[The ruling below was written by Justice Kennedy, the soon to be or already in effect, "swing" justice. I comment on an article on his role and discuss this case here.]
The Supreme Court handed down a narrow ruling yesterday stating that Attorney General Ashcroft wrongly interpreted current law when he determined Oregon's "right to die" law wrongly allowed certain controlled substances to be used to end patients' lives. The NYT underlined that though some might understand the ruling as upholding a "right to die" or more narrowly to stop Congress from regulating such an issue, it did no such thing: in fact, Congress under the terms of the ruling could pass a law that did give the power to the attorney general to act as he did. Some might assume that the language used can apply to other examples of executive overreaching. And, not just libs so suggest.
I would find this troubling both as a policy and constitutional matter. This should not be a matter in which one way is mandated by the national government. Such is why the "partial birth" abortion ban was particularly troubling. States generally regulate medical treatment and interstate commerce is not really at stake here. (Of course, under current rule, nearly anything can be shoved into that phrase.) As to a claim made by a lower court, rejected on appeal in another case, the equal protection claim is also weak. The argument is that the Oregon law singles out certain people to be not protected by homicide laws. If this was damning, how could any law that allowed refusal of treatment (including actual removal of it in certain circumstances) be legal? It tries to prove too much.
No, comments by Justice Scalia in dissent that this is "obviously" not "legitimate medical treatment" aside, there is great debates over the proper way to determine such questions. Thus, the Supreme Court welcomed the states to try different ways to handle it, a statement reaffirmed in this very case. This might lead some to suggest that this federalist rule should be applied in other areas too ... abortion comes to mind. Of course, Casey already opened more doors in that area, and even here, past cases suggest states cannot deny patients certain rights to deny care or obtain pain drugs that might lead to their death. And, I do think we can separate abortion and right to die cases to some degree ... death to embryos and ninety year olds are not comparable in many ways.
But, sure, deep down, I believe that a person has control over their own existence. The issue was not directly at issue here, since the state law already allowed the practice. I will not be too cute though and deny that my federalist argument is at least partly strategic. The national ban is particularly troublesome, but not the only problem. We attack wrongs the best we can all the time ... dealing with the worse problem and allowing an opening for development of patient autonomy is a totally proper way to go. Rights develop over time and this one is no different.
Overall, it was a sound decision, while the dissents [see my discussion linked above] were dubious as well.