c. 1997 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ With an anxious but by no means unified religious community standing in the wings, the Supreme Court Wednesday (Jan. 8) heard arguments on whether laws barring doctor-assisted suicide are legal, setting the stage for a possible landmark ruling involving the most profound issues of life and death.

For two hours the nine black-robed justices heard arguments and grilled lawyers on whether the Constitution includes a right to doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. The justices are expected to hand down a decision before the end of the term in late June or early July.

Shortly after the justices heard the arguments, two Senators _ Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and John Ashcroft, R-Mo. _ said they intend to introduce legislation that would bar the use of federal tax dollars to pay for or promote assisted suicides in the event the justices rule in favor of permitting the practice.”Whether or not assisted suicide should be legal has been an issue for the courts and the states to decide,”Dorgan told a news conference.”We do not propose to change that. Our bill simply says that federal taxpayers should not be required to pay for this controversial practice.” Outside the imposing Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill, some 200 demonstrators on both sides of the issue rallied to influence public opinion. Religious groups largely support maintaining a ban on doctor-assisted suicide and have already made their case to the High Court through written briefs.

Some expressed concern that the justices took up the case, arguing that the Court is not equipped to resolve the profound theological issues at stake in the debate.”What has been a theological preoccupation will become an issue of public policy and law,”said the Rev. Thom White Wolf Fassett, general secretary of the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church.”It is unlikely that the courts will find easy resolution to problems of human suffering, free will, stewardship of life, and the role of the caretaker,”he said.

At least one justice appears to agree with Fassett.

During the hearing, Justice David Souter said the Court may not be in a position to adequately weigh states’ interests in protecting life against patients’ interests in avoiding intolerable pain. The Court, he suggested, might decide that”as an institution we are not in a position to make the judgment now that you (lawyers) want us to make.” The immediate issue before the Supreme Court is whether two lower courts in Washington and New York states acted properly in striking down bans on doctor-assisted suicide.

In the Washington case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the state’s ban on doctor-assisted suicide violated due process rights. New York’s law was declared unconstitutional by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the ban discriminatory because it allowed dying patients to refuse medical treatment but refused to let terminally ill patients not on life support to end their lives with medication.

Religious groups, including the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Evangelical Covenant Church and the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, have urged the Court to retain the ban.”At issue is whether a centuries-old tradition and prohibition _ we will not take the life of another even if asked _ should be abandoned,”the groups told the Court in their joint brief.

Others, however, argue that state laws forbidding doctor-assisted suicide”burden core liberty interests”protected by the Constitution.

A brief filed by the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations, the Episcopal Diocese of New York, the American Humanist Association and Americans for Religious Liberty, noted that”religious organizations and religious leaders have taken a wide array of positions on the morality of physician-assisted suicide.” Both the Clinton administration and the American Medical Association have urged the Court to uphold the ban.

Religion-related advocacy groups speaking out about the hearing are virtually unanimous in their opposition to doctor-assisted suicide.”Legalizing physician-assisted suicide would mean that patients could never truly trust their doctors again,”said Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society.

Steven McFarland, director of the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom, said legalizing the practice would create pressure on some of the most vulnerable members of society to end their lives.”The poor, the elderly, the disabled, minorities and women are those most likely to `request aid’ in dying,”he said.”They have the least access to the antidote for suicide _ quality medical care that can ameliorate their pain or clinical depression. So on trial today is society’s duty to protect the lives of our most vulnerable citizens.”

MJP END ANDERSON