In 1994 Oregon became the first state to pass an initiative legalizing doctor-assisted suicide, and ever since its passage, that bill has been a topic of intense debate both here in Oregon and in Washington, D.C. Recently, this bill came to the attention of the Oregon State Legislature once again, and it has been subject to a variety of proposed legislation which would alter or delay its effect. Meanwhile, on the national level, the Supreme Court is judging whether "the right to die" is constitutional. This national attention has been spawned by both Oregon's bill and the actions of Dr. Kevorkian, now famous for his "mercy killings."

Oregon wouldn't be the first place to legalize euthanasia. In fact, assisted suicide has been legal in the Netherlands for over 20 years, but Oregon would be the first state to make euthanasia a right for terminally ill people. Under Oregon's bill, those people who are given less than 6 months to live, are mentally competent and not depressed, and have the approval of two physicians would be eligible for doctor-assisted suicide.

Both sides of the debate use the Netherlands as an example for what could happen under Oregon's law. In the Netherlands, there has been a significant drop in the non-doctor-assisted suicide rate and the high cost of treating dying patients has been greatly reduced, but there have also been cases where euthanizations were found later to be unwarranted. These cases often involve depressed, mentally limited patients who were not given proper psychiatric exams by their doctors to determine their mental health.

Even with the evidence, this issue is far from black and white. Truthfully, it is a moral question rather than a legal one, and this has been reflected in medical ethicists' inability to come to a decisive conclusion. Now, the most important decision lies in the Supreme Court's judgment as to whether "the right to die" is constitutional. However, two lower federal courts have already found the bill to be constitutional, and that has lead to local lawmakers' attempts to stall or alter the bill. Acts which would change the bill could redefine who is eligible for assisted suicide, prohibit out-of-state residents from being euthanized, repeal the bill altogether, ask Oregon voters to repeal the law on the 1998 ballot, stall the bill from taking effect until 1999, or prohibit public funds from being used for doctor- assisted suicide.

The Doctor-Assisted Suicide Bill was approved by Oregon voters, and, therefore, to repeal or substantially alter it without their consent could incite public anger; however, if doctor-assisted suicide is found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, there is little Oregon voters can do about it. For now, Oregon voters can only wait, and hope that their passage of the Doctor-Assisted Suicide Bill will either be upheld or that they will be given another chance to voice their opinion about euthanasia on the 1998 ballot. The topic of doctor-assisted suicide has lead to fiery debate, and although the local government has taken action, the Supreme Court is sure to have the final word as to whether bills such as the one passed in Oregon can take effect.

Back to the Global Echo Homepage