The National
Legal Center for
the Medically
Dependent &
Disabled, Inc.,
today filed a
friend of the
court brief in
the U.S. Supreme
Court in a case
challenging the
directive issued
in 2002 of then
U.S. Attorney
General John
Ashcroft that
the federal
Controlled
Substances Act
does not permit
the use of
federally
controlled drugs
for assisted
suicide. Under
the Ashcroft
directive,
physicians who
prescribe
controlled drugs
for assisted
suicide could
lose their
licenses to
prescribe any
federally
controlled
drugs, which
would
effectively end
the medical
practice of many
doctors.
The State of
Oregon brought
suit against the
Ashcroft
directive,
charging that it
effectively
nullifies
Oregon's law
permitting
physician-assisted
suicide for the
terminally ill
using controlled
substances.
Oregon is the
only state to
have legalized
physician-assisted
suicide. Oregon
was joined in
the suit by a
number of
persons seeking
assisted
suicide: a
physician, a
pharmacist, and
an assisted
suicide advocacy
organization.
It is now in the
U.S. Supreme
Court as
Gonzales v.
State of Oregon,
S.Ct. No.
04-623.
The National
Legal Center
brief argues
that the
Attorney General
was right to
conclude that
use of
controlled
substances for
assisted suicide
is not a
"legitimate
medical purpose"
under the
Controlled
Substances Act
and its
regulations on
the grounds that
the Act is
governed by a
nationwide
standard.
Because
prevailing law
in the states
and federal
government
strongly opposes
assisted
suicide, use of
federally
controlled drugs
for this purpose
cannot be deemed
legitimate.
According to
James Bopp, Jr.,
President of the
National Legal
Center, "There
are now
thirty-four
states that ban
assisted suicide
by statute, and
it is illegal in
several others
on account of
court decisions
or as a common
law crime.
Voter
initiatives in
four states –
California,
Washington,
Michigan, and
Maine –
have rejected
the practice,
and courts of
final
jurisdiction in
three states –
California,
Florida, and
Alaska –
have rejected
efforts to
legalize the
practice on
state
constitutional
grounds.
The only
exception is
Oregon, which
legalized
physician-assisted
suicide by voter
initiative in
1994."
The National
Legal Center
brief also
argues that the
clear trend in
the law is
opposed to, not
in favor of,
legitimizing
assisted
suicide.
"Fourteen states
have enacted new
bans against
assisted suicide
or strengthened
those already on
the books since
Oregon legalized
assisted
suicide. Two of
the initiatives
that rejected
the practice and
all of the state
and federal
court decisions
rejecting it
occurred after
Oregon legalized
assisted
suicide," said
Bopp.
Moreover, Bopp
noted, the U.S.
Supreme Court
has refused to
find that there
is any
constitutional
right to
assisted
suicide, and
Congress has
enacted
extremely
comprehensive
legislation
prohibiting any
federal
involvement in
funding,
facilitating, or
in any way
advocating for
assisted
suicide.
"It simply makes
no sense at all
to hold that the
Oregon tail
should wag the
federal dog,
essentially
dictating policy
for the rest of
the country when
assisted suicide
is nowhere else
deemed to be a
legitimate
medical
practice. "
The National
Legal Center is
a non-profit
public interest
law firm
dedicated to
protect the
medical
treatment rights
of persons with
disabilities and
who are
dependent on
life-sustaining
treatment or
care. It has
been involved in
numerous cases
involving
withholding and
withdrawing
treatment and
assisted
suicide. The
National Legal
Center amicus
brief may be
obtained by
telephoning
(812)232-2434 or
e-mailing
cbostrom@bopplaw.com.