Column: "Lingering Thoughts on Gonzales v. Oregon"

One: At first, the Bush administration (via John Ashcroft) opposed Oregon’s assisted suicide law because it violated the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which holds that prescription drugs should only be used for “legitimate medical purposes.” Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Oregon: “In 2001, the Attorney General issued an Interpretive Rule to address the implementation and enforcement of the CSA with respect to [Oregon’s assisted suicide law], declaring that using controlled substances to assist suicide is not a legitimate medical practice and that dispensing or prescribing them for this purpose is unlawful under the CSA.”

When Scott McClellan was asked for reaction to the Supreme Court ruling, he said President Bush “remains fully committed to building a culture of life.” I know of no conservative (myself included) who doesn’t believe America would do well to more fully implement a culture of life. But if the goal was to build a culture of life, why bring the CSA into it? Or, if the goal was to enforce the CSA, why mention a culture of life? The answer: Invoking the CSA was a means to an end, and nothing more. If the administration believed it could work an assisted suicide ban through both the Congress and the people, it would have. Instead it sicked Ashcroft on Oregon in an attempt to set precedent, and failed.

Two: Oregon’s Department of Human Services (DHS) is lawfully obligated to report the State’s medically assisted suicides. In its last report (dated March 2005, covering 2004), DHS put the number at 208 since the law was enacted, compared to 64,706 who died “from the same underlying diseases.” Two hundred eight is a large enough number, but not nearly as large as it could have been … 208 means that 99.997 percent of patients allowed the same option, for lack of a better term, chose life. Oregonians may have more respect for life (at least in this regard) than we realize.

Three: Conservatives are pro-life but don’t spend much time thinking about quality of life. Before a rather serious hip reconstruction a decade ago, I was asked to fill out a living will. In it I wrote that if everything in the world went wrong, “no outstanding attempt should be made to save my life.” There I conceded life to quality of life and was relieved that, as an adult, I could make that choice. The universal acceptance of living wills and “do not resuscitate” orders speaks directly to the individual’s inherent desire to be left alone to choose his fate (at least to the extent he can actually choose); I applaud those initiatives.

Of the conservatives vehemently opposed to medically assisted suicide, very few have ever felt the sort of crippling, long-term physical pain that makes death preferable. Conservatives are right to be pro-life, and we’re right to lend such great credence to Man’s will to survive, but by the time someone can look into your eyes and honestly say they are so crippled with disease and pain they would rather be dead, well, who am I to say they’re not so crippled?

Honestly, I’ve always been divided on the question of physician assistance, but not on the finer point of self-determination. Generally speaking, if measures can be taken to prevent brain splatter (i.e., from self-inflicted gunshot wounds), I support them.

Four: On the other hand, I once had occasion to sit across a table from a few pro-assisted suicide advocates who flatly explained that their goal was to one day be able to put down children with Downs Syndrome (among other conditions) because it was the compassionate thing, a quality of life issue. I asked, “What if Downs Syndrome is their only ailment and they’re otherwise happy children?” The answer (so help me): Well, they don’t know they’re suffering, but they’re suffering, trust us. Dumbfounded I replied, “What’s the difference between that and eugenics?”

You know, I never did get an answer to that question. Probably because there is no difference. Thankfully, this idiocy is narrowly focused; it will never range much beyond the hundred dolts who believe it at any given time. (All of whom I’m sure will somehow find this column and feel the need to address my concerns at Dickensian length. Save it, I’m busy.)

Five: Someone asked, “What about God? God frowns on suicide.” Okay, but mind your own business. Make your peace with the Lord and allow others to make theirs, or not make theirs.

27 January 2006