tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post114667394822701901..comments2009-07-11T16:10:45.466-07:00Wesley J. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00087063614354714652wjs@wesleyjsmith.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-1146684448283494212006-05-03T12:27:00.000-07:002006-05-03T12:27:00.000-07:00Well, I am concerned about that aspect of the case, e.g., it might be overreaching. The Supreme Court 9-0 in 1997 that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your continued participation here at Secondhand Smoke.Wesley J. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00087063614354714652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-1146679185934359762006-05-03T10:59:00.000-07:002006-05-03T10:59:00.000-07:00<A HREF="http://catholic-mom.blogspot.com/2006/05/washington-post-epiphany.html" REL="nofollow">I was struck by today's Washington Post editorial on this ruling</A>. There was great consternation over the finding of a constitutional right to preserve one's life with experimental drugs. Interestingly, there are not similar objections from the <I>WaPo</I> over judiciary rulings finding a constitutional right to abortion or assisted suicide. I do share the editor's concern that this ruling has the potential to severely undermine the FDA's regulation of drug safety. However, his indignation over the court's presumption to legislate from the bench was almost comical.Catholic Momhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13752198020371163071noreply@blogger.com