Physician-assisted Suicide

A week or two ago, the Supreme Court and stepped in to release an opinion that wasn't a split decision. By a vote of 6-3 (with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting), the Supreme Court ruled with the State of Oregon and uphold the assisted-suicide law. Now, before the self-righteous condemn this decision as the Left Coast hippies finding ways to kill everyone who's either not born yet or about to die in some vague, poorly-defined quest for...something.

Which is the question that I've always wondered about for all the "pro-life" movement, be the issue abortion or physician-assisted suicide. I'm genuinely curious about what the motives assigned to doctors by those who oppose abortion or physician-assisted suicide are: power? A genuine desire to do harm? Homicidal rage?

But I digress. The main point is that the Supreme Court made the right decision in upholding the Oregon law, a few reasons of which I'll mention here: erring on the side of the 10th amendment, rewarding a carefully-written legislature's efforts to protect the system from abuse, and protecting the inherent rights of people who don't have full control over their bodies.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states the following:

"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."

(From my pocket Constitution, provided free via the Cato Institute)

There is no provision in the Constitution giving Congress or the executive the sole power to regulate life and death, nor how they are applied. Obviously, Congress is empowered to create criminal codes, but so are the states. If a state makes a law that does not conflict with federal law, there is no conflict of so-called "federal question," the primary means by which lawsuits between the federal and state governments percolate up through the courts.

There is no such federal law that states cannot allow doctors to fulfill patients' requests for lethal doses. The question, then, is whether or not the doctors are guilty of murder, as it is they who provide the lethal doses. After all, what do you call it if someone asks you to kill them; murder or assisted suicide?

The Oregon law certainly seeks to resolve this question by placing the answer firmly in the latter camp. The Supreme Court clearly thought that the legislation had been crafted carefully enough to warrant deferring to the judgment of the representatives of the people of Oregon and deferred to their 10th amendment rights.

In the nine years since the "Death with Dignity" Law was passed, not one case has been found (to the detriment of the law's opponents and a boon to the methodical work of the doctors that implement it) where someone was terminated wrongly or without the possibility of a cure. The law requires that two doctors agree that the patient has no possibility of a cure and that the patient has less than six months to live. For this process to begin, of course, the chronically ill party must agree to begin the review.

What's amazing isn't even the simplicity of this process, but its difficulty in promoting abuse of the system and the fact that a legislative body made it. Since the process must begin with the patient and not the doctor, it's not as though a bunch of greedy HMOs can start killing off their most costly patients.

But there's a larger issue at work here and one that I've saved for last because it's the best:

People have the inalienable right to die if they please.

There are many who would argue that suicide is a sin; I'm not going to debate the merits of that claim here, mostly because I'm not exactly an authority on sin. To those of you who do view the "Death with Dignity" law as sinful, I have three counterpoints:

1) It's not in the government's business to make laws based on what is and is not a sin;
2) If you're utterly convinced suicide is a sin, it's probably not for you. That doesn't mean it might not be the right choice (albeit a tragic one) for someone else.
3) Where do you get the chutzpah to decide for other people what means they can use to die if they are going to anyway?

The merits of this law are that there are very stringent barriers set up in order to prevent abuse by HMOs and insurance companies while allowing those that want to die peacefully and without pain to do so if they please. This law does not give a legal umbrella to someone who wants to be a second for someone committing seppuku, for instance. They'd have to buy a plane ticket to Japan for that.

To the people of Oregon - congratulations. You have vindication from the land's highest court that your law obeys all Constitutional principles. Thank you for your leadership in branching out and letting all people reassert their right to die if they please, even if their bodies are crippled or ill beyond belief.