I'd say the headline on this story -- "Assisted suicide law not likely to cross Indiana in near future" -- could be the understatement of the year so far. We're not likely to have such a law here in your childrens' lifetimes.
While working on an editorial on the issue (see tonight's Evening Forum), I read the state law on suicide. The relevant portion of Indiana Code on crimes against the person makes it a Class C felony for "a person who has knowledge that another person intends to commit or attempt to commit suicide and who intentionally does either of the following" to assist that suicide: provide the physical means by which the other person attempts or commits suicide, or participate in a physical act by which the other person attempts or commits suicide.
That's about as far from the thinking behind Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law as you can get, and it's pretty much in line with where Hoosiers are on the issue, I'd guess. That's the beauty of federalism. If states are truly to be the "laboratories of democracy," there's no need for Indiana to be like Oregon or any other state. That's all the Supreme Court said. It didn't endorse assisted suicide; it merely said that states have always been free to set their own guidleines for their respective medical communities and the federal government had overstepped its authority in trying to dictate otherwise.
It's interesting how liberal and conservative partisans have spun assisted suicide and abortion, both complex life-and-death issues involving federal and state prerogatives. Liberals applauded Roe vs. Wade, which took abortion out of state hands and made it a federal issue, while conservatives lamented the usurpation of the local legislative process. Conservatives decry the federalization of assisted suicide, on the other hand, while liberals declare it a victory for compassion. When push comes to shove, people just want the outcome they want, whatever political philosophy they start out espousing.
