The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the Bush administration crossed the line when it punished doctors who helped terminally ill patients end their lives. This is a victory for right-to-die advocates and federalists alike. I should be clear that I’m not exactly a card-carrying member of the Federalist Society, but nonetheless, we really shouldn’t be hearing any whining about this one from those who argue “let the states decide” on hot-button issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Here, the state decided. The federal government tried to step in, and the Supreme Court told them to back off. But since a lot of them probably won’t like the result of the decision, I fully expect to hear a bunch of hemming and hawing from the “states’ rights” right.
There certainly isn’t a unified position on the right to die on either the left or the right, but the Terri Schiavo case made it fairly clear that the American people don’t want the government poking its nose in their most private of personal choices — the right to end their own lives. This issue is important to me for two reasons: First, and most obvious, its future relevance in my own life. At some point, most people will have to make a life-or-death decision about themselves or a loved one. I don’t want to be hooked up to machines if I’m brain-dead, or forced to live out extremely painful and miserable months as an elderly woman with a terminal disease. I know my mother doesn’t want to either, and she’s made that wish exceptionally clear to my sister and I, telling us (and I kid you not) that she will come back and haunt us if we leave her in a position where she’s living as a vegetable. I really don’t want to be haunted by my mother. Second, the right to die is a burgeoning part of privacy rights law, and I hope that the court will continue to be consistent and to maintain a standard that affords individuals dignity and autonomy. This particular case is important because it evaluates the power of the Attorney General to expand the loose wording of a Congressional act in order to interfere with a state-legalized medical procedure.
While the attorney general has authority to combat drug abuse, his limited powers under the law do not include the ability to declare illegitimate “a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under state law,” the majority held, in emphasizing that the federal government cannot simply override state law on medical issues.
Now, should Roe ever be overturned — and let’s hope that doesn’t happen, but we should prepare for the worst — it’s important to establish a standard which says that specific state standards for medical care trump vaguely-worded Congressional acts. So according to what the court said here, it would logically follow that, should legal abortion become a state-by-state issue, an attorney general could not find providers who dispence RU-486 and prosecute them under this or a similar act.
In an interesting dissent from Scalia (surprise surprise), we get this little gem:
“If the term ‘legitimate medical purpose’ has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death,” Justice Scalia wrote.
Justice Scalia, citing papers filed on behalf of the federal government, wrote that “virtually every medical authority from Hippocrates to the current American Medical Association confirms that assisting suicide has seldom or never been viewed as a form of ‘prevention, cure, or alleviation of disease.’ ” The entire legitimacy of physician-assisted suicide “ultimately rests, not on ‘science’ or ‘medicine,’ but on a naked value judgment,” he wrote.
Not to be crass here, but it sure does alleviate it.
I also like how “science” and “medicine” are terms worthy of skepticism-quotes. And we should point to the fact that our own Scalia, Mr. Originalist himself, believes that, since there is nothing in the Constitution barring the states from creating right-to-die laws (and, he believes, nothing in the Constitution requing the federal government to grant its citizens the right to physician-assisted suicide), that this decision should rest on a naked value judgment. Which is an interesting point, coming from him. It’s quite unlike his views on, say, Roe v. Wade and other privacy-rights cases, which according to Scalia also lack basis in the Constitution, but (unlike this case) should therefore be left up to the states because that is what federalism requires. And he prides himself on having a consistent judical philosophy based in originalism? I’d encourage him to check out the Tenth Amendment.
Another telling matter in this case: The other two dissenters were Clarence Thomas (who seems to rarely have the time to actually write a Supreme Court opinion, and usually just sticks his name next to Scalia’s) and newbie John Roberts — another “originalist.” This doesn’t bode particularly well.
It’s also worth looking at what the Oregon Death with Dignity Act actually involves, as I’m sure we’ll be hearing all kinds of alarmism about how the Grim Reaper has come to Oregon and this is another sign of the Culture of Death and our impending self-destruction. Oregon isn’t going around knocking off sweet old ladies as they get off the bus. It’s offering the terminally ill a chance to avoid suffering, have final closure with their families, and die according to their own wishes. It’s been used 326 times to prescribe patients with lethal doses of medication; 208 of those patients have actually taken the medication and ended their own lives.
Oregon voters approved the state’s Death With Dignity Act twice, and it took effect in 1997. It sets out specific, detailed procedures for patients who want to end their lives, and for doctors who want to help them. Among other requirements, a patient must have a life expectancy of less than six months and must be mentally competent. The patient must also be advised of all alternatives, like hospice care and pain management. And the doctor who prescribes the drugs may not administer them.
This seems very reasonable to me. I look forward to hearing a decent argument against it.