ON WEDNESDAY, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Gonzales vs. Oregon, the culmination of the Bush administration's long fight to overturn Oregon's popular Death With Dignity Act. The outcome will have far-reaching effects, particularly for Californians.
The Oregon law, like a bill before the California Assembly, permits doctors to write prescriptions for a lethal dose of sleeping pills or similar drugs that dying patients can take if they find their suffering unbearable. It has been in effect for nearly eight years, and there is ample evidence that it is working exactly as intended. Only about 30 patients per year use it, but many more say they find peace of mind in having the option to do so if they choose. Oregon is the only state with such a law.
The Bush administration argues that Oregon doctors writing such prescriptions are violating the federal Controlled Substances Act -- legislation enacted in 1970 to try to stop prescription medicines from being diverted to street use. Oregon counters that its law has nothing to do with drug trafficking; it's about medical care, and states, not the federal government, regulate the practice of medicine. There is nothing in the Controlled Substances Act that speaks to what is or isn't an appropriate medical use of drugs, because that wasn't its intent.
Oregon is right. The Bush administration is seizing on an irrelevant federal law as an excuse to overturn a state law, even though the move flies in the face of Republican rhetoric about states' rights and federalism. It also puts the administration at odds with the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, which believes the government should stay out of the private lives of individuals.
Why is the administration fighting such an odd battle? Physician-assisted suicide is one of the religious right's signature issues, used mainly as a wedge in the battle against abortion rights. It lets foes of abortion claim that their commitment to life is absolute and has nothing to do with women's rights. The administration is quite willing to throw over Republican principles about federalism and individual freedom to appease the religious right.
The Oregon law is very much about individual freedom. No patient is required to use it, nor must doctors be involved if they don't wish to be. It is an individual choice. At the beginning, there were concerns that dying patients, particularly the poor and vulnerable, might feel pressured to end their lives. Those concerns now appear to have been groundless: The number of patients who request prescriptions under the law remains small, and they tend to be more affluent and better educated -- that is, less vulnerable -- than average.
