Gonzales v. Oregon
Tomorrow, the US Supreme court begins hearing Gonzales et al. v. Oregon et al. The question at hand is:
Whether the Attorney General has permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C 801 et seq., and implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual’s suicide, regardless of any state law purporting to authorize such distribution.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/oct05.html#gonzales
In 1997, the voters of Oregon passed by a narrow margin a bill that would legalize physician assisted suicide, titled ‘Death with Dignity Act’. For the first time, physicians in Oregon would be able to prescribe lethal doses of barbiturates to patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses. The Act survived a repeal attempt and several legal actions by both the Clinton and Bush Attorneys General. And now, it faces its last hurdle; the Supreme Court.
The argument has been framed as another example of federal vs. states’ rights. I believe that the issue is much more fundamental. It is about the right to retain control over our bodies and as important, the ability to decide our own fate. I have always believed that was why Ashcroft and other social conservatives have been so opposed to PAS. I can see a correlation between this issue and the abortion debate. Pro-choice proponents have argued that abortion was a decision left to the woman with the advice of her health care professional; it is not such a stretch to take the argument for PAS and apply it to the abortion debate.
I have no idea how this may turn out, and if Meirs is confirmed (if she is confirmed) before the opinions have been issued, she may request new hearings.
More details about Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act can be found here: http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml
Whether the Attorney General has permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C 801 et seq., and implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual’s suicide, regardless of any state law purporting to authorize such distribution.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/oct05.html#gonzales
In 1997, the voters of Oregon passed by a narrow margin a bill that would legalize physician assisted suicide, titled ‘Death with Dignity Act’. For the first time, physicians in Oregon would be able to prescribe lethal doses of barbiturates to patients diagnosed with terminal illnesses. The Act survived a repeal attempt and several legal actions by both the Clinton and Bush Attorneys General. And now, it faces its last hurdle; the Supreme Court.
The argument has been framed as another example of federal vs. states’ rights. I believe that the issue is much more fundamental. It is about the right to retain control over our bodies and as important, the ability to decide our own fate. I have always believed that was why Ashcroft and other social conservatives have been so opposed to PAS. I can see a correlation between this issue and the abortion debate. Pro-choice proponents have argued that abortion was a decision left to the woman with the advice of her health care professional; it is not such a stretch to take the argument for PAS and apply it to the abortion debate.
I have no idea how this may turn out, and if Meirs is confirmed (if she is confirmed) before the opinions have been issued, she may request new hearings.
More details about Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act can be found here: http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml