DON'T DENY TERMINAL PATIENTS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE DEATH

To many people the idea of intentionally ending your life is
incomprehensible. No matter how bad things get or how bleak the future
appears, there is always the chance for better times.

This mystery seems especially complicated when a suicide victim is young
and healthy. For people whose lives have so much opportunity and potential,
it is baffling that they could lose all hope and see nothing worth living
for. How can their loathing of life possibly overcome the natural fear of
death?

Whether we understand it or not, it can and does more often than any of us
care to imagine.

The enigma of suicide is far less complex when the victim is facing the
prospects of a long and painful death from a terminal illness. Anyone who
has ever watched a friend or family member slowly drift toward death as
their body is wracked by disease knows what I'm talking about. When a loved
one looks at you with pleading eyes and announces with solid conviction
that they are ready to die, you cannot help but understand.

When someone who is dying wants to commit suicide, it's not because they
hate life. In fact, most often, it seems these are people who truly
embraced life and all it had to offer. But, they also realize that there is
a difference between living and being alive. Living is when your body
continues to function. Being alive means you can laugh, cry, smile, talk,
do the activities you like and spend enjoyable time with friends and
family. If someone has no hope of being alive, if their days are consumed
with pain and suffering, it's easy to understand why they wouldn't want to
live.

No decision to take your own life can ever be made lightly. It requires
deep, personal consideration -- emotionally, physically and morally. We may
not agree with the decision, but ultimately no one who lives in a healthy
body can empathize with the reality that a terminally ill patient faces.

The people of one state -- Oregon -- have decided that terminally ill
individuals should have the right to choose when their life is no longer
worth living.

Some see it as an endorsement of suicide. I believe it is an empowerment of
people to have the final say in their future.

If faced with a slow and painful death, I'm not sure I would choose to
commit suicide, but I wouldn't want to deny that option to anyone who was
suffering in ways I cannot begin to imagine.

According to an Associated Press article, Oregon's Death With Dignity Act
allows doctors to provide -- but not administer -- a lethal prescription to
terminally ill adult state residents. The law also provides safeguards. It
requires two doctors to agree that the patient has less than six months to
live, is voluntarily choosing to die and is capable of making health care
decisions.

Since taking effect in 1997, the law has allowed at least 70 terminally ill
people to end their lives. All have done so with a federally controlled
substance such as a barbiturate.

In a decision announced last week, Attorney General John Ashcroft directed
federal drug agents to pursue doctors who help terminally ill patients die
with the use of a federally controlled substance, such as a barbiturate.
Under the decision, doctors could have their drug prescription licenses
revoked but not be criminally prosecuted.

According to the Associated Press, Ashcroft said assisted suicide is not a
"legitimate medical purpose" for prescribing, dispensing or administering
federally controlled substances. He based his decision on a unanimous
Supreme Court ruling in May that said there is no exception in federal drug
laws for the medical use of marijuana to ease pain from cancer, AIDS and
other illnesses.

Ashcroft's decision struck a nerve for several reasons.

First, there is the issue of state's rights. On two different occasions,
voters in Oregon voters approved physician-assisted suicide in referendums
during the 1990s.

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that each state had the power to
decide whether or not to assisted suicide should be allowed. Now, one
federal officials has decided to block the will of an entire state.

This situation should raise the ire of anyone who is concerned that the
federal government is gaining too much power -- regardless of where they
stand on the issue of assisted suicide.

The second problem I have with Ashcroft's decision is its hypocrisy when
compared to capital punishment.

The government has gone to great lengths to ensure that a convicted
murderer doesn't die in a cruel and unusual way. In Georgia and dozens of
other states, we are now executing murderers with a lethal dose of drugs.
Yet, under Ashcroft's ruling, that same right can't be extended to innocent
people who can no longer endure the misery and suffering of waiting for
death to finally arrive.

That is cruel and unusual punishment for someone who is suffering due to no
fault of their own.