I couldn't agree more with the State News editorial "Stating their rights" (SN 1/24) on the Oregon assisted-suicide case.

The decision should go to the states because the federal government lacks the proper legislation on assisted suicide.

Two things should follow.

If the federal government wants to outlaw assisted suicide, it should pass explicit legislation doing so. The requirement of getting two doctors to OK a terminally ill patient to kill himself or herself is far too low.

It does not take into account numerous mental and emotional problems a dying individual might have. There is not a constitutional right to kill oneself.

Secondly, in the absence of federal legislation, states should have the power to pass legislation against assisted suicide. I do not believe either of those would violate the recent court decision.

I find it a little odd, though, that supporters of states' rights in this instance undoubtedly support the federal decision to make on-demand abortions legal.

Instead of allowing the state legislatures to decide if abortion is right, the Supreme Court has. Isn't the same issue at hand here? Does the right to harm oneself exist in the Constitution?

I don't think anyone will be able to find it. It is extremely hypocritical to support states' rights when it helps the cause of assisted suicide and then turn around and support an activist Supreme Court when it comes to abortion.

Kevin Kelly
public administration and public policy senior