American Studies and Assisted Suicide at 'Duke' University
Mike Healy
October 13, 2005
Among the things for which actor and American icon John Wayne is best known is his supposedly sage quip, ?Keep it simple, stupid.?
Coming from the Duke, this is a message that resonates with the American people. We fancy ourselves as decisive; a people of action. We don?t get caught up in European word mincing and decorum. We like our cars fast, our servings big, and our presidents Texan. Unfortunately, clever slogans only take us so far, and even we bold Americans can find certain issues where we can?t just cut and dry a simple solution. Abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action: the existence of questions such as these should give every American pause and make them consider just how wise it is to be living by the mantra of a man who made his living telling stories that had a happy ending guaranteed (it?s not tough to make it look easy when you?re just along for the ride).
For evidence of this, all we have to do is take a look at today?s headlines. Soon, the Supreme Court will hear a case (Gonzales v Oregon) in which the high court is going to be confronted with yet another ethical minefield: assisted suicide.
The legality of assisted suicide? It should seem like a pretty open and shut case (pun intended). Our parents tell us suicide is wrong. The Church tells us it?s wrong. Hell, even after school specials tell us it?s wrong. Isn?t it pretty much common sense to just make all suicide illegal and be done with it? There is not a huge leap in logic required to conclude that people killing themselves is generally a bad idea, so the practice of physicians aiding and abetting these self determined homicides is something we should clearly legislate against. It?s that simple.
Or is it?
For the sake of argument, let?s roll this question around in our collective heads a bit. Supposing that the government decides that physician assisted suicide is in fact legal; what happens? A huge spike in teen suicides, as the newly legal phenomenon becomes the nation?s greatest fad? Doctors left and right (well, more from the left, probably) handing out ?death cocktails? to anyone who will take them?
If that is indeed the case, then we have much more pressing problems than legally assisted suicide.
Under sober consideration, a much more likely result in this scenario is the procedural institution of suicide. Not only would this indicate a decrease in roof jumping and wrist slitting (why go through all that trouble when there?s a painless, legal, and most importantly, surefire way to end your life?), but it would undoubtedly bring about a sharp decrease in the total number of suicides in general. Legalization of physician assisted suicide would in no way mean that medicinal poison would become a simple over the counter purchase, far from it. Much more likely is that legal restrictions and safeguards would be put in place in a manner such that the only people allowed to end their lives would be those with terminal illnesses, or those who had demonstrated a persisting psychiatric condition in which they genuinely wished to die, with no reasonable likelihood of change. No doctor is going to give you a prescription for penicillin unless he thinks you actually need it, so what doctor is going to help send you to the next world unless he?s sure it?s for the best?
More importantly, all these safeguards would necessitate a significant waiting period. Thus, not only would a prospective suicide have some time to mull over his decision (say two weeks or so), but he would also then have that much more time to notify his family and friends so that, even if they could not dissuade him from his decision, at least they would have an opportunity to make their peace and steel themselves against the upcoming shock of a loved one?s death.
This is to say nothing of the fact that, for every suicide that is siphoned and directed through the medical establishment, there would be one fewer police standoff with a victim on a ledge, one fewer terrible public incident leading to further drain on our national resources. While the actual effectiveness of all these benefits is certainly up to interpretation, what needs to be remembered is that, even if only one out of every one hundred suicides is prevented or reconsidered by these measures, that is one life saved that would not have been were assisted suicide illegal. Conversely, if someone is going to kill themselves, the threat of legal penalty certainly is not going to be a detriment to them: what do they care? They?ll already be dead. Therefore, by prohibiting physician assisted suicide, you are forfeiting the possibility of saving these lives and resources, and at what gain?
