In its first consideration of the euthanasia debate in years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld an Oregon law allowing the practice of assisted suicide. Although the 6-3 ruling can be viewed as a significant affirmation of a terminally ill patient's right to die, more specifically it upholds the rights of states to govern themselves without federal infringement in matters not covered by federal statutes. Because of its respect for the freedoms of terminally ill patients and its rare reinforcement of America's unique governmental structure, the high court's decision should be applauded as an important success.
Tuesday's ruling contested former Attorney General John Ashcroft's efforts to halt the implementation of the Oregon law by punishing doctors involved in assisted suicides. By threatening to revoke their licenses to prescribe controlled substances, Ashcroft established a serious deterrent by stripping these doctors of the ability to prescribe various medications for everyday ailments. He did so under the auspices of 1970s Controlled Substances Act, citing the language of the federal statute to claim any lethal dose has no legitimate medical purpose.
Ashcroft blatantly overstepped his bounds in his attempts to regulate medical practices, regardless of where one stands on the moral question of assisted suicide. The Supreme Court's majority opinion rightfully rebuked him for doing so and reaffirmed states' rights to legislate in areas traditionally exclusive to them. The Oregon law dictates that any candidate for the practice must be mentally competent and terminally ill, which should stifle the criticisms of those concerned that doctors would have too much control over their patients.
This precedent opens the door for any state to join Oregon in extending the right to die to its terminally ill citizens. The misguided moral objections of social conservatives should not be allowed to stand in the way of this fully acceptable practice. Any culture of life should include the right to end that life with one's dignity intact. The Supreme Court's decision is not a moral sanction of suicide. It simply allows those awaiting death to end unnecessary suffering if they choose.
17 Archives
High court upholds 'right to die'
