|
ROBERT POWELL CENTER FOR MEDICAL ETHICS
512 10th Street NW Washington, DC 20004
(202) 626-8815 (voice) (202) 628-2784 (fax)
STATEMENT BY
DOROTHY TIMBS, J.D., LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
ROBERT POWELL CENTER FOR MEDICAL ETHICS
NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE
It has been ten years since a referendum legalized assisted
suicide in Oregon. Since then, every effort to do so in other states has
failed, and a recent CBS/ New York Times national poll shows support for the
grisly practice at only 46%, its lowest point since the question was first
asked in 1990. In 2005, however, we will see significant efforts to legalize
euthanasia in three states, and may also see a key U.S. Supreme Court
decision that will directly impact the future of Oregon-style laws.
We expect major state battles over the legalization of assisted suicide in
Hawaii, Vermont, and California. In Hawaii, its legalization is part of the
State Democratic Party’s platform, and there may be enough votes in both
houses to pass the bill. The Governor is on record in opposition, and if she
vetoes such a bill, the critical battle may well be over sustaining the
veto. Our grassroots in Hawaii have already mobilized and stand poised to
oppose this measure through contacts with their legislators and a major
radio, TV, and print ad campaign.
In Vermont, the elections resulted in more euthanasia proponents in the
legislature, and we expect a strong push for an Oregon-like law after the
release of a Legislative Council report giving an advocate’s review of
Oregon’s law. Independent of our own affiliate’s efforts, strong opposition
will come from the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare, which includes
leading physicians and nurses, as well as disability rights groups.
Proponents of legalizing assisted suicide in California, led by the Chair of
the Assembly’s Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care, have publicly
expressed confidence they will have majority support, and hearings on an
Oregon-style bill are in process. Governor Schwarzenegger has not yet taken
a position on assisting suicide. Efforts are underway by disability groups
and other key organizations to stop the passage of this law.
In Ashcroft v. Oregon, the Justice Department has asked the U.S. Supreme
Court to reverse lower court injunctions against Ashcroft’s 2001 ruling that
killing patients is not a “legitimate medical purpose” and therefore,
federally controlled substances may not be prescribed for the purpose of
assisting suicide. If the Supreme Court upholds the Ashcroft ruling,
Oregon-style legislation would, for practical purposes, become irrelevant.
Despite this, advocates of physician-assisted suicide continue to pressure
states to divert precious time and resources to delve into this
controversial issue.
The implications of these kinds of laws are critical for the most vulnerable
in our society, such as the elderly and those with disabilities. Those who
advocate death as a solution to suffering cleverly argue that their bills
have “safeguards” to ensure that only competent, mentally healthy
individuals kill themselves. Yet each would only be a court decision away
from non-voluntary euthanasia of incompetent people. Legal precedent under
the equal protection clauses of state constitutions in multiple cases
involving decisions about denial of life-saving treatment already exists
that those who are incompetent must have the same “right to die” as those
able to make decisions for themselves. Legalization of direct killing by
bills that appear to be limited to voluntary euthanasia would inevitably be
extended by the courts to incompetent people, whose death would be decided
not by them, but by their surrogates.
|
