High court upholds Oregon assisted-suicide
law
MSNBC
January 17, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting,
upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting
a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill
patients die.
Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of
more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate
doctors.
That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to
prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John
Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a
"legitimate medical purpose."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the federal
government does, indeed, have the authority to go after drug dealers and pass
rules for health and safety.
But Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people — those with
incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to
live and are of sound mind.
Ashcroft 'beyond his expertise'
Tuesday's decision is a reprimand of sorts for Ashcroft. Kennedy said the
"authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and
incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."
"The authority desired by the government is inconsistent with the design of
the statute in other fundamental respects. The attorney general does not have
the sole delegated authority under the (law)," Kennedy wrote for himself,
retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David
Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which
said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices
historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate
about physician-assisted suicide."
Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his
resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department
has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales.
Dissenters' view
Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.
Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to
regulate the doling out of medicine.
"If the term ‘legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely
excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.
Scalia said the court's ruling "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the
subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is
easy to sympathize with that position."
Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning
was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately.
Background to the issue
Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court
ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep
them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no
constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted
suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said
individual states could decide to allow the practice.
Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would
back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but
her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left
the court.
The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|