Times Argus editorial

January 20, 2006

Dignity wins

            Those Americans who have watched with growing concern as their nation's increasingly assertive religious and political conservatives have sought to have their personal beliefs enshrined as the law of the land were relieved this week when the United States Supreme Court strongly rejected the Bush administration's attempt to overturn Oregon's controversial assisted suicide law.

            By a 6-3 margin, the high court found that former Attorney General John Ashcroft – who had tried unsuccessfully to legislate against Oregon's law while he was a United States Senator – had exceeded his legal authority in 2001 when he threatened to prohibit doctors from prescribing federally controlled drugs if they authorized lethal doses of the medications under the state's Death With Dignity Act.

            It was no surprise that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the court's most reliably conservative – or is it reactionary? – members voted to support Ashcroft's initiative. What was mildly surprising, and perhaps disappointing to many, was that Chief Justice John Roberts joined in their dissent. Roberts had been so impressive during his recent confirmation hearings that there had been some hope he'd prove to be a moderate in his judicial philosophy.

            The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, struck down one of the central points of the Bush administration's "culture of life" agenda and, assuming Congress doesn't intervene, would seem to free other states, including Vermont, to follow Oregon's   example. However, there is apparent disagreement over the impact of the high court's ruling.

            "This will be a tremendous momentum builder for Vermont and other states who want to bring compassionate care to end-of-life issues," Dr. David Babbott of Death With Dignity Vermont, commented to the New York Times. "I don't think its impact will be great," Dr. Robert D. Orr, the president of the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare, told the same newspaper. "Some have misunderstood the Oregon case as a challenge to the Oregon statute itself."

            "What the court decision means is simply that you won't have federal agents trying to put an end to this in the state of Oregon," Dr. Timothy Quill, a prominent advocate of physician-assisted suicide commented.

            It may be some time before the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling comes into focus. But conservatives quickly denounced it. A spokesman for evangelist Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice described it "a disturbing and dangerous decision that can only lessen the value of protecting human life."

            Oregon's Sen. Ron Wyden, however, noted that in two statewide referendums voters had approved the act and that in the more recent vote, the margin was 60 to 40 percent in favor of the law. Wyden vowed to "fight tooth and nail any congressional attempts to overturn this court ruling

            Judging by a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 46 percent of Americans support the right to assisted suicide while 45 percent oppose it, so beyond Oregon's borders it remains a close call.

            The Oregon law didn't take full effect until 1998. From then through 2004, 208 people took their lives by lethal injection with a physician-prescribed drug, usually a barbiturate. Under the law, two doctors had to approve the procedure for each patient.

            The entire concept of "death with dignity" seems to us to be a thoroughly honorable and eminently practical approach for terminally ill patients who choose that path. The high court's ruling would appear to be an encouraging step toward wider acceptance of the concept in this country.