Lessons on how to use other's tragedy to push a viewpoint

Dave writes with much gravitas in his latest column about Oregon's death with dignity law. Last week Dave had many questions regarding Senator Gordon Smith's statement after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Oregon's death with dignity law- "This case has run the full length of the American legal process, and the issue is now settled law." This week, he had Senator Smith on the phone, and any time you're on the line with a United States Senator, the occasion calls for much gravitas.

Dave and Senator Smith discussed the topic of dying with dignity, with the Senator offering a unique perspective on the subject, as his son Garrett had committed suicide in 2003. Far be it from me to ruminate on one's personal tragedy, but that doesn't prevent Dave from using the death of Smith's son to push a particular viewpoint. This viewpoint is betrayed by the language Reinhard uses, from calling Smith a "pro-life Senator" and quoting the Senator as saying "there is a natural course to birth and death." Never mind the fact that a suicide similar to Smith's son in no way compares to the 200 or so lives ended with dignity over the past decade thanks to Oregon's law.

My biggest beef with Reinhard and other conservative critics is their use of language in regards to this issue. Oregon's law isn't "assisted suicide", nor is it "slapdash." It is called 'Death with Dignity' for a reason, as it allows right-minded people who have been clinically diagnosed with a fatal illness to choose the standards of how they can live their life. Sometimes the "natural course" Senator Smith speaks of is the most painful and injurious course, with no respite from pain available. "To do no harm," is the oft-quoted condensed version of the Hippocratic oath, and one that is used by opponents of laws such as Oregon's. However, in some situations doctors do more harm by not prescribing a lethal dosage of drugs and preventing their patients dying- on the terms of their own choosing- in a dignified manner.

Dave seems almost depressed after his discussion with Senator Smith, resigned to the fact that a law that Oregonians had passed twice will, indeed, be able to withstand attacks from the federal government. (And I thought state's rights were a typcial conservative ethic?) Reinhard quoted Smith bemoaning the fact- just as Reinhard had quoted Scalia in the earlier column- that assisted death with dignity was hardly a 'legitimate medical purpose.' The issue at hand wasn't whether dying with dignity was a 'legitimate medical purpose,' but whether if doctors who assisted in helping their patients die with dignity were violating the Controlled Substances Act. Were becoming, in effect, drug dealers. And the Supreme Court's decision answered that with a resounding "No."

A week ago Dave called Smith "scattered and pragmatic." Now he calles him "realisitc, if not coherent"- which is pretty much saying the same thing. Its obvious Dave's unhappy with Smith's ultimate stance- the citizens of Oregon have ruled on a law that the Supreme Court agrees with, therefore the law is settled- but ends with Smith ruminating, once again, on end of life issues: "Suicide is a tragic tool for dealing with physical or psychological pain. Pain can be relieved without killing." This is a stance that not only Dave, but myself, could agree with.

However, coming from the point of view of someone who isn't wracked with horrendous, disabling pain or diagnosed with a lethal disease- and with all respect given the Senator's tragic family loss- I hardly feel as if Gordon Smith (or David Reinhard) makes the best spokesperson for those who are.