Gonzales v. Oregon

The Supreme Court has upheld Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law against the federal government's attempt to assert regulatory authority over the participating physicians.  I haven't found the opinion online yet, but the case posture seemed to pit the culture of life against subsidiarity.  This is a bit too simplistic, of course, as subsidiarity's localizing impetus must be read through the lens offered by the culture of life.  But if the perception is accurate that our citizenry's common moral convictions are becoming fewer and farther between, then should we favor a more morally neutral subsidiarity in which states and subcommunities are given space to function as moral laboratories, at least within certain boundaries, given that an authentic moral anthropology may also benefit from having its own space made available within a generally hostile culture?  In other words, would the doctrine of double effect render support for the Gonzales outcome supportable under Catholic legal theory?

Rob

UPDATE: Here is the opinion.  Justice Scalia's dissent engages the underlying clash of values most directly, as he questions whether intentionally assisted suicide can be a "legitimate medical purpose," and whether "the Attorney General must defer to state-law judgments about what constitutes legitimate medicine, on the ground that Congress must speak clearly to impose such a uniform federal standard upon the States."