Clearly, the most obvious response to the above charge is that legislation to restrict physician assisted suicide is necessary because, well, ?It just ain?t right.? More delicately, we should not, as a society, condone physician assisted suicide because it is not consistent with our ?values.? Suicide is wrong, so it should be illegal; it is that simple (there?s that word again). To this I would say that, values can be changed with the winds of public opinion and vary from person to person, laws do not. To try and encode whatever our ephemeral sentiments are in to impersonal law would be a grave folly, as we would then be forcing the great many who live in our land to live by the ways of the vocal few, which is a profoundly un-American concept at best and tyranny of a fickle majority at worst. It bears remembering that at one time the ideas of teaching blacks to read, allowing women to vote, and racially integrated neighborhoods ?just weren?t right.? These sentiments were all made into law, and because of this, even when the sentiments of the American people changed on these issues, great struggle remained to turn that change of heart into legal action. Remember, the spirit of the law is indeterminably more mutable than the letter of the law, and so we must exercise even greater caution when exacting the latter than we do the former.
So, after all that, it seems like this issue has finally become simple. It makes more sense to legalize assisted suicide than to criminalize it, so let?s just go ahead and legalize it. Unfortunately, it?s not that easy. It never is.
You see, while logically, the Oregon law allowing physician assisted suicide may be well founded, there is ample and good reason that it will likely be struck down. This is because the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 explicitly and expressly prohibits the practice of physician assisted suicide in all 50 states. Clearly, as demonstrated above, it is likely that this is not a well thought out policy on the part of the federal government. Since the Oregon law is better, shouldn?t that be allowed to supersede the federal statute? For reasons of even greater importance than the life or death question of assisted suicide, no, it should not.
The reason for this is that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains something known as the Supremacy Clause. In short, the Supremacy Clause dictates that, whenever the federal government passes a law in a realm placed under its jurisdiction by the Constitution, no state may make any law in abridgement or contravention of the federal statute. The reason for this is that the Founders, in framing the Constitution, made a point of restricting the crucially important powers to the federal government because, were that not the case, the most basic rights of Americans would vary and fluctuate from state to state, flying in the face of the doctrine of ?Liberty and Justice for all.? There are those who would dispute this claim due to the fact that, as Ronald Reagan was so fond of saying, ?The states established the federal government, and not the other way around.? This is patently misleading, as the power of the Constitution (and hence the federal government), comes from the fact that it was established by ?We the people.? So, it is the people who established the Constitution that also established the states, thereby making any that all national interests secondary to those of the Constitution. No matter the dilemma, no matter the cost, the most important concern of America is faithfulness to the Constitution.
This fealty is what the very notion of America is based: that the Constitution serves as a model for the kind of nation we are, the kind of nation we strive to be, and is the force which constitutes every one of our actions as a nation. Thus, as much as it pains us in circumstances such as this question of assisted suicide, we must side with the Constitution, even when it runs contrary to our feelings and beliefs, and realize that any change we might hope to effect must come at the federal level. That is why it is critical that the Supreme Court find against the state of Oregon and strike down their law allowing physician assisted suicide.
Baseball analyst Ken ?Hawk? Harrleson has a pet phrase that he likes to use whenever a player hits a ball into the outfield stands, just on the unhappy side of the foul pole: ?Right size, wrong shape.? By this, Harrleson means that, while the accomplishment of crushing a pitch 375 feet to the outfield bleachers is a greatly admirable feat, no matter how well struck the hit, it is still subject to the immutable rule of baseball that says any foul, regardless of circumstance, still counts as nothing more than a strike. Those are the rules that everyone plays by, and their fairness comes from the fact that it is everyone that has to play by them.
Similarly, even a law as well conceived and implemented as Oregon?s permission of assisted suicide, because it runs foul of the Constitution, must be considered nothing but a law in contravention of the Constitution, and subsequently struck down.
And so we have come to our conclusion. As you can see, the legalization of physician assisted suicide is in actuality a wonderful idea, a wonderful idea that at this time we have no choice but to be dead set against. Bearing that in mind, I think John Wayne was actually onto something when he said ?Keep it simple, stupid.? I just think that he, like many actors, had a little trouble with the grammar and punctuation. It makes much more sense if you read it like this:
?Keep it simple? Stupid.?
