The more advanced

we as a society become, in technology and otherwise, the more complicated

our moral responsibilities become, and the more gray areas that arise.

Issues such

as stem cell research were not relevant decades ago because, obviously,

such research was not scientifically possible. Many of today's controversial

vaccines and treatments were not controversial in the past because they

did not exist.

Now in Oregon,

home of the Death with Dignity Act, a recent ruling by U.S. Attorney Gen.

John Ashcroft has the right-to-die movement more than a little irate.

Doctors in that state have been prescribing drugs that allow pain-wracked,

terminally ill patients to kill themselves. The doctors themselves don't

do it; the patients go home, take some pills and fall asleep.

Ashcroft has

ordered federal authorities to move against doctors who use federally

controlled substances for assisted suicide, according to news reports,

in a reversal of a previous decision by Janet Reno, his predecessor. Supporters

of the Death with Dignity Act are already talking about a federal court

challenge.

On one level,

it's a states' rights issue, and that's important. On another level, it

speaks of a huge gray area involving how our society handles the scientific

possibilities that are growing every day.

Imagine yourself

at a consultation in the private office of your doctor, who dispenses

some catastrophic news. "I'm sorry, but there's nothing else we can

do for you. Get your affairs in order; you have about six months."

Because of

your affliction, you are not only anticipating death, but a very painful

road leading up to that final breath. While you lie in agony, your family

not only gets to watch and suffer with you, but they also may very well

see their financial resources depleted in what is obviously a futile battle

for your health and comfort.

So what do

you do? I doubt anyone knows what he or she would do unless the situation

actually presented itself. But a strong case has just been made for a

quick trip to the doctor, a simple prescription and a peaceful death in

your sleep, if that's what you want.

Perhaps that

last phrase sums up the most important issue here what the patient wants.

As one commentator said this week, "Who owns you? Is it you or the

government?" As I see it, this is completely different from the case

of a defenseless, innocent unborn child. This is about people who are

aware of what they're doing and can make decisions for themselves.

Well, mostly.

There will always be cases of those who may or may not have known, who

were duped or coerced by doctors, or family members, while not in complete

control of their faculties. Litigation already in existence thoroughly

documents the possibilities there.

As we've seen

most recently with the Internet, massive advances in science and technology

always leave the law struggling to keep up. And by the time it seems the

legal system has caught its breath, something else puts it light-years

behind.

With the right-to-die

issue, there are two sides of extremism. On the one hand, there is the

spectre of governmental involvement to stamp out all possible forms of

"mercy killing" or whatever you like to call it, which brings

with it a number of questions regarding personal civil liberties and states'

rights.

But go all

the way in the other direction for a moment. Once assisted suicide becomes

an accepted practice, how far of a leap is it to have other individuals

or institutions make these decisions for patients they think can't make

them on their own? Can we see ourselves disposing of elderly or handicapped

folks because we think they're better off that way?

That sounds

unbelieveable (I did call it "extremism"). But we're already

nearing the point where we can determine the characteristics of our unborn

children, such as intelligence, hair color, or propensity for obesity.

Once that system becomes reliable well, we already have a method for legally

disposing of them.

Boy, these

gray areas sure are tough sometimes. But moral responsibility is never

easy especially in a nation that favors moral relativism more and more

every year. Maybe a few more people will realize that moral relativism

isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[Monroe Roark

can be reached at [email protected] .]