News (Media Awareness Project) - US WA: Editorial: A State's Right To Assisted Suicide |
| Title: | US WA: Editorial: A State's Right To Assisted Suicide |
| Published On: | 2006-01-18 |
| Source: | Seattle Times (WA) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-01-14 18:35:45 |
A STATE'S RIGHT TO ASSISTED SUICIDE
By allowing Oregon's assisted-suicide law to stand, the U.S. Supreme
Court says a person with a terminal illness may make a deeply
personal decision about his or her life. We support such a law. The
ruling would have been better, however, had it also helped define the
constitutional limit of federal power.
Oregon's law allows a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of
pain-killing drugs if certain conditions are met. First, the patient
must want to die. Second, the doctor has to certify that the patient
is sick, can't be cured and has fewer than six months to live. Third,
a second doctor has to agree. Finally, the prescribing doctor cannot
administer the drugs. The law affects only a tiny group. Under it, 37
patients were assisted in ending their lives in 2004. That is 10 in a
million. We have heard no outcry against this from the people of
Oregon, who voted for this measure twice. Clearly, this is a law they want.
Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft didn't want it. He
declared that suicide is not a legitimate medical practice, and set
federal power against the power of Oregon. The dispute went to the
Supreme Court, under the name of the current attorney general,
Alberto Gonzales.
The 6-3 ruling in Gonzales v. Oregon is about how to interpret the
Controlled Substances Act. It was not about the broader and more
interesting question of whether assisted suicide is any of the
federal government's business. Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent
raised that issue and cast it aside, saying that if the federal
government can ban marijuana, it can ban assisted suicide.
We don't think assisted suicide should be a federal issue. We did not
support the court's decision last year, in Gonzales v. Raich, that
made a federal issue of California's law allowing doctors to
prescribe marijuana to the chronically ill. That seemed the sort of
question California could decide for itself.
Tuesday's ruling would have been better had it stated that assisted
suicide is a question Oregon could decide for itself.
By allowing Oregon's assisted-suicide law to stand, the U.S. Supreme
Court says a person with a terminal illness may make a deeply
personal decision about his or her life. We support such a law. The
ruling would have been better, however, had it also helped define the
constitutional limit of federal power.
Oregon's law allows a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of
pain-killing drugs if certain conditions are met. First, the patient
must want to die. Second, the doctor has to certify that the patient
is sick, can't be cured and has fewer than six months to live. Third,
a second doctor has to agree. Finally, the prescribing doctor cannot
administer the drugs. The law affects only a tiny group. Under it, 37
patients were assisted in ending their lives in 2004. That is 10 in a
million. We have heard no outcry against this from the people of
Oregon, who voted for this measure twice. Clearly, this is a law they want.
Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft didn't want it. He
declared that suicide is not a legitimate medical practice, and set
federal power against the power of Oregon. The dispute went to the
Supreme Court, under the name of the current attorney general,
Alberto Gonzales.
The 6-3 ruling in Gonzales v. Oregon is about how to interpret the
Controlled Substances Act. It was not about the broader and more
interesting question of whether assisted suicide is any of the
federal government's business. Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent
raised that issue and cast it aside, saying that if the federal
government can ban marijuana, it can ban assisted suicide.
We don't think assisted suicide should be a federal issue. We did not
support the court's decision last year, in Gonzales v. Raich, that
made a federal issue of California's law allowing doctors to
prescribe marijuana to the chronically ill. That seemed the sort of
question California could decide for itself.
Tuesday's ruling would have been better had it stated that assisted
suicide is a question Oregon could decide for itself.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