Coming from the Duke, this is a message that resonates with the American people. We fancy ourselves as decisive; a people of action. We don?t get caught up in European word mincing and decorum. We like our cars fast, our servings big, and our presidents Texan. Unfortunately, clever slogans only take us so far, and even we bold Americans can find certain issues where we can?t just cut and dry a simple solution. Abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action: the existence of questions such as these should give every American pause and make them consider just how wise it is to be living by the mantra of a man who made his living telling stories that had a happy ending guaranteed (it?s not tough to make it look easy when you?re just along for the ride).
For evidence of this, all we have to do is take a look at today?s headlines. Soon, the Supreme Court will hear a case (Gonzales v Oregon) in which the high court is going to be confronted with yet another ethical minefield: assisted suicide.
The legality of assisted suicide? It should seem like a pretty open and shut case (pun intended). Our parents tell us suicide is wrong. The Church tells us it?s wrong. Hell, even after school specials tell us it?s wrong. Isn?t it pretty much common sense to just make all suicide illegal and be done with it? There is not a huge leap in logic required to conclude that people killing themselves is generally a bad idea, so the practice of physicians aiding and abetting these self determined homicides is something we should clearly legislate against. It?s that simple.
Or is it?
For the sake of argument, let?s roll this question around in our collective heads a bit. Supposing that the government decides that physician assisted suicide is in fact legal; what happens? A huge spike in teen suicides, as the newly legal phenomenon becomes the nation?s greatest fad? Doctors left and right (well, more from the left, probably) handing out ?death cocktails? to anyone who will take them?
If that is indeed the case, then we have much more pressing problems than legally assisted suicide.
Under sober consideration, a much more likely result in this scenario is the procedural institution of suicide. Not only would this indicate a decrease in roof jumping and wrist slitting (why go through all that trouble when there?s a painless, legal, and most importantly, surefire way to end your life?), but it would undoubtedly bring about a sharp decrease in the total number of suicides in general. Legalization of physician assisted suicide would in no way mean that medicinal poison would become a simple over the counter purchase, far from it. Much more likely is that legal restrictions and safeguards would be put in place in a manner such that the only people allowed to end their lives would be those with terminal illnesses, or those who had demonstrated a persisting psychiatric condition in which they genuinely wished to die, with no reasonable likelihood of change. No doctor is going to give you a prescription for penicillin unless he thinks you actually need it, so what doctor is going to help send you to the next world unless he?s sure it?s for the best?
More importantly, all these safeguards would necessitate a significant waiting period. Thus, not only would a prospective suicide have some time to mull over his decision (say two weeks or so), but he would also then have that much more time to notify his family and friends so that, even if they could not dissuade him from his decision, at least they would have an opportunity to make their peace and steel themselves against the upcoming shock of a loved one?s death.
This is to say nothing of the fact that, for every suicide that is siphoned and directed through the medical establishment, there would be one fewer police standoff with a victim on a ledge, one fewer terrible public incident leading to further drain on our national resources. While the actual effectiveness of all these benefits is certainly up to interpretation, what needs to be remembered is that, even if only one out of every one hundred suicides is prevented or reconsidered by these measures, that is one life saved that would not have been were assisted suicide illegal. Conversely, if someone is going to kill themselves, the threat of legal penalty certainly is not going to be a detriment to them: what do they care? They?ll already be dead. Therefore, by prohibiting physician assisted suicide, you are forfeiting the possibility of saving these lives and resources, and at what gain?
