Seeds of long-term social ramifications were sown in Tuesday's elections, with members of the Navajo Nation choosing the high road by defeating a proposal to plunge the tribe into the $6 billion casino business. Voters in Oregon, however, ratified the unwise practice of physician-assisted suicide, which could unfortunately become precedent for other states.
The mixed bag provides a contrast in voter judgment regarding two issues with significant moral overtones.To their credit, Navajo voters rejected a measure that would have permitted up to five casinos in Arizona and New Mexico. Some 54 percent of the 33,392 voters saw through counterfeit claims by the gaming industry that casinos would bolster the reservation's sagging economy and prove beneficial to residents.
This was the second time in three years a gaming referendum was defeated by the Navajo Nation. It is something best kept off the ballot in the future, since the social woes that accompany betting's glitz and glitter far outweigh any phony economic "benefits." The reservation already has too much unemployment, alcoholism, domestic disputes and violence without exacer- bating things by adding gambling to the mix.
What is needed is legitimate economic stimulation to mitigate an unemployment rate pushing 50 percent. That's no easy task. Reservation residents can benefit from quality education and the encouragement to implement newfound skills among their people through meaningful business ventures.
Oregonians, in a matter unrelated to economics but with strong moral implications, chose by a 60-40 margin to not repeal a law allowing physician-assisted suicide.
Allowing doctors to dictate death is unwise and profoundly unethical. A physician's responsibility is to help heal and administer comfort, not to arbitrarily render death's judgment. That exceeds his or her prerogative.
Who would determine the standards qualifying someone for euthanasia? Who will know when the line of propriety and legality is crossed? The practice should be prohibited. Allowing physician-assisted suicide will lead to circumstances that undermine the value and dignity of human life.
Five months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was no constitutional protection for the right to die. It did leave open the door for states to debate the "morality, legality and practicality" of the issue. Some see triumph in Oregon as the foothold in a nationwide right-to-die campaign and equate it to New York's legalization of abortion in 1970.
Like that first step 27 years ago, this one in Oregon has potentially tragic social consequences that threaten the sacredness of human life at both its inception and its twilight stages.