Opinion/Editorials Address Supreme Court Decision on Physician-Assisted Suicide

By None, KaiserNetwork.org, Jan. 18, 2006

Daily Health Policy Report

Several newspapers on Wednesday published a number of editorials and an opinion piece that addressed a decision by the Supreme Court on Tuesday that upheld an Oregon law that allows physician-assisted suicide. Summaries appear below.

Boston Globe: "The Supreme Court acted wisely yesterday to let Oregon continue its experiment with physician-assisted suicide," a Globe editorial states. According to the editorial, "Whatever one's view of this practice, Oregonians should be allowed to make this choice," and the decision will ensure that other "states have the right to pass laws like Oregon's" (Boston Globe, 1/18).

Chicago Tribune: After a "vigorous debate," Oregon residents "voted ... twice to approve the Death With Dignity Act," and that "should have settled it" because the regulation of the practice of medicine "rightfully rests" with states, a Tribune editorial states. However, the "possibility of abuse is real and troubling," and state residents should "argue long and hard" before they enact similar laws, according to the editorial (Chicago Tribune, 1/18).

Contra Costa Times: The Supreme Court "made the right call in upholding Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, not because we necessarily endorse the practice, but because we believe states have the right to enact such statutes without federal interference," according to a Times editorial. The law "is limited and should not be overruled by a questionable interpretation of the attorney general's power and an overly broad reading of the Controlled Substance Act," the editorial states, adding that the "subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business" (Contra Costa Times, 1/18).

Des Moines Register: Although the Supreme Court ruled that the "nation's top cop went too far when he tried to use law-enforcement authority to rewrite legislation passed by Congress," the court did not "enshrine assisted suicide as a constitutional right," a Register editorial states. According to the editorial, "just because Congress has not yet explicitly sought to prohibit laws such as Oregon's, that does not mean it could not at some point," but "it should stay out" and "should not intrude on the will of the people of Oregon" (Des Moines Register, 1/18).

San Jose Mercury News: "Former Attorney General John Ashcroft's legacy took a well-deserved hit Tuesday" when the Supreme Court "wisely blocked the Bush administration effort to punish doctors trying to help terminally ill patients take advantage of Oregon's assisted suicide law," a Mercury News editorial states. The editorial adds, "Proponents of a similar law in California should take heart from the ruling and push harder for the state to allow terminally ill patients to die in peace" (San Jose Mercury News, 1/18).

USA Today: The Supreme Court "told the Justice Department to butt out of the private decisions of terminally ill patients in Oregon," a decision that will provide "consolation for those fearful of dying in excruciating pain" and allow "a common-sense alternative for those who might otherwise have been tempted to shoot themselves or leap off a high bridge," a USA Today editorial states. "Unfortunately, neither those tragedies nor the court's decision are likely to end the shameful intrusions of moralizing politicians and busybody activists who feel they are entitled to impose their moral judgments on suffering patients and their families," according to the editorial (USA Today, 1/18).

Jay Sekulow, USA Today: "The Supreme Court decision is not only disappointing but disturbing" because "the high court has made it much more difficult and complex to protect human life," Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. In addition, the "decision opens the door for more debate about assisted suicide" and "has set the stage for a protracted political and legislative battle that could very well be fought out on a state-by-state basis," Sekulow writes (Sekulow, USA Today, 1/18).

Wall Street Journal: "The High Court's liberal wing ... has suddenly discovered the constitutional virtues of federalism," a Journal editorial states, adding, "Count us with the federalists in this one, even if they are of the born-again variety." The editorial states, "We don't favor assisted suicide as a policy," but "in the American system, there's no good reason that Washington should be able to trump states' rights in the matter" (Wall Street Journal, 1/18).

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