Court's Suicide Ruling Won't End Debate

By None, USA Today, Jan. 19, 2006

What people are saying about physician-assisted suicide:

The Boston Globe, in an editorial: "The Supreme Court acted wisely (Tuesday) to let Oregon continue its experiment with physician-assisted suicide. The justices ruled 6-3 against a Bush administration move to strip the licenses of doctors who help terminally ill patients end their lives. ... The ruling is a reminder of the common sense that retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor brought to the bench. In a 1997 ruling, the court said there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide and upheld two state laws banning the practice. But the court said states have the right to pass laws like Oregon's, with O'Connor mentioning the 'laboratory of democracy' role of states to try out different approaches to difficult issues."

Chicago Tribune, in an editorial: "Let's hope the people of any state considering such a law argue long and hard about it. In the end, the decision rightfully rests with them."

The (Baltimore) Sun, in an editorial: "The high court has been pitching from side to side on ... how far medicine should go to relieve the suffering of terminally ill patients. In 1990, the court ruled patients may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive, but it declared in 1997 that people have no constitutional right to die. This is one of those intensely private matters that doctors, patients and family members should ideally be able to resolve without government interference. Dying patients must be protected ... and provided whatever miracles of medicine they seek that are available to them, but neither patients nor states need self-righteous public officials presuming to make such personal decisions for them. The high court was wise to recognize that."

The Oregonian, Portland, in an editorial: "Oregon had hope for John Roberts, the newly confirmed chief justice. ... During Senate confirmation hearings last year, Roberts seemed open to upholding Oregon's assisted-suicide law. He also appeared to possess a less moralistic, less arbitrary view of federal power than Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the court's two conservative judicial activists. Roberts let Oregon down this week. ... Roberts joined Scalia's peevish dissent. While this vote doesn't define Roberts, it's a troubling indicator of the chief justice's mind-set — and of the court's creeping direction."

Brian Dickerson, columnist in the Detroit Free Press: "One can't help but be struck by the difference between the way the ... court blundered into the abortion controversy and its gingerly approach to the comparably complex assisted suicide debate. ... The democratic debate over physician-assisted suicide continues. Tuesday's ruling serves notice that neither mavericks like (Jack) Kevorkian nor reactionaries like (John) Ashcroft will be permitted to hijack it."

Las Vegas Review-Journal, in an editorial: "The Constitution's commerce clause ... has been used by liberal legislators and jurists since the New Deal to justify the incursion of federal power into virtually every aspect of American life. Only in the past decade or so have the more conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to narrow this expansive interpretation of the commerce clause. But in Tuesday's ruling, the roles were all reversed. Liberals on the court, along with moderate Anthony Kennedy, formed the majority, suddenly finding an area in which they don't believe federal bureaucrats have the authority to meddle. ... It's just too bad that Justices Thomas and Scalia chose to be chortling contrarians rather than consistent defenders of states' rights — and that their liberal cohorts' embrace of a more limited federal hegemony is probably short-lived."

Margot Roosevelt, national correspondent for Time magazine: "The decision may have an impact on pending legislation in California, Vermont and other states where patients'-rights groups have called for 'compassionate choices' laws. ... Still, Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling is unlikely to end the debate."

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