I hear that right to lifer's in the Bush administration are challenging Oregon's assisted suicide law. A case is being argued before US Supreme Court, but both sides seem to be arguing the wrong things.
They are arguing over whether federal, or state governments have jurisdiction over these matters. Oregon's jurisdiction says assisted suicide is okay in certain cases, the feds, under Bush administration, say it's not.
This is the wrong debate.
What really needs to be debated is whether it is up to the patient's wishes or up to governments, either state or federal.
I would say the patient, doctors and people close to each situation should have the say. This would tend to uphold Oregon's law, but not because it's a state's right. It should be seen as the patient's right.
In some ways, one might feel reassured that the Bush administration is pushing a right to life agenda because powerful economic forces do threaten the right to life. Lack of access to health care, lack of medical insurance for large segments of the population. Even policies that the Bush administration pushes, itself, threaten the lives of patients.
Something is wrong with this picture when the Bush administration sets itself up as a champion of life, while pulling props out from under the social safety needed to sustain it.
Ideally, the right to life and the right to death with dignity should be determined by the patient, the doctors involved and close by relations. There should be plenty of safeguards to implement these choices carefully.
In an ideal world, it should not be up to economic forces, the marketplace, insurance companies or governments either state or federal, to make these choices far removed from the patient.
See Dr. Kevorkian: your approved provider?