|
|
|
ASSISTED SUICIDE CASE SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS On Wednesday morning, October 5, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Gonzales v. Oregon, No. 04-623, concerning the validity of the Bush Administration’s November 5, 2001 determination that federally controlled drugs may not be used to assist suicide in Oregon, where assisting certain suicides does not violate state law. Vigorous questioning of both sides by the Justices suggested that key members of the Court are wrestling with the issues and have not clearly made up their minds about the case. Particularly noteworthy, however, was Chief Justice Roberts’ observation that when Congress passed its law regulating narcotics and other dangerous drugs in 1971, Congress would never have assumed any state might legalize assisting suicide or that federally regulated drugs could legally be used for that purpose. Roberts and other Justices noted that
Oregon’s claim that only states can determine what use of federally
controlled drugs is “legitimate” would mean a state, by saying morphine can
be used in high doses to make the user feel good, could effectively gut the
federal law’s ability to fight drug abuse. A number of Justices repeatedly
challenged the state’s argument that the uniform application of the federal
law yields to widely varying standards in fifty different states. There have been widespread inaccuracies in media descriptions of the issues in the case. • Gonzales v. Oregon does NOT involve the "constitutionality" or validity of the Oregon law on assisting suicide. The case does not involve a challenge to the Oregon law. • Gonzales v. Oregon involves statutory interpretation of the federal Controlled Substances Act, and the issue of whether under it and the regulations that apply it, the determination of what is a "legitimate medical purpose" for the prescription of federally controlled narcotics and other dangerous drugs is to be made by federal or state authorities. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations, independently of state law, certain drugs are regulated by the federal government. Specifically, in order to prescribe these drugs, a physician must be "registered" with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, and must prescribe them only for a "legitimate medical purpose."1 Interpreting this term, former Attorney General Ashcroft issued a determination that the killing of a patient, even with the patient’s authorization, is not a "legitimate medical purpose." In litigation challenging this determination brought by Oregon doctors who use federally controlled drugs to assist suicide and the State of Oregon, lower courts have ruled that the meaning of the federal law and regulations may not be interpreted in a nationwide, uniform fashion by federal authorities, but must instead be interpreted on the basis of state law. From this ruling the Administration sought, and the Supreme Court granted, review. • It is the position of the National Right to Life Committee that the federal government should not be forced to facilitate assisting suicide through the use of federally controlled drugs. 1. 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a). |