c. 2006 Religion News Service
WASHINGTON _ Advocates reacted with disappointment and triumph to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that continues the ethical debate on assisted suicide but keeps intact Oregon’s law permitting the procedure.
In a 6-3 decision announced Tuesday (Jan. 17), the nation’s highest court sided with the state and against the authority of the U.S. attorney general to prevent doctors from prescribing life-ending drugs for terminally ill patients.
The attorney general “is not authorized to make a rule declaring illegitimate a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under state law,” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the majority in the case.
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America was among those decrying the opinion.
“The Bible instructs us to `surely heal’ the ill, not to speed their departure from this Earth,” said the Washington-based umbrella organization.
But Compassion & Choices, a Denver-based group that works on end-of-life choices, hailed the “watershed” decision as a win for individual rights.
“It reaffirms the liberty, dignity and privacy Americans cherish at the end of life,” said Barbara Coombs Lee, the group’s president.
The high court upheld a lower court ruling that former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft could not hold Oregon physicians criminally liable for prescribing drugs under the state’s Death With Dignity Act. Ashcroft, citing the Controlled Substances Act, had issued a ruling that using controlled substances for assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical practice.
Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said his organization will ask Congress to clarify federal drug laws so assisted suicide can be forbidden.
“The court’s decision doesn’t answer any of the legal or moral issues but only changes the forum,” he said, moving the issue back into Congress’ hands.
Legal groups that have opposed assisted suicide decried the high court’s decision, saying it placed doctors in an inappropriate role.
“Doctors should not be in the business of killing people,” said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, based in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Said Mathew D. Staver, president of the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel: “When a physician participates in a person’s suicide by administering controlled substances, the line between healer and executioner is blurred, and the sanctity of life is lost.”
Groups on both sides of the moral debate said the ruling is likely to influence similar legislation elsewhere.
“This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the Washington-based American Center for Law and Justice.
Advocates for the Oregon law hope that’s exactly what will happen.
“Every individual should have the right to live with dignity and that includes a death with dignity,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the Washington-based American Humanist Association. “The AHA will work to broaden today’s victory for the citizens of Oregon to preserve the dignity of all Americans.”
Said Peg Sandeen, executive director of the Portland, Ore.-based Death With Dignity National Center: “The favorable ruling by the Supreme Court now permits other states to move forward in replicating Oregon’s landmark law.”
MO/PH END BANKS
Editors: Mathew in the 13th graph below is cq.
Richard Doerflinger’s official title is deputy director of “pro-life activities” for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
