Posted on: Thursday, May 27, 2004

EDITORIAL
Assisted suicide ruling a victory — for now

Congress shall make no law interfering with a state's right to enact a physician-assisted suicide law.

No, it's not the 28th constitutional amendment, but some of us might wish it were if U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft continues to attack the nation's only law authorizing doctors to help terminally ill patients commit suicide.

Fortunately, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday issued a decision that might rein Ashcroft back in, at least temporarily.

In a pointed 2-1 opinion, the San Francisco-based federal appeals court ordered the Bush administration to quit meddling with Oregon's assisted-suicide law and allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients who wish to end their suffering.

"The attorney general's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide and far exceeds the scope of his authority under federal law," wrote Judge Richard Tallman, who is thought to be one of the more conservative judges on the panel.

Hawai'i lawmakers have repeatedly shelved a proposal for physician-assisted suicide, citing the legal challenges to Oregon's law as a reason to wait. This latest ruling should move this humane option forward.

Oregon voters approved their Death with Dignity Act in 1994. Since it was enacted in 1997, about 30 people a year have used to it end their lives. The law allows terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to request a lethal dose of drugs after two doctors confirm the diagnosis and determine the patient to be mentally competent to make the request.

At the time the law was enacted, then-Sen. Ashcroft asked Attorney General Janet Reno to declare it illegal, but she declined. After Ashcroft replaced Reno in 2001, he issued a directive saying physicians who prescribe lethal drugs under the Death with Dignity Act would face prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act.

But that directive, according to this week's 9th Circuit ruling, is a bad idea.

"Doctors will be afraid to write prescriptions sufficient to painlessly hasten death. Pharmacists will fear filling their prescriptions. Patients will be consigned to continued suffering and ... may die slow and agonizing deaths," Judge Tallman wrote.

We admire a decision that respects a state's authority to regulate its own medical practices within reasonable bounds. The Oregon law is a reasoned one.

As for Ashcroft's next move, he could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Or the Bush administration could lobby Congress to ban physician-assisted suicide. We would urge U.S. lawmakers to keep out of this debate. Let states decide how they want to approach these end-of-life issues.