On Tuesday, a decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. The Act, passed by voters in 1994, was upheld by a 6-3 majority with Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting.
While I don’t agree with doctor-assisted suicide, I’m very happy with this decision. States should have the right to pass laws that don’t interfere with federal jurisdiction, and Oregon’s doctor assisted suicide law does not.
I never expected to say this, but I agree with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that stated that Former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s suit was a “unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers (that) interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide.”
On the surface, this doesn’t seem to be a states’ rights issue. The case was really built around the federal Controlled Substances Act, or CSA. Ashcroft, who began the litigation, stated that the Oregon law violated the CSA because the lethal prescriptions served no medical purpose.
However, in the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the “CSA does not allow the Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide under state law permitting the procedure.” Kennedy went on to say that the
Attorney General “is not authorized to make a rule declaring illegitimate a medical standard for patient care and treatment specifically authorized under state law.”
Simply put, the federal government doesn’t have the ability to make the Death with Dignity Act illegal based on what Ashcroft thought was in the CSA. If Congress wanted to make assisted suicide illegal, they would have insert a clause into the law mentioning the practice.
Many who disagree with this ruling don’t understand exactly what the Death with Dignity Act entails. It was passed by Oregon voters in 1994 and 1997 in order to give people with terminal illnesses control over their deaths. The patient must be in full control of his or her mental capacities, and two doctors must certify that he or she has less than six months to live. The patient must make two separate oral requests 15 days apart, followed by a written request. If either doctor feels that the patient isn’t capable of making medical decisions due to any reason, including depression, he or she will be referred to a psychologist for an evaluation.
Many people, particularly Republicans, are upset with this ruling. While there are a number of complaints about the decision, my personal favorite is that it interferes with the federal government’s responsibility to protect life.
I would like to know where in the Constitution it says the government needs to protect us from ourselves. More to the point, why do people believe that the government needs to “protect” life? If a person wants to commit suicide, especially if they are facing months of suffering, why not allow it? They aren’t infringing on my rights.
Not only does the Constitution not protect a person’s “right to life,” it doesn’t even mention it. In fact, life is only mentioned in relation to due process, treason and double jeopardy. This ruling isn’t about a person’s “right to life” – nor is it about the paranoid idea that the government must keep people alive to prevent a slippery slope leading to mass euthanasia of the handicapped and elderly. It’s about our right to self-determination, both as a state and as individuals.
The right-wing reaction to the Death with Dignity ruling disturbs me. What happened to the notion that the government doesn’t know best and that some things should be left to the states? While I disagree with the idea of suicide on a religious basis, that doesn’t mean I believe we should use the courts to outlaw an act that has twice passed a voter initiative. Like it or not, Oregonians have spoken, and the federal government should respect that. It’s sad that values such as decreasing the size of the Nanny State are libertarian and no longer conservative.
Perhaps the best test of a true conservative – or liberal, for that matter – is sticking by your principles even when you’re uncomfortable with them. The Republican Party would do well to remember this before it falls further away from its founding principles.
[email protected]