By MONROE ROARK
mroark@thecitizennews.com

The more advanced we as a society become, in technology and otherwise, the more complicated our moral responsibilities become, and the more gray areas that arise.

Issues such as stem cell research were not relevant decades ago because, obviously, such research was not scientifically possible. Many of today's controversial vaccines and treatments were not controversial in the past because they did not exist.

Now in Oregon, home of the Death with Dignity Act, a recent ruling by U.S. Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft has the right-to-die movement more than a little irate. Doctors in that state have been prescribing drugs that allow pain-wracked, terminally ill patients to kill themselves. The doctors themselves don't do it; the patients go home, take some pills and fall asleep.

Ashcroft has ordered federal authorities to move against doctors who use federally controlled substances for assisted suicide, according to news reports, in a reversal of a previous decision by Janet Reno, his predecessor. Supporters of the Death with Dignity Act are already talking about a federal court challenge.

On one level, it's a states' rights issue, and that's important. On another level, it speaks of a huge gray area involving how our society handles the scientific possibilities that are growing every day.

Imagine yourself at a consultation in the private office of your doctor, who dispenses some catastrophic news. "I'm sorry, but there's nothing else we can do for you. Get your affairs in order; you have about six months."

Because of your affliction, you are not only anticipating death, but a very painful road leading up to that final breath. While you lie in agony, your family not only gets to watch and suffer with you, but they also may very well see their financial resources depleted in what is obviously a futile battle for your health and comfort.

So what do you do? I doubt anyone knows what he or she would do unless the situation actually presented itself. But a strong case has just been made for a quick trip to the doctor, a simple prescription and a peaceful death in your sleep, if that's what you want.

Perhaps that last phrase sums up the most important issue here what the patient wants. As one commentator said this week, "Who owns you? Is it you or the government?" As I see it, this is completely different from the case of a defenseless, innocent unborn child. This is about people who are aware of what they're doing and can make decisions for themselves.

Well, mostly. There will always be cases of those who may or may not have known, who were duped or coerced by doctors, or family members, while not in complete control of their faculties. Litigation already in existence thoroughly documents the possibilities there.

As we've seen most recently with the Internet, massive advances in science and technology always leave the law struggling to keep up. And by the time it seems the legal system has caught its breath, something else puts it light-years behind.

With the right-to-die issue, there are two sides of extremism. On the one hand, there is the spectre of governmental involvement to stamp out all possible forms of "mercy killing" or whatever you like to call it, which brings with it a number of questions regarding personal civil liberties and states' rights.

But go all the way in the other direction for a moment. Once assisted suicide becomes an accepted practice, how far of a leap is it to have other individuals or institutions make these decisions for patients they think can't make them on their own? Can we see ourselves disposing of elderly or handicapped folks because we think they're better off that way?

That sounds unbelieveable (I did call it "extremism"). But we're already nearing the point where we can determine the characteristics of our unborn children, such as intelligence, hair color, or propensity for obesity. Once that system becomes reliable well, we already have a method for legally disposing of them.

Boy, these gray areas sure are tough sometimes. But moral responsibility is never easy especially in a nation that favors moral relativism more and more every year. Maybe a few more people will realize that moral relativism isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[Monroe Roark can be reached at mroark@TheCitizenNews.com.]

Back to the Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page