Oregonians Speak Out on Assisted Suicide

By None, The Oregonian, Jan. 22, 2006

TO THE EDITOR
Sunday, January 22, 2006

Scrutinize those who would undo Death With Dignity

As a mostly stoic, if unwilling, host to cancer -- one of life's greatest character builders or cruelest jokes, depending on your point of view and religious affliction -- I applaud the U.S. Supreme Court majority on its decision to uphold Oregon's so-called "Death With Dignity" law.

I also observe that the dissenting court view was expressed by three males whom supporters had praised as dogged advocates of states' rights, personal liberty, minimal governmental interference and anything else they thought you wanted to hear.

Additionally, I urge everyone to remember those advocates' names while perusing sample ballots in the coming months. A politely worded reminder to your senator as he or she deliberates the future of yet another well-coached question-dodger and judicial defender of the faith couldn't hurt either.

GLENN ELFMAN, Pistol River

______________________________

Oregon has long been recognized as a leading practitioner of the benefit of the federal system that it allows for experimentation.

But by the same token, experimentation can have adverse outcomes, and Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, which is an anomaly not just in the United States but [nearly] worldwide, is such an example. The notion that one can legislate a "dignified" death by suicide smacks of overzealous salesmanship.

Before reform-minded states follow Oregon, they should ask what is Oregon's record on treatment of common problems related to end of life, such as problems of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. More specifically, one should ask how does Oregon's congressional delegation stand on the Elder Justice Act of 2005, now pending in the U.S. Senate?

The answer is disquieting to those who equate Oregon with progressive reform.

At last count, only two of Oregon's seven-member congressional delegation have supported the Elder Justice Act, which places Oregon on a par with a few of the most socially backward states.

Oregon's Death With Dignity Act helps people die. The Elder Justice Act of 2005 helps people live. Oregon has made its choice. Now let us make ours.

LAWRENCE CRANBERG, Founder, Elder Justice Coalition of Texas Austin, Texas

______________________________

Back in 2000, The Oregonian printed an essay I'd written ("Relief or regret: views on death by suicide," Feb. 7, 2000) expressing my concern that assisted suicide might contribute to increased suicides by the depressed.

Contrary to what I had feared, my experience as a civil commitment investigator is that this slippery slope has not occurred. Of course, my evidence is only anecdotal, not research-based.

I now tend to agree with the Jan. 19 New York Times editorial that "Oregon has acted with exquisite care by requiring that two doctors agree that a patient is likely to die within six months, and is well informed and acting voluntarily, before lethal drugs can be prescribed. Congress would be wise not to meddle in a sensitive issue that Oregon has clearly studied far more closely."

GREG MONACO, Northeast Portland

______________________________

I must disagree with The Oregonian and all those letter writers who think that, somehow, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts betrayed us or let us down or deceived the Senate Judiciary Committee by voting as he did in the Oregon assisted-suicide-law case.

Neither Roberts nor Antonin Scalia nor Clarence Thomas determined that the Oregon law was unjust, unconstitutional or just plain bad. On the contrary, Scalia, in his dissenting opinion, wrote that those who favor the Oregon law are "perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position."

As the Los Angeles Times points out, the issue before the court "was narrow -- focused on whether former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft had the authority under the Controlled Substances Act to forbid physicians to prescribe drugs to terminally ill patients who wanted to use the medications to end their lives. . . ."

Strictly on the basis of what they thought the controlled substances law meant, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia voted that Ashcroft had that right. The other justices, interpreting the law differently, voted that he did not. The verdict was that simple.

FRANK CADY, Wilsonville

______________________________

Be careful what you wish for. The basic subtext for the favorable ruling on Oregon's assisted suicide law is a reversal of the usual federal vs. states' rights alignment of the Supreme Court.

Imagine that the states' version of abortion on demand carried the day vs. the federal one. You would not be so glee-filled.

ROBERT D. VAUGHN, Southwest Portland

______________________________

How to avert planned suicide: If you're opposed to a relative or friend desiring to use assisted suicide, simply suggest that the person request the drug through Medicare/Medicaid Part D coverage. (S)he'll be dead long before even getting an answer, much less the drug!

DAVE DOCKHAM, Hood River

______________________________

The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in favor of Oregon's Death With Dignity Act underscored the importance of having an independent court. Samuel Alito Jr.'s presence would have made it 5-4. Although he would have been in the minority, it would have made the decision even tighter.

LEE EISENBERG, Southwest Portland

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