I'll take Obama. (none / 0) (#45)
by halstoon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:05:16 PM EST

That whole devil you know argument doesn't do a lot for me, especially on this issue. Sen. Clinton is almost assuredly not going to change the marijuana laws. Obama at least hints at the possibility of addressing it. If anything, I can see him being more willing to take a second-term stand on the issue. If he doesn't, oh well, but with Hillary I pretty much know I have no shot. Why not at least play the longshot as opposed to a certain loser?

skex, and others (none / 0) (#53)
by cpinva on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:15:17 AM EST

who've made similar pejorative comments, let me break the news to you, gently: sen. obama is a member of the "baby boom" generation. generally, the post wwII "baby boom" includes all those of us born from 1945 (the war's end) through 1965. since sen. obama was born on aug. 4, 1961, that puts him right in it.

obviously, sen. clinton is an older member of that generation, but there is no question at all that sen. obama is part of it as well. as a result, when you make that term a pejorative, you're slandering him too.

"Put not your faith in princes." (none / 0) (#57)
by SeeEmDee on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:25:32 AM EST

Or pols, for that matter. I recall very clearly the optimism in the drug law reform community when Bill Clinton became Prez. The sense was that finally, a Boomer who knew the truth about cannabis's safety (courtesy of personal experience) was going to be in a position to make a positive change.

That optimism was dashed in short order. The number of arrests for cannabis possession soared upwards under Billy's tenure. I don't expect la Clinton or Obama to be any different; they'll pander to the DrugWar bureaucracy and its' astroturf/cat's-paw 'concerned parents' groups before they'll do the right thing. As the injustice continues...