Protecting End-of-life Decisions

The NY Times has a thoughtful editorial on the ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday that "rejected Mr. Ashcroft's attempt to impose his religiously conservative ideology on a state whose voters had decided differently." The editorial also raises the question of what Chief Justice Roberts meant when he "assured senators that he believed people had 'the right to be let alone,'" and still supported the government's intrusive position on one of the most sensitive decisions one can make.

The Times also went a step further arguing against any Congressional effort to restrict Oregon's law. The law in Oregon sets stringent requirements for assisted suicide and when these requirements are met, there should be no attempt by the government to rule over end-of-life decisions, as the meddling in the Schiavo case should have demonstrated. The Times sums up:

But our own sense is that Oregon has acted with exquisite care by requiring that two doctors agree that a patient is likely to die within six months, and is well informed and acting voluntarily, before lethal drugs can be prescribed. Congress would be wise not to meddle in a sensitive issue that Oregon has clearly studied far more closely.

Agreed.