Guest-Blogging Part II: Gonzales v. Oregon
I’m happy to have been asked to comment on this case. I do not have the lack of brevity that Publius and Bunny have with posts, and I’m fairly new to the blogging scene. Those that do know of me know that I was asked to moderate their comments. But in a discussion earlier today, Publius asked me to comment on this case. This case is loosely being called the "death with dignity" case. Below is a brief overview of what the case is about, and the question(s) raised in the case.
A group of Oregon residents, including a doctor, a pharmacist, and several terminally ill patients, sued the United States Attorney General to challenge an interpretive ruling of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The rule, referred to as the "Ashcroft Directive," declared that the use of federally controlled substances to assist someone commit suicide violates the CSA, and that assisting with a suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose."This ruling placed the CSA in direct conflict with Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, which allows physicians to prescribe medication to end the life of a terminally ill patient.
Pursuant to the CSA, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had original jurisdiction to review final determinations made by the Attorney General under the act. The court ruled that the Ashcroft Directive was unenforceable because Congress had not clearly authorized the Attorney General to determine the legitimacy of a medical purpose under the CSA; instead, the CSA authorizes the principal health agency of the federal government to make medical decisions under the act.
The question raised is as follows: Whether the Attorney General has permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and its implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual’s suicide, regardless of state law purporting to authorize such distribution?
As a lawyer, I am forced to seriously consider this case, and possible consequences that might arise from an incorrect decision. First, let me address the case.
This case revolves around a a law enacted by voters where those in terminally-ill states would have the ability to ask their physician to basically kill them. They would administer drugs—controlled under the federal Controlled Substances Act—that would kill said patient without pain, and thereby allowing them to "die with dignity." I’m not a callous individual. I lost my father when he lost his fight with cancer. However, we do have the ability to end the suffering of loved ones when their suffering becomes greater than their will can withstand. They fall under DNR requests, request not to be kept alive through artificial means, etc. They do not include suicide. Nor do they include the doctor’s involvement in an illegal act, which suicide clearly is. To my knowledge, there is no state that has made the act of suicide legal.
As I said above, I’m not callous. However, I do abide by the law. Doctors are not above the law. They’re just as susceptible to it’s provisions and punishments as you or I are. So, why allow such a law into existence. It is amazing that the Oregon State Supreme Court didn’t strike this law down immediately. It doesn’t matter that the voters enacted it. Suicide is still illegal. In my opinion, this act is tantamount to a doctor being an accessory in a crime.
And here is my prediction: The US Supreme Court will strike it down. They’ll do it not over the fact that suicide is illegal, but because the doctors are administering drugs, controlled by the federal government, to aid in the death of their patients. One or more jurists may even interject that suicide is illegal, and has been deemed such for a long time in this nation.
Should the court opt to not strike this law down, the precedents set could be disastrous. We would be making decisions of life and death based not on sound mind, and reasoned judgment, but on a variety of other issues. They could stem from the arguments made by activists yesterday on the steps of the Supreme Court building which include the money spent to keep loved ones alive to the arguments that such terminally-ill patients should simply be removed from society; ignored and discarded like Kleenex. Should we make that step, there is nothing to prevent arguments in favor of more ever-encroaching arguments for the deaths of others deemed not productive to society. Many arguments, I’m sure, would reflect those of many abortion advocates that cite birth defects, finances of the parents, or any other odd-ball excuse.
There is no excuse in this respect. I would’ve never allowed my father to make such a move. I saw him deteriorate, and it hurt me. It hurt me a lot, but I never would have allowed it. I’m not being selfish. I’m being who I am. I’m a lawyer, and I abide by the law, and the constraints it places on us, as a society. I miss my father, but I am glad I got to see him those last few years of his life, and I know he was happy to see me, my mother, and my brothers before he passed on. We knew he was at peace when he died. And yes, my father did die with dignity.
Mistress Pundit
I’m happy to have been asked to comment on this case. I do not have the lack of brevity that Publius and Bunny have with posts, and I’m fairly new to the blogging scene. Those that do know of me know that I was asked to moderate their comments. But in a discussion earlier today, Publius asked me to comment on this case. This case is loosely being called the "death with dignity" case. Below is a brief overview of what the case is about, and the question(s) raised in the case.
A group of Oregon residents, including a doctor, a pharmacist, and several terminally ill patients, sued the United States Attorney General to challenge an interpretive ruling of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The rule, referred to as the "Ashcroft Directive," declared that the use of federally controlled substances to assist someone commit suicide violates the CSA, and that assisting with a suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose."This ruling placed the CSA in direct conflict with Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, which allows physicians to prescribe medication to end the life of a terminally ill patient.
Pursuant to the CSA, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had original jurisdiction to review final determinations made by the Attorney General under the act. The court ruled that the Ashcroft Directive was unenforceable because Congress had not clearly authorized the Attorney General to determine the legitimacy of a medical purpose under the CSA; instead, the CSA authorizes the principal health agency of the federal government to make medical decisions under the act.
The question raised is as follows: Whether the Attorney General has permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and its implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual’s suicide, regardless of state law purporting to authorize such distribution?
As a lawyer, I am forced to seriously consider this case, and possible consequences that might arise from an incorrect decision. First, let me address the case.
This case revolves around a a law enacted by voters where those in terminally-ill states would have the ability to ask their physician to basically kill them. They would administer drugs—controlled under the federal Controlled Substances Act—that would kill said patient without pain, and thereby allowing them to "die with dignity." I’m not a callous individual. I lost my father when he lost his fight with cancer. However, we do have the ability to end the suffering of loved ones when their suffering becomes greater than their will can withstand. They fall under DNR requests, request not to be kept alive through artificial means, etc. They do not include suicide. Nor do they include the doctor’s involvement in an illegal act, which suicide clearly is. To my knowledge, there is no state that has made the act of suicide legal.
As I said above, I’m not callous. However, I do abide by the law. Doctors are not above the law. They’re just as susceptible to it’s provisions and punishments as you or I are. So, why allow such a law into existence. It is amazing that the Oregon State Supreme Court didn’t strike this law down immediately. It doesn’t matter that the voters enacted it. Suicide is still illegal. In my opinion, this act is tantamount to a doctor being an accessory in a crime.
And here is my prediction: The US Supreme Court will strike it down. They’ll do it not over the fact that suicide is illegal, but because the doctors are administering drugs, controlled by the federal government, to aid in the death of their patients. One or more jurists may even interject that suicide is illegal, and has been deemed such for a long time in this nation.
Should the court opt to not strike this law down, the precedents set could be disastrous. We would be making decisions of life and death based not on sound mind, and reasoned judgment, but on a variety of other issues. They could stem from the arguments made by activists yesterday on the steps of the Supreme Court building which include the money spent to keep loved ones alive to the arguments that such terminally-ill patients should simply be removed from society; ignored and discarded like Kleenex. Should we make that step, there is nothing to prevent arguments in favor of more ever-encroaching arguments for the deaths of others deemed not productive to society. Many arguments, I’m sure, would reflect those of many abortion advocates that cite birth defects, finances of the parents, or any other odd-ball excuse.
There is no excuse in this respect. I would’ve never allowed my father to make such a move. I saw him deteriorate, and it hurt me. It hurt me a lot, but I never would have allowed it. I’m not being selfish. I’m being who I am. I’m a lawyer, and I abide by the law, and the constraints it places on us, as a society. I miss my father, but I am glad I got to see him those last few years of his life, and I know he was happy to see me, my mother, and my brothers before he passed on. We knew he was at peace when he died. And yes, my father did die with dignity.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home