EDITORIAL – Supreme Court OKs dignified death

Back in October, the Supreme Court began examining the case of Gonzales vs. Oregon. This… Back in October, the Supreme Court began examining the case of Gonzales vs. Oregon. This marked the third time Oregon had been required to legally defend its Death with Dignity Act, a law allowing doctors to prescribe terminally ill patients lethal doses of morphine and other painkillers.

Thankfully, the Court ruled yesterday in favor of upholding Oregon’s law. The vote came 6-3, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts, dissenting.

Other dissenters include, most notably, the president. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the administration is “disappointed at the decision” and that the “president remains fully committed to building a culture of life.” He also said that the U.S. Justice Department was reviewing the ruling.

Really, though, this is a ruling that does not need review. America is a country based on freedom, and the Death with Dignity Act does not force anybody to compromise their freedom.

Doctors are not required to write these prescriptions. Patients are not required to seek them. Patients who do choose to obtain a prescription – since 1997, there have been just over 200 of them – must meet stringent standards. They must have less than six months to live, and be certified to be of sound mind by two different doctors. They also must obtain and administer the lethal drugs themselves.

As much charm as a phrase like “culture of life” has, it must be acknowledged that quality of life is important. The goal of the government should not be to ensure that as many people as possible are living, but that as many people as possible are living the best possible lives.

For some, the excruciating pain, extended hospital stays and loss of independence that may come with the final days of a terminal illness are simply not worth staying alive. Patients can legally opt for a course of no-treatment – essentially requesting to be left to die – or opt to be kept in the hospital on dosages of morphine high enough to render them invalids but low enough to keep them alive. There is no reason, then, why they should not be able to legally choose a peaceful way out.

Because of the Justices’ ruling, other states may soon try to navigate the Oregon trail. California is reputedly considering a similar law, and policymakers there believe that this ruling will significantly further their cause.

Oregon’s citizens have voted twice in approval of the Death with Dignity Act. In this ruling, the Supreme Court has listened to them and respected the wishes of the citizens of whom the Court was established to protect. For this, it is to be commended.