Ever since President Trump nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court, interested parties have been combing through his writings and appellate court rulings looking for signs and portents.
If he’s confirmed, how might Judge Gorsuch vote on affirmative action questions? Or challenges to Roe v. Wade?
But nobody has to do much head-scratching over his position on medical aid in dying. In 2006, the year he was appointed to the federal Court of Appeals in Denver, Princeton University Press published Judge Gorsuch’s book, “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.”
It leaves little room for doubt. Over 226 pages (in paperback), Judge Gorsuch pursues a legal and philosophical argument that “assisted suicide and euthanasia” should be outlawed because “all human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable” and “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”
In Oregon, the first state to legalize aid in dying, the handful of patients using the law had been white and well educated, the author noted in an epilogue, leading him to wonder “whether assisted suicide is a matter of necessity or more of a lifestyle choice by people who have always tended to control their lives and now wish to control their death.” (Even the terminology is perilous. The phrase “assisted suicide,” now used mostly by opponents, tends to signal disapproval. For a while, supporters preferred “death with dignity.” At least “aid in dying” doesn’t imply that those who die without lethal prescriptions lack dignity.)
Judge Gorsuch’s position is creating anxiety in a movement that recently celebrated victories in several states and expressed optimism about winning more. “He has revealed tremendous personal hostility,” said Kathryn Tucker, executive director of the End of Life Liberty Project.