Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether federal law trumps the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which allows physicians to prescribe lethal doses of narcotics to terminally ill patients who wish to die. I have a particular interest in this case because, as some of you know, I published a law journal article regarding the ODDA a number of years ago. Since the Court has chosen to take such a scattershot approach to federalism in recent years, I’m not going to even venture a guess on how they will rule. The Court likes to bang the states’-rights drum when Congress presumes to pass some touchy-feely civil rights law (witness the ADA), but the hammer of federalism comes down hard when states try to pull something subversive (like prescribing marijuana for medicinal purposes).
In the years since I wrote that article, my own views on the ODDA have evolved. Everything I’ve read indicates that the law has been implemented responsibly and my initial concerns regarding abuse were never substantiated. I do think that laws like this need to be crafted with extreme care and they need to contain muscular oversight provisions. This is not euthanasia as practiced in places like the Netherlands. The ultimate decision is left to the individual, where it rightfully belongs.
