Maybe Death with Dignity, But not Without Permission

By Jason D. Ward, Boise State University Arbiter Online, Feb. 6, 2006

Opinion

Oregon law on physician-assisted suicide suvives in the Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold Oregon's unique Death with Dignity Act, a state law allowing physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Among the three to vote no was President Bush's earlier nominee John Roberts. That's strange, a Bush nominee voting with ideology in mind? Show of hands, who didn't see that coming?

The Oregon act is set out like this: the patient must be 18 years of age or older, a resident of Oregon, informed consent must be given and they must be diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death in six months or less and not basing their decision to die on depression or any other mental illness. Two physicians assist in verification as do two witnesses. If all of the above criteria are met, the doctor prescribes a lethal dose of a barbiturate potion, usually nine grams of Pentobarbital. As of 2004, 208 people have used the law to end their lives.

The issue on the docket was the Bush Administration attempting to use the Controlled Substances Act to pursue the doctors prescribing this barbiturate. I may not be a lawyer, but I believe if the government has an agenda regarding euthanasia, they should attempt to pass an amendment to the constitution instead of using obscure laws to push their beliefs.

The 10th amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The people have spoken in Oregon; in 1994 the law passed with a margin of 31,962 votes and was retained in 1997 by 220,445 votes in a special election attempt to repeal the law.

It's a disturbing and dangerous trend to see Supreme Court justices vote with ideology in mind over actual law, especially on a case where the administration tries to improperly use a federal law to impede state level legislation.

If you're not outraged by this circumvention of the legal system and imposition of personal beliefs on our freedom, then you're not paying attention.

Although this decision is not the final word on federal law trumping state decisions in cases like this, with a 6-3 win for the case I breathe a huge sigh of relief. Whenever the conditions exist to make euthanasia a topic of debate, it is an emotional situation for everyone involved.

That being said, I would like to know if I were in that situation that I could end my life if I wanted to forgo the suffering and dread of waiting for my death to happen.

What I wouldn't want is people sitting in Washington D.C. with a Bible in their hands making me live out my misery so they can score more brownie points for getting into heaven.

Email this page to a friend Share on Facebook Share on StumbleUpon Print this page