01:00 AM EST on Thursday, January 26, 2006

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law. It makes me wonder anew when the Rhode Island General Assembly, which in 1996 made such assistance a felony, will see the light on this issue.

Fortunately, Sen. Rhoda Perry and Rep. Edith Ajello say they will submit bills in this Assembly. That will at least start a debate, though I suspect enactment may take several sessions. Perry, who knows what she's talking about, says, "We've seen many good bills come to fruition after 5, 6, 7 years of work." She and Ajello were players in the long-running saga that finally saw enactment of the medical marijuana law.

Ajello talks of the horror of fatal diseases such as AIDS and cancer:

"As more and more of us know people . . . whose death has been painful and needlessly long in that pain, with no hope . . . more of us will understand or accept the wisdom and kindness of allowing people to die at a time of their choosing."

Both legislators speak approvingly of the kinds of restrictions in Oregon's law: Adults of sound mind who are incurably sick may receive lethal doses of drugs only after two doctors agree their illness will lead to death within six months.

Just knowing the law exists is a source of empowerment and comfort for many people and their families. Sad as it is, the idea of physician-assisted suicide can still be a far more attractive option than prolonged pitiable agony.

Perry sees the decision as "a piece of an individual's personal dignity and personal responsibility."

You can see how, in a way, the medical marijuana and the suicide legislation are conceptually related: Both are designed to alleviate suffering. But, aside from any other objections, suicide legislation stirs a religious backlash: The Catholic Church, some evangelical Protestants and Orthodox Jews oppose it.

Perry was raised Catholic early on, then often went to Episcopal services as a teenager. As an adult she went to Central Congregational Church. Lately, she says, "I've sort of been adrift."

Ajello says she long ago went to a Presbyterian church but now, "I don't know what I am."

Aha, some people will say: That's the problem; these two lawmakers lack a clear understanding of God's will. But the government can't make decisions based on whose theological doctrine it guesses is correct. It's not up to legislators to play God. A physician-assisted suicide bill does not require people to end their lives; it gives them a choice to exercise based on their individual condition, their tolerance for suffering, and their moral compass, which may not involve a god, or which may hold that a just and compassionate god would approve of their opting to say, "Enough."

The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the Oregon law does not mean that physician-assisted suicide now has a firm toehold. That decision dealt with a specific issue: The court ruled, 6 to 3, that former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft exceeded his authority in threatening to bar doctors from prescribing federally controlled drugs if they authorized lethal doses of the medications under Oregon's statute.

A danger now is that Congress will step in to give attorneys general such authority. Members of the Rhode Island delegation should gird themselves for such a debate and, I'd hope, be prepared to vote no.

It's the least -- and perhaps the last -- thing they can do for their constituents most in need of help.

M. Charles Bakst is The Journal's political columnist.

mbakst@projo.com / (401) 277-7638