Clearly, the most obvious response to the above charge is that legislation to restrict physician assisted suicide is necessary because, well, ?It just ain?t right.? More delicately, we should not, as a society, condone physician assisted suicide because it is not consistent with our ?values.? Suicide is wrong, so it should be illegal; it is that simple (there?s that word again). To this I would say that, values can be changed with the winds of public opinion and vary from person to person, laws do not. To try and encode whatever our ephemeral sentiments are in to impersonal law would be a grave folly, as we would then be forcing the great many who live in our land to live by the ways of the vocal few, which is a profoundly un-American concept at best and tyranny of a fickle majority at worst. It bears remembering that at one time the ideas of teaching blacks to read, allowing women to vote, and racially integrated neighborhoods ?just weren?t right.? These sentiments were all made into law, and because of this, even when the sentiments of the American people changed on these issues, great struggle remained to turn that change of heart into legal action. Remember, the spirit of the law is indeterminably more mutable than the letter of the law, and so we must exercise even greater caution when exacting the latter than we do the former.
So, after all that, it seems like this issue has finally become simple. It makes more sense to legalize assisted suicide than to criminalize it, so let?s just go ahead and legalize it. Unfortunately, it?s not that easy. It never is.
You see, while logically, the Oregon law allowing physician assisted suicide may be well founded, there is ample and good reason that it will likely be struck down. This is because the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 explicitly and expressly prohibits the practice of physician assisted suicide in all 50 states. Clearly, as demonstrated above, it is likely that this is not a well thought out policy on the part of the federal government. Since the Oregon law is better, shouldn?t that be allowed to supersede the federal statute? For reasons of even greater importance than the life or death question of assisted suicide, no, it should not.
The reason for this is that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains something known as the Supremacy Clause. In short, the Supremacy Clause dictates that, whenever the federal government passes a law in a realm placed under its jurisdiction by the Constitution, no state may make any law in abridgement or contravention of the federal statute. The reason for this is that the Founders, in framing the Constitution, made a point of restricting the crucially important powers to the federal government because, were that not the case, the most basic rights of Americans would vary and fluctuate from state to state, flying in the face of the doctrine of ?Liberty and Justice for all.? There are those who would dispute this claim due to the fact that, as Ronald Reagan was so fond of saying, ?The states established the federal government, and not the other way around.? This is patently misleading, as the power of the Constitution (and hence the federal government), comes from the fact that it was established by ?We the people.? So, it is the people who established the Constitution that also established the states, thereby making any that all national interests secondary to those of the Constitution. No matter the dilemma, no matter the cost, the most important concern of America is faithfulness to the Constitution.
This fealty is what the very notion of America is based: that the Constitution serves as a model for the kind of nation we are, the kind of nation we strive to be, and is the force which constitutes every one of our actions as a nation. Thus, as much as it pains us in circumstances such as this question of assisted suicide, we must side with the Constitution, even when it runs contrary to our feelings and beliefs, and realize that any change we might hope to effect must come at the federal level. That is why it is critical that the Supreme Court find against the state of Oregon and strike down their law allowing physician assisted suicide.
Baseball analyst Ken ?Hawk? Harrleson has a pet phrase that he likes to use whenever a player hits a ball into the outfield stands, just on the unhappy side of the foul pole: ?Right size, wrong shape.? By this, Harrleson means that, while the accomplishment of crushing a pitch 375 feet to the outfield bleachers is a greatly admirable feat, no matter how well struck the hit, it is still subject to the immutable rule of baseball that says any foul, regardless of circumstance, still counts as nothing more than a strike. Those are the rules that everyone plays by, and their fairness comes from the fact that it is everyone that has to play by them.
Similarly, even a law as well conceived and implemented as Oregon?s permission of assisted suicide, because it runs foul of the Constitution, must be considered nothing but a law in contravention of the Constitution, and subsequently struck down.
And so we have come to our conclusion. As you can see, the legalization of physician assisted suicide is in actuality a wonderful idea, a wonderful idea that at this time we have no choice but to be dead set against. Bearing that in mind, I think John Wayne was actually onto something when he said ?Keep it simple, stupid.? I just think that he, like many actors, had a little trouble with the grammar and punctuation. It makes much more sense if you read it like this:
?Keep it simple? Stupid.?
Print
Email
