GORE ENDORSES LEGALIZED PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE

While saying he is "personally opposed" to physician-assisted suicide, presidential candidate Al Gore told MSNBC correspondent Howard Fineman that "when a family member is in extremis at the very end of life, and there is a lot of pain, there is no quality of life and there are very subtle judgments that have to be made... common sense dictates that ought to be left to the family in consultation with the physician."

"Gore has used similar rhetoric on abortion in the past," commented NRLC Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Ph.D. "It is a canard among pro-abortion politicians to say they personally oppose the practice, but believe it should be a matter between a 'woman and her doctor.' Now Gore is applying the same strategy to euthanasia-he claims he 'personally' opposes it, but says it should be between 'the family' and 'the physician.' The effect is the same-no legal protection from death for the vulnerable."

In the interview, reported on the MSNBC website June 15, 2000, Gore opposed what he called "proposed federal legislation that is supposed to override state laws ... in that kind of situation," evidently referring to the Pain Relief Promotion Act, which would prevent the use of federally controlled drugs for assisting suicide and euthanasia, while instituting measures to broaden access to effective pain management.

(To date, all publicly reported deaths under Oregon's unique-in-the-nation law authorizing physician-assisted suicide have been caused by federally controlled drugs.)

"The solution to pain and a poor 'quality of life' is to control the pain and provide better care to improve the patient's life, not to kill the patient," said Burke J. Balch, director of NRLC's Department of Medical Ethics. "It is well documented that modern medicine can effectively control pain; the problem is that this knowledge has yet to spread from the cutting edge of medicine to the clinical level. It is ironic that Gore's opposition to the Pain Relief Promotion Act would thwart effective control of the very pain that he invokes as a reason to support the legalized killing of patients."

Gore's position puts him at odds with the large majority of Americans.

In a recent poll, 66% said federal law should not allow the use of federally controlled drugs for the purpose of assisted suicide and euthanasia; only 29% agreed with Gore in taking the opposite view. (See NRL News June 2000, p. 6; Wirthlin Worldwide national poll conducted May 19-23.)

Asked how important "a candidate's position on the issues of assisted suicide and euthanasia [will] be in determining whether or not you will vote for that candidate," 31% called it "very important." Among those, 81% would be more likely to vote for an opponent of assisting suicide and euthanasia, compared to 18% more likely to vote for a supporter. This translates into a net 19.5% "increment" of voters whose support a candidate is likely to gain by opposing assisting suicide or euthanasia in a race where the candidate's opponent takes the opposite position.

Texas Governor George W. Bush, Gore's opponent in the race for the presidency, has strongly condemned legalized euthanasia, and endorsed the Pain Relief Promotion Act. In a story published May 17, he told reporters for the Portland Oregonian, "First of all, in principle, I'm against physician-assisted suicide, and secondly, I believe it is the prerogative of the federal government to control drug rules. And the idea of using a controlled substance to end somebody's life is something I don't agree with."

"We know how important the next President's Supreme Court appointments will be to future rulings on abortion," noted O'Steen. "They may be equally important to what the Court may say about euthanasia. In 1997 the Supreme Court rejected a claimed constitutional right to assist suicide, but the opinions of a number of Justices suggested they'd be open to recognizing one in the future. Given the divergence between the presidential candidates on the issue, this election may well determine whether there is a future Roe v. Wade of euthanasia - - a ruling that laws can no longer constitutionally interfere with the 'right' to kill people who are elderly or disabled."