It was fundamental question long before the founding of this great nation. It was fought over during the Civil War. This tension continues to permeate in our society because at its very core is the conflict over -- no, not the right to die -- states rIghts or federal interests. Once more today the question was brought before the highest court. But this time, it will be the Roberts Court, not the Rehnquist Court, to hear Oregon v. Gonzales.
A 1997 Supreme Court decision held that terminally ill patients had no constitutional right for doctor-assisted suicides. The Court did not rule the practice unconstitution and instead left enough leniency for state-by-state experimentation. Justice O'Connor provided the essential vote to swing the 5-4 decision. With Miers pending nomination, it is likely O'Connor's vote will not participate in this decision, resulting in a potential 4-4 split. Ripe for the taking by either side.
Oregon is the only state that permits terminally ill patients to obtain lethal doses for doctor-assisted suicides. Twice Oregon voters have endorsed its doctor-assisted suicide law. Despite what protestors are shouting about on the steps of the Supreme Court, this as a turf war, not a moral debate. The question framed isn't one of a person's right to life or death. The question framed is government's interest in policing controlled substances over the state legislature. (Interestingly enough, this quesiton presents a paradoxal ideology among the Christian conservative right. On one hand, doctor-assisted suicide is incompatible with basic morality and traditional role of physicians as "healers." Yet other the other hand, these believes are at odds with the conservative principle of limited federal interference.)
There was no indication that Congress intended to set out federal policy on assisted suicide when it passed the Controlled Substances Act. No other federal law directly, or indirectly, prohits assisted suicide and no where in the Constitution did Congress reserve such a right to regulate. It would seem that former Attorney General John Ashcroft seemed to bring this suit out of thin air. But at the end of the day, people will want to know how should the court judge the life of another?
Comments