The Supreme Court has wisely decided to allow, rather than stifle, public debate on physician-assisted suicide. In a long-awaited ruling on June 26 involving two cases — Washington State v. Glucksberg and New York v. Quill — the Court held that there was no such constitutional right under either the due process or equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. While the concurring opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens suggested that the Supreme Court could subsequently revisit the issue as a matter of constitutional law, the thrust of these two opinions is to hold that it is an issue for the states and the public to decide.

As noted by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, "Throughout the nation, Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality and practicality of physician assisted suicide. Our holding permits this debate to continue, as it should in a democratic society."

We should all be grateful for the Supreme Court's ruling since public debate offers the hope of consensus. To have decided otherwise would have invited the same acrimony and political turmoil that now exists in the abortion battle.

Yet there are many similarities between the issues of abortion and physician-assisted suicide. There are significant unresolved moral and religious questions about our understanding of the nature of human life and our obligation to its protection and preservation. There are profound political questions regarding the relationship of the individual to the state, the role of the state in legislating morality, and the role of the Court itself.

Proponents of physician-assisted suicide stress the constitutional rights of the individual, but there is no such unambiguous right set forth within the Constitution to physician-assisted suicide. Moreover, it is not a right which is necessarily implied by other decisions of the Court regarding the refusal of life-saving treatment or the abortion decisions.

In our attempts to resolve the morality, legality and practicality of physician-assisted suicide, the courts are an inappropriate forum. They cannot bring people together or create a moral consensus. This is especially true in the physician-assisted suicide debate, which is still highly controversial and emotionally charged. While many polls report significant levels of popular support for assisted suicide, where the issue has been subjected to public debate and public votes, it has either been defeated (California and Washington) or passed by a narrow margin (Oregon). Moreover, the Oregon initiative has been subsequently challenged in court as unconstitutional.

It is only through an on-going conversation that we can hope to reach a consensus and, as noted by Chief Justice Rehnquist, one of the problems of the law is its tendency to end debate and discussion. "By extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action."

Arguably, one of the reasons the abortion issue remains so heated to this day is that the Court in Roe v. Wade ended the debate too soon. Instead of allowing the discussion of abortion to proceed through normal political channels, it was short circuited along the lines drawn by the Court. The issue was framed in black and white, whereas the reality for most of us, as in any other area of moral concern, is that there are enormous gray areas.

The issue of physician-assisted suicide will raise very difficult and potentially painful questions and the discussion will at times be heated.

Nonetheless, when the questions are fully debated and resolved by the political process, we should not be left with an on-going cultural war. While we cannot simply assume that the political process will automatically lead to a just moral resolution of this dilemma, public debate may lead us to new ways of viewing this problem and affording us new answers. The issue here is not simply about an individual's right to assistance in killing themselves, but rather about our relationship to each other, to life, and the inevitable process of dying.