Final decision

Choice is at the heart of the debate over the 'right to die'

Big cases, as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, often make bad law. If Holmes were alive today, he might have added that the discussion of such cases often does little to enlighten the public. And so it is with the most recent case brought against Jack Kevorkian, who last week was charged by Michigan authorities with both first-degree murder and violating that state's prohibition against physician-assisted suicide.

You'd have to be living on another planet not to have garnered at least a passing familiarity with this case. It made front-page headlines across the nation, was grist for the Sunday-morning talk mills, and fueled countless hours of talk radio. Yet little of this din grappled with core issues.

The catalyst was, of course, the fact that CBS's 60 Minutes had broadcast a tape of Kevorkian's admitted act of euthanasia to an audience of more than 15 million.

CBS has been widely denounced for this act. We think the critics are off base. Whatever your opinion of Kevorkian, his action, or the underlying issues surrounding assisted suicide, 60 Minutes acted well within the best traditions of journalism.

True, the report was less than perfect. This is a case laced with subtleties, with profound philosophical and ethical considerations. We can imagine a show like PBS's Frontline dedicating an hour to it; the short span of a 60 Minutes segment merely skimmed the surface. But 60 Minutes got the story. And CBS did the right thing by running with it. Hard news is often unsettling, and in this age of infotainment it may appear even more so.

As for Kevorkian, to say he's controversial is a monumental understatement. The man is a lightning rod who makes even some of his intellectual allies emotionally uncomfortable. Many who share his views may wish he sported a more Marcus Welby-like persona. But he doesn't. Though many groups and individuals have worked long, hard, and successfully to ease the burdens of the terminally ill, it's unquestionably Kevorkian who has pushed the issue into the mainstream of public debate, which is where it belongs.

The Phoenix believes that terminally ill patients should have the right to end their lives. It's a matter of determining the quality of one's own life. Oregon's assisted-suicide law is a model that should be adopted by states across the nation. Officially known as the "Death with Dignity Act," it is carefully crafted with provisions that mandate a host of safeguards, including waiting periods and a series of searching consultations with doctors, family, and friends.

It can be a fine line indeed between assisted suicide (when a doctor may, for example, prescribe drugs knowing that the patient will use them to end his or her life) and euthanasia (when a physician plays a more active role, as Kevorkian did in lethally injecting a sufferer of Lou Gehrig's disease).

The American Medical Association opposes both, which is understandable but unfortunate. Doctors take a pledge to heal: their ancient oath dictates "Above all, do no harm." But we believe it's a narrow reading of that oath that prevents the profession from easing patients' terminal pain.

In another context, the US Supreme Court has ruled that issues fundamental to the intimate well-being of individuals should be decided by those individuals. In the case of deciding when to die, safeguards are needed -- but Oregon has shown that they can be provided. What Kevorkian did should not be considered murder. He acted to help a suffering individual, with the consent of his family, to end his life. It was a sad act. But it should be the patient's right to choose.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.