Jewish Law Responds to American Law 157
[1]t is legally and ethically permitted for physicians to actively assist patients to die who are dependent on life sustaining treatments.... Unfortunately, some dying patients who are in agony that can no longer be relieved, yet are not dependent on life-sustaining treatment, have no such options under current legal restrictions.
The court rejected the due process-fundamental rights argument of the plaintiffs and reaffirmed that there is no state in the Union that grants a right to assist in suicide.?>* Because the court could not discern a valid distinction between the passive assistance allowed in removing life support systems and the active assistance in prescribing lethal medication, it determined that the New York statutes were in violation of the Constitution 's equal protection clause.”
In a provocative and innovative concurrence Judge Calabresi accepted the judgment of the court but not its reasoning.” He
contends that:
[W]hen a law is neither plainly unconstitutional... nor plainly constitutional, the courts ought not to decide the ultimate validity of that law without current and clearly expressed statements, by the people or by their elected officials, of the state interests involved. It is my further contention, that, absent such statements, the courts have frequently struck down such laws, while leaving open the possibility of reconsideration if appropriate statements were subsequently made.”
His analysis pointed out that the rationale for the assisted suicide prohibition had been undermined when suicidetsnd attempted suicide were no longer considered to be crimes.” It may be inferred that Judge Calabresi ’s analysis wasan attempt to influence the U.S. Supreme Court in the appeal which was certain to follow the New York decision. Immediately following the two United States Court of Appeals decisions in Compassion in Dying v. Washington? and Quill v. Vacco,?®° the New York Times presented a major examination of the issues now confronting fhe American juridical system in right-to-die cases.?®!“Last week's decision by a Federal appeals court striking down a 19th century New Yor criminal law against aiding or abetting suicide has thrust ney question to the top of the nation’s legal agenda: Do sominaly i patients have a constitutionally protected right to choose physt cian-accelerated death?”%? The article was directed to alternate legal theories that might be presented to and considered by the