For law geeks like me, every first Monday in October holds special meaning. It is the beginning of the United States Supreme Court’s annual term. Throughout each term, this high court rules on approximately 100 cases after hearing oral argument and rules on an additional 100 without hearing oral argument.
Last October, I wrote an editorial column about an upcoming case that stood out to me and to those interested in senior issues: Gonzales v. Oregon. Concerning a state law legalizing assisted-suicide, I noted that this case could potentially impact seniors – and their inevitable mortality. I write about Gonzales v. Oregon again today because the United States Supreme Court recently made its ruling in this case. In an unprecedented decision, the high court upheld Oregon’s Death with Dignity law.
At issue in Gonzales v. Oregon was the federal government’s power to oppose a state’s law allowing physician-assisted suicide. In 1994, Oregon became the first state and one of the first jurisdictions in the world to officially pass a law giving a physician the authority to participate in an assisted-suicide. On November 6, 2001, new U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft attempted to block this Oregon Death with Dignity Act by authorizing – pursuant to the Federal Controlled Substances Act – DEA agents to investigate and prosecute doctors who prescribe federally controlled drugs to help terminally ill patients die. In its recent 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Attorney General John Ashcroft overstepped his authority. The Federal Controlled Substances Act does not allow the Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicides under a state law permitting this procedure.
Specifically under Oregon’s Death with Dignity law, an Oregon patient is eligible to request in writing a lethal prescription of drugs from his or her physician if he or she has been diagnosed with an incurable and irreversible disease that, within reasonable medical judgment, will cause death within six months. The attending physician receiving this written request must then determine whether this patient has made this request voluntarily and get a second “consulting” physician to examine the patient to confirm the attending physician’s conclusions. Further, although the physician may dispense or issue a prescription for the requested lethal drug, he or she may not dispense it. The patient must take the lethal dose without assistance. If all of the steps required under this Oregon law are followed correctly, the physician and pharmacist are then protected from liability for their participation in this assisted suicide.
In a statement to the press, Peg Sandeen, Executive Director of Death with Dignity National Center stated, “[This U.S. Supreme Court’s] opinion allows advances in palliative and end-of-life care to continue. More and more Americans are demanding a greater say in how they live and how they die. Gonzales v. Oregon is a historic milestone that will protect the people’s rights as patients.”
This favorable ruling by the Supreme Court now allows other states to move forward in launching Oregon-type laws and, at minimum, opens discourse and advances in pain management and end-of-life care. While Oregon is admittedly far away from Oklahoma, this ruling impacts us. At some point, it will become clear to each of us that we are neither invincible nor immortal. Despite all of our labor and love, the best efforts of doctors and the prayers of friends, each of us will face death. It is important that we pay attention to what happens within the court system and legislature on this issue. The outcome could someday personally affect us or one of our family members.
For a complete copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Gonzales v. Oregon (and any other opinion from this term), go to www.supremecourtus.gov.
|
