[OmegaMan]

The Constitution restricts what the government can do, not what people can. Thats what everyone is confusing. If you want the Federal govt or a State govt to pass a law then you need a compelling reason and it cannot infringe on someones freedom. It would seem to me that your right to control when you die would outweigh any interest the govt could possibly come up with.

This was a good, pro-freedom/less govt decision.

[muawiyah]

Still, the situation here does not involve someone deciding when it's the right time for death ~ instead, it involves roping in someone else who is going to help you die, and then they don't face any criminal charges.

Frankly, if you want to die, go ahead. I'm not going to stop you. On the other hand, I don't believe it is morally, or Constitutionally acceptable, for you to entice someone else to participate.

[EternalVigilance]

This was a good, pro-freedom/less govt decision.

Nope. It was an abandonment by the United States of America of thousands of years of observance of the morality of Judeo-Christian civilization.

[Gelato]

If you want the Federal govt or a State govt to pass a law then you need a compelling reason and it cannot infringe on someones freedom. It would seem to me that your right to control when you die would outweigh any interest the govt could possibly come up with.

But the issue here IS a state law, one that codifies and regulates the taking of innocent life. Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law makes the state an entity in the killing. By defending this decision, you are favoring government involvement in these questions of death.

That's not something anyone really wants, is it?