To Be or Not to Be: Whose Question is it?

Today the Supreme Court made a landmark decision regarding physician-assisted suicide.

I recognize that the Court has ruled that there is no Constitutional right to die, but the Declaration of Independence grants us "the right to life." Death, however, is just part of living; if I have a right to live, then surely I must also have the right to decide whether to keep on living.

Law is rooted in compassion. Every single law boils down to humanity trying to protect itself from suffering. This is how we tell just laws from unjust: do they relieve or contribute to suffering?

The conservative dissenters in this case argue that the Government has the power to outlaw physician-assisted suicide because of the Controlled Substances Act, but that is a law that is meant to protect people from illicit drug use because of the obvious suffering it causes.

Physician-assisted suicide, however, relieves suffering. Therefore, the dissent in this case clearly flunks the compassion litmus test.

"Suicide is immoral!" they cry in response. When they say "immoral," they mean "sin." It is not the Government's job to codify sins. So let us leave the Supreme Court for a minute, since the majority got it right anyway, and discuss the morality of suicide.

What if I argued that the real sin is despair?

"Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt," wrote J.R.R. Tolkien through the voice of Gandalf in The Fellowship of the Ring.

Despair is a sin because it is a rejection of God's perpetual offer of mercy, a lack of trust in His divine will and a refusal to humble oneself to circumstances and petition for the Spirit's assistance, which is never denied. Such a decision is in fact "the Fall" depicted in Genesis; it wasn't that the fruit was forbidden for no reason, it was that the Serpent promised Eve that she would "become like God." If you are like God, you don't need God. A person who commits suicide out of despair is declaring he does not need God.

There's a big difference, though, between someone who is depressed and doesn’t know where to turn and someone who is terminally ill.

What if you do see the end? “It is wisdom to recognise necessity, when all other courses have been weighed, though as folly it may appear to those who cling to false hope,” says Gandalf.

Some would argue that through faith doctors can be proven wrong and diseases can be cured. No doubt. But they are the ones that Gandalf says are "clinging to false hope." Look around. Who among us is still alive because of their faith? I'm not saying prayer can't cure illness. What I am saying is that everyone dies. Everyone. Death is not God's judgment. Death is not a failure of faith. Didn't the Pope just die? Even the saints are all dead. (And most of them had horrible deaths.)

Why must death be long and difficult? What is so immoral about sparing yourself indescribable, inevitable misery? Is it a sin to choose the manner of your exit? If your attitude is, “Thank you, God, for a wonderful life, now I’m ready…here I come!” is that wrong?

The thing that galls me the most about the legal controversy is that this is a fundamental issue of personal liberty. There is not one “right” way to think about this issue. Your answer to my last question could most certainly and justifiably be an adamant “Yes!”

No one is going to force you to commit suicide against your will; but John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, George W. Bush and Antonin Scalia think they have the right to compel you to linger in suffering. To be, or not to be? That's your decision.

* I realize the court did not rule on the Oregon law itself, but rather held that the A.G. did not have Constitutional authority to intervene.