And you thought it was all about the regulatory power of the federal government versus the state of Oregon’s right to manage the affairs of its citizens.  But the US Supreme Court’s support for Oregon’s assisted suicide law also just happens to be consistent with a Confucian view of end of life decisions. 

    I have blogged on this earlier, and will reproduce here one paragraph from that previous effort:

 So, a modern-day Confucian could agree
that a person can end his or her life, and a doctor can ethically
participate in that ending, if and only if that decision is the product
of careful and searching deliberation among all relevant close
relations.  A person could not take such a decision in isolation.  And,
if there were strong reservations by some family members, then,
perhaps, there should be some waiting period in deference to that
objection.

    Ending a life, any life, is a stark decision.  In some cases, it may be rather straightforward, relatively clear.  But in most, I have to believe, it is agonizing.  If a person and his or her relevant family members (yes, that is meant as an ethical loophole: there may be "family" members who have become irrelevant to such a decision – see Haleigh Poutre) can come to an understanding, and a doctor can help make that easier, why should we, who stand wholly outside their context, say they are doing the wrong thing?