It seems as though controversial laws are continuously challenged regardless of how many times the issue has come before the courts or how many times the people have voted the law into existence. Possibly the two most prominent examples of this are physician-assisted suicide and abortion, which have both landed before the Supreme Court in one form or another. Though neither medical practice has recently been before the court in its entirety, some portion of each practice has recently been examined.
Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act started on its path to the Supreme Court when, in 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft directed federal agents to investigate Oregon doctors suspected of aiding terminally ill patients who wished to end their lives under the law. Ashcroft’s goal was to revoke the licenses of physicians who prescribed lethal doses of federally controlled drugs. This was just one more desperate attempt to bury the law and undermine the will of Oregon voters.
Questions were quickly raised when Ashcroft launched this campaign against terminally ill patients and their doctors; mainly, did the Attorney General act within his authority? Fortunately, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that Ashcroft overstepped his position; doctors can continue to prescribe lethal doses of medicine to dying patients without worrying about the government kicking down their doors and feeding their licenses to the paper shredder.
Though the law is currently safe, it won’t be long before it is challenged again. Physical assisted suicide is a moral debate, but it should remain a personal moral debate. This is an issue that certainly does not affect us all. There are a handful of people involved in each case of physician-assisted suicide: the patient, the doctor, the pharmacist and the patient’s family. However, it boils down to the morals of the patient. No one else can make that person’s decision and no one else should have a say in what the patient’s options are. The terminally ill who seek help in ending their lives are not committing an act that will affect the well-being of the public; hence, the public should not have a say in the decision.
The issue of assisted suicide for terminally ill patients has come in to the national spotlight in recent months. It has prompted support and condemnation from many people around the country, including the president. The Register-Guard quoted Scott McClellan, White House spokesman, as saying that “the president remains fully committed to building a culture of life – a culture of life that is built on valuing life at all stages.”
Every person has value, every life has value. But are we valuing that life by forcing its existence? Does forcing the terminally ill to live in pain show that we value their life? Do we value adults’ lives yet not value their right to free will?
The timing of McClellan’s statement is appropriate. A case recently went before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of New Hampshire abortion laws. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court told the lower court to reconsider its ruling that struck down the law in its entirety; the lower court has been told to make a narrower ruling as to which part of the law is unconstitutional. The fault with the New Hampshire law is that it requires parental notification of the abortion 48 hours before it is performed, and there is no exception for medical purposes.
Though the Supreme Court ruling broke little ground, it reaffirmed that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that states must have an exemption to protect the mother’s health. I can understand the wish to have restrictive measures when it comes to teen abortion; if I had a daughter, I would want her to come to me and talk rather than making what could possibly be a rash decision. But abortion restrictions without any exceptions are misguided and could prove fatal. If the young girl’s life is at risk and an abortion is necessary, physicians should not have to put the girl in jeopardy as they attempt to track down her parents. New Hampshire, Minnesota, Missouri and Wyoming all have laws that could put young women in this perilous position.
The policy of parental permission is a tricky one. Certainly, parents would want to and deserve to know if their daughter is considering an abortion. It is troubling to think of a teenager who has to consider having an abortion. And ideally, she would be able to have her parents with her for help and guidance. But that is not always the case, and any woman receiving an abortion needs to be able to make her own decisions. It is not fair to force some kind of parental involvement.
Going beyond permission, to the level of absurd, is parental notification. What good does it do to require that a parent be notified about an abortion, yet still be kept out of the decision making process? I understand why some lawmakers want to require parental permission before an abortion, but notification serves no purpose. Forcing communication between the pregnant girl and her parents with no exceptions is an unsafe move when the possibility exists for abuse or other factors.
Every day we make decisions about our lives, most of them mundane. But, there are some decisions that could forever alter the course of our lives. And sometimes, as frightening as it may be, the options we have rest in the hands of voters, the government and the courts. The best that we can do is to follow our own morals, and often times that means putting up with laws we disagree with like the Death with Dignity Act and state abortion laws – so that others can to do the same.
[email protected]