New perspective on Miers role for the future

Oral arguments have begun in the right to die law in Oregon. I read a great summary of the arguments both sides made, and their weaknesses. But the ending was a great summary of the role Miers can play in affecting future policies:

Count heads, and you figure out that this case could come down to O'Connor. And since the court is unlikely to decide any cases with O'Connor as the deciding vote, Clement and Atkinson may be back for a second round—with a new ninth justice. This, then, is what all the fuss over Harriet Miers' confirmation is about.

You can read the entire article here (no subscription needed).

I have a somewhat different perspective on the Oregon law. I know what it's like to live day after day in constant crippling pain. I developed a way to distance myself from the pain by sleeping (at least I wasn't conscious of the pain then). But I'd wake up and still be tired (because of the pain or from the fact that I probably wasn't getting the restful sleep). And it took a toll on me psychologically. And yes, I'd silently pray that I wouldn't wake up.

So I can understand that if someone's living through this pain, and that's all s/he has in their life for the next 6-12 months before they die, you bet that I can respect their choice to end it.

But I feel that the option should also exist for people that aren't going to die from their pain. Believe it or not, there IS a worse form of the pain then I had lived through. Most of the people that I know that have it have killed themselves because of it. They are just as handicapped by their pain, have no life, and when conscious have this terrible pain. And there is NO HOPE for treatment or cure for these people. If I was living like that, I'd pray I only had six months to live and not fifty years. It doesn't seem fair that they are left to their own devices to end their suffering.