Supreme Court to Review Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law
Background:
Most state legislatures have enacted statutes which make it a crime to assist someone to commit suicide. These statutes withstood constitutional muster in the United States Supreme Court case of Vacco v. Quill, 117 S. Ct. 2293 (1997). The Court held that the United States Constitution does not guarantee a person the right to die and that states can prohibit assisted suicide. However, the Court indicated that a state may decide to authorize and regulate assisted suicide.
Oregon is the only state to permit its citizens to seek assistance in procuring the means to commit suicide. The key language of this landmark statute reads as follows: “An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner in accordance with this Act.” Oregon Death With Dignity Act, Or. Stat. § 127.805.
Assorted physicians, patients, and residential care facilities challenged the law on the grounds that it violated the Religious Freedom Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, due process, and equal protection. The district court began by issuing a preliminary injunction preventing the Act from taking effect. Lee v. State of Oregon, 869 F. Supp. 1491 (D. Or. 1994). The next year, the court granted summary judgment on the equal protection claim and issued a permanent injunction against the Act’s enforcement. Lee v. State of Oregon, 891 F. Supp. 1439 (D. Or. 1995) (declaratory judgment and permanent injunction); Lee v. State of Oregon, 891 F. Supp. 1429 (D. Or. 1995) (equal protection opinion). “Essentially, the district court found that the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause because it provided insufficient safeguards to prevent against an incompetent (i.e., depressed) terminally-ill adult from committing suicide, thereby irrationally depriving terminally-ill adults of safeguards against suicide provided to adults who are not terminally ill.”
On appeal, however, the court held that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the district court’s decision was vacated and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. Lee v. Oregon, 107 F.3d 1382 (9th Cir. 1997).
In 2001, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft determined that assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical practice and thus doctors who prescribe the deadly drugs would be in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In Oregon v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004), the court held that this attempt to hold physicians criminally responsible if they help terminally ill patients commit suicide exceeded Ashcroft’s authority under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The court stated, “To be perfectly clear, we take no position on the merits or morality of physician assisted suicide. We express no opinion on whether the practice is inconsistent with the public interest or constitutes illegitimate medical care. This case is simply about who gets to decide. All parties agree that the question before us is whether Congress authorized the Attorney General to determine that physician assisted suicide violates the CSA. We hold that the Attorney General lacked Congress’ requisite authorization. The Ashcroft Directive violates the “clear statement” rule, contradicts the plain language of the CSA, and contravenes the express intent of Congress.” Id. at 1123.
The first incident of a person using the Oregon statute was documented in March 1998 with fifteen additional people following suit by the end of the year. The statistics for subsequent years are as follows:
1999 27
2000 27
2001 21
2002 38
2003 42
Recent Development:
Yesterday (Feb. 22, 2005), the Supreme Court of the United States granted petition for a writ of certiorari in Gonzales v. Oregon, 2005 WL 405754 (2005) (the new style of Ashcroft v. Oregon). The Court has thus agreed to decide whether the federal government has the ability to block Oregon doctors from complying with Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act.