Court's Ruling in Oregon Case Sound

By None, The Cincinatti Enquirer, Jan. 20, 2006

Editorial

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a sound ruling Tuesday that had the effect of upholding Oregon's controversial "assisted suicide" law, properly leaving this sort of issue with the states.

It is unlikely the narrow opinion will spur other states such as Ohio and Kentucky to adopt similar laws anytime soon, but it has energized an already wrenching debate among families, health care professionals and public officials - not only on physician-assisted suicide, but on a range of end-of-life decisions we confront. It is a debate that requires all our utmost in understanding, grace and humility.

The court's 6-3 decision in Gonzales vs. Oregon (formerly Ashcroft vs. Oregon) means that the individual states, not the federal government, have the right to regulate medical practices, even when it means prescribing lethal doses of medicines.

The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy did not address whether assisted suicide is good or bad. He acknowledged the importance of this "earnest and profound debate," then focused on the crux of the case: state vs. federal power. Was then-Attorney General John Ashcroft correct in 2001 when he claimed the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 gave him authority to punish doctors who prescribed lethal doses of medicine?

The court's answer was emphatically no - that Ashcroft had wrongly attempted a "radical shift of authority" regarding local standards of medical practice. The legal question was over states' rights, not the constitutionality or morality of assisted suicide. That's another reminder that high-profile cases often aren't really about what the headlines say they're about.

There's another lesson here: A good judge rules without regard to his or her personal opinions - and those who think they can predict how a judge will rule based on past statements may be sorely mistaken.

In 2002, Justice Antonin Scalia told an Oregon college audience he had "no problem" with the state's assisted suicide law, and he criticized Ashcroft for trying to shut it down. But this week, he voted to support Ashcroft's position. In his dissent, Scalia concluded that Congress intended to give the feds that authority in the way it worded the CSA, along with other statutes - and that assisted suicide does not meet what the law defines as a "legitimate medical purpose."

Still, the majority ruling frees other states to consider legalizing the practice; California and Vermont are closest to doing so. In 44 states, including Kentucky, it is a crime. Ohio decriminalized it, but declared it "against the state's public policy" and allowed disciplinary action by medical authorities. The American public is split evenly, according to a Jan. 5 Pew Research Center poll.

Congress should resist the temptation to re-enter this arena. The debate over assisted suicide reminds us that ultimately, the law can only go so far - that some decisions remain deeply personal matters of the heart.

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