• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

EDITORIAL: Oregon's Trail: Federal Government Ought to Let States Draw Lines on Assisted Suicide

Posted on: Sunday, 22 January 2006, 15:00 CST

By The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio

Jan. 22--Assisted suicide is a troubling notion. Last week's Supreme Court ruling that upheld Oregon's assisted-suicide law does not mean that the federal government is powerless to stop doctors from prescribing lethal doses of medication.

But just because the feds have the power to stop assisted suicide does not mean they should use it.

Many people struggle with whether to withhold treatment or to give a nudge to an ailing loved one in cases of end-stage terminal illnesses. American families throughout the decades have had to make these wrenching decisions, and they've done so within their families, with the advice of trusted physicians and clergy.

The nation is going to struggle with this issue for years, and the best place for that struggle to play out is within the 50 states, rather than have it ended by federal fiat.

The Supreme Court's opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, did not rule on the legality or propriety of assisted suicide. It said that the Controlled Substances Act did not give then-Attorney General John Ashcroft the authority to punish Oregon doctors who followed the provisions of that state's Death With Dignity Act.

Oregon's voters in 1994 approved that law, which allows doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a terminally ill patient whom two doctors have certified as being of sound mind and having less than six months to live.

The act was upheld in a second referendum in 1997, with 60 percent of the vote.

The people of Oregon clearly stated they want this law on the books. Ashcroft was wrong in 2001 when he threatened to revoke doctors' federal licenses to prescribe drugs if they helped patients commit suicide. And Congress would be wrong today to limit states' rights in this matter.

The balance between federal power and states' rights sometimes is a difficult one. The Dispatch agrees with the court's majority that the regulation of the practice of medicine has been and should be a matter for the states.

Each state should have as much freedom as possible to try out new ideas. The court seemed to be thinking along those lines when, in 1997, it ruled in a case from Washington state that although the U.S. Constitution specifies no right to doctor-assisted suicide, states are free to experiment with it.

Oregon's assisted-suicide law is the nation's first and, thus far, only such experiment. At least 208 people have used the law to end their lives.

The Supreme Court's ruling certainly will spark debate across the nation. And that debate will be healthy, both for states that ultimately adopt such laws and for those that do not.

In states where assisted suicide will remain against the law, such debate will help ensure that patients and their families have options to help them deal with the most difficult of circumstances.

Such life-and-death matters always have and always will test our understandings of compassion, morality and the common good.

Assisted suicide is likely to remain illegal in most states for years to come, but advances in medical technology and pharmaceutical treatments will continue to complicate our traditional understanding of what constitutes natural death.

Congress could attempt to draw its own line for the entire nation. It should not. Its outrageous behavior in the Terry Schiavo case illustrates the reason why.

The 50 states long have regulated and should continue to regulate the practice of medicine.

-----

Copyright (c) 2006, The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.

Source: The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio

More News in this Category