SUICIDE BY DRUGS

Ashcroft Ruling Ignites An Interesting Argument

Few public debates have as many angles as the debate that Attorney General
John Ashcroft ignited the other day. Ashcroft ruled that federal laws on
controlled drugs prohibit doctors from prescribing fatal doses.

You might think at first glance that there could be no doubt that what
Ashcroft ruled was correct. Actually, however, it reversed a ruling by his
predecessor, Janet Reno.

Miss Reno made her ruling after the Oregon Legislature passed a
physician-assisted suicide law. The law does not let doctors administer
fatal doses of drugs, but it allows them to prescribe the fatal doses for
the purpose of suicide. Miss Reno said that was okay. Ashcroft said no; the
purpose of the drug laws is to prevent death.

The state of Oregon and some terminally ill residents of the state are
suing in an effort to overturn Ashcroft's ruling. A federal judge has
issued a temporary order barring the Justice Department from enforcing
Ashcroft's order, pending another hearing on Nov. 20.

One angle in the debate is the states'-rights angle. Some Oregonions say
the feds have no business interfering with a state's right to govern its
doctors.

Actually, there is truth in that. But if suddenly we are going to start
recognizing states' rights, let's do it in all areas, not just drugs. Let
states run their education systems without federal interference. Let them
register their voters in the way they think best. And so forth. On most
issues, states'-rights advocates would just love to have Oregon on their
side, for a change.

Advocates of Oregon's law also say the Drug Enforcement Administration
ought not to be looking at medical records to determine whether doctors
have prescribed proper or improper amounts of drugs. There's a lot of truth
in that, too. But many doctors -- and not just in Oregon -- are already so
intimidated by prescription laws that they are reluctant to give patients
enough pain killers. Snooping through medical records is an issue that
ought to be addressed separately.

These are interesting side issues, but Ashcroft had to answer only one
question, and it was this:

Since we have federal drug laws, should they apply similarly in all states,
or can states make their own exceptions, as Oregon did, in order to let
doctors prescribe deadly doses?

Ashcroft said no.

There is a more basic question:

Should a state even have a law allowing doctors to help people commit suicide?

The answer to that is no, too.

Such a law implies -- no, it states clearly -- that the state approves of
suicide. Such a sanction is a long step toward allowing doctors themselves
to do the killing.

What would follow that? Euthanasia, where doctors actually influence
decisions to die and then do the killing. If that sounds preposterous to
you, take a look at what is happening in the Netherlands. There, euthanasia
has followed the acceptance of doctor-assisted suicide.

That is not a model for us.