A Developing Storm

The United States Supreme Court is about to embark on a decision they were ill-fated to receive. And despite the implications leading to this case, the Oregon assisted suicide case—Gonzales v. Oregon—has nothing to do with Terri Schiavo. It’s important to note that, as many advocates will, assuredly, be protesting outside the high court’s chambers during the time that they hear this case. Stop the rhetoric, and let’s take a look at the law.

The Oregon "Death With Dignity" proposition was approved by voters twice; the last time in 1997. It allowed mentally cognitive adults to request assistance from their doctors in dying. It is doctor-assisted suicide. Now before anyone goes off half-cocked, the Hippocratic Oath is not law. I understand fully that a doctor takes a vow to help his patients, not aid in their injuries, or further aid in their pain. I understand that completely. However, that is not the point of this case.

There are two questions that need to be answered in this case. First, What role does the federal government play in this? Second, if the federal government already has a bearing in this issue, can the voters really approve of such a measure? What is at the heart of the matter is whether a doctor may prescribe narcotics illegal under federal law to a dying patient to speed their death up—as painlessly as possible, and as quickly as possible. This is what I gather from the argument being made. Barbituates, illegal under federal law, have been prescribed to dying patients, in accordance with the Oregon law.

Can the voters of the state be overruled on this technicality? Does the state have the ability to trump federal law in this area? Or is the need evident to amend the law? That is the beauty of cases like this; there is no clear-cut solution. To be true to the Constitution, the high court can’t simply strike down the law. They have in the past (Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut are three that come to mind off the top of my head), but they’d be hard-pressed to do so now. Why? The voters didn’t just approve of this measure once; they did it twice.

The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The States have the right to decide on things that the federal government has no clear, enumerated power to deal with. This is the primary reason for OUR argument against abortion. The federal government has no right invading that territory. It should reside in the purview of the "States respectively, or to the people."

However, this issue isn’t just about States’ rights. It involves a state openly passing a law breaking federal law. The federal government, under the Interstate Commerce Clause, has the right to regulate certain things, including drugs. Doctors that are given the right prescribe narcotics deemed illegal by the federal government, in my opinion, take direct precedent on a case like this; especially in respect to the stare decisis that the Court relies on; that being the precedent already handed down by the court. That stare decisis is within the federal law that they are entrusted to uphold. Yes, they are to uphold the Constitution, and look, thanks to the ICC, the federal government can regulate the distribution of narcotics.

Oregon needs to do some amending to their new law, not the Supreme Court. There needs to be a clause—if need be, approved by the voters—inserted in the law that forbids the administration or prescribing of narcotics under federal control. As the federal government is the sole arbiter in such an issue, that means no narcotics prescribed whatsoever. As to the law itself, the stare decisis the Court has already provided states that their is no right to suicide.

In Washington v. Glucksberg—a case regarding assisted suicide—the Court found no inherent right to assisted suicide in the Constitution. It was a unanimous decision that they found nothing that allowed a person to ask their medical professional for assistance in their death or demise.

So, were the law to be Constitutional, at the very least it should be remanded back to the States to have a new clause tacked on to establish the prohibition in the administration of federally-controlled substances, i.e. narcotics. But the law is not Constitutional from the outset, as the high court has already determined there is no such right; therefore it is struck down. I don’t agree with the Court stepping in and acting as a final arbiter in cases like this; this should have been addressed in the proposition’s creation.

Legal minds are abound to explain the simplicities of this case, but are also available to make sure that such a proposition can withstand the scrutiny of the Constitution, of the Court, which ultimately must decide should it be challenged. It has been, it has been through it’s proper process of appeals, and here we are. The simple fact of the matter, regarding Constitutional and federal law, is that the law is improper.

There is no interjection of personal preferences here. Personally, I think suicide is a coward’s way out of life; and I wish no disrespect to my elders. I know that living into older age can sometimes prove to be very painful as the body begins to give out. I have witnessed this far too much in my own life; I do not wish that pain on anyone I know. However, as a mind of the law, I must respectfully disagree with the voters in Oregon. There is a concept called DNR, or Do Not Resuscitate. Should that person go "code-blue" in a hospital, and a DNR exists on their records, the hospital staff is obligated to attempt "normal" resuscitation; that being an air-bag or CPR, and even the defibrillator. However, anything that keeps someone alive—artificially—is a no-no under a DNR. That includes a feeding tube, hemodialyzer, and even a flowmeter. Anything that will keep an unconscious, comatose, or otherwise non-cognitive individual alive artificially.
But in the eyes of the law, there is no provision in the Constitution that protects someone from committing suicide. Regardless of their beliefs as to "My death will affect no one", there is no right in the Constitution. And the Constitution, at the very least, forbids the use of federally-regulated drugs from being administered to a patient, through their doctor, to aid in their death. Under the Controlled Substances Act, doctors may prescribe narcotics, or federally-controlled drugs, for "legitimate medical purposes", within reason. However, aiding in the death of a patient hardly a "legitimate medical purpose". Medicine is supposed to help people, not intentionally harm them. Yes, the Hippocratic Oath cites this, and whereas it is not law, it is tradition.

And tradition is a part of wrangling with issues like this. We must look back and ask "Would the doctors of old considered the assistance in the death of a patient a ‘legitimate’ medical practice?" To whit I state that only a minority believed this. Doctors are, in essence, "miracle workers" at times, and hope never fades. The doctors of old—our forefathers and before—never would have stood for such an act. Few did, and even fewer participated in such illegal and immoral acts. A doctor does what he, or she, can do to save the lives of their patients. It can be gut-wrenching to tell a family to make preparations for the death of a loved one, but it is a fact of life, and they can’t assist in that demise. The Court has stated as such.

If the Court were to find that while suicide is not Constitutionally-protected, but the doctor may participate in the demise of a patient, then this nation is truly in decline; that is murder, not assisted-suicide. What is to stop a hospital from ordering such a demise due to a lack of funds from the "family" inhabiting the room? As preposterous as it may sound, it may one day be true, and should the Court rule in such a way, it opens the door for such a case to emerge.

What is to stop a doctor from "pulling the plug" on a patient, and claim that they requested such? Yes, there are papers to file, and records to keep, but if the doctor feels that the patient would be better served by dying, what is to stop them? We have doctors that perform abortions; so what stops a doctor dealing with the aged and infirmed in a similar fashion of ending one’s life? There will be nothing.
Should the Court wish to utilize it’s "infinite wisdom" it should consider striking this law down completely. I said it before, and I’ll reiterate it now: I do not like the Court overruling the voters, but there are cases where it is, indeed, warranted. And this is one of them. Not only may the State approve the narcotics prescribed, through the ICC, but it may not allow "assisted suicide" to be in existence; the Court’s stare decisis decision stands from Washington v. Glucksberg, and it stand in the inherent tradition of the United States.

Publius II