Interpretative Rules & States Rights In 1994, Oregon voters approved a ballot in

Question

Interpretative Rules & States Rights

In 1994, Oregon voters approved a ballot initiative establishing the oregon Death with dignity act. The act legalized physician-assisited suicide. Physicians may prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a patient if two doctors agree the patient will die within six months from an incurable condition. The medication was not prohibited by the federal controlled substances act (CSA) which permits the federal government to regulate drugs. In 1994, Attorney General Reno the head o fthe department of justice determined the oregon act did not violate the CSA. However in 2001 new attorney general ashcroft issued an interpretive rule stating physician assisted suicicde was not a legitimate medical purpose and a physican prescribing federally controlled drugs for such purpose would be in violation of the CSA and face civil and criminal penalties.

The state of Oregon , terminally -ill patients and others challenged the rule in District Court . The district court ruled for oregon and issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the interpretive rule;the ninth circuit court of appeals affirmed. The issue before the US supreme court was whether Ashcroft exceeded his authority under the CSA.

Questions:

A.) Ashcroft determined the attorney general has the authority to decide what a "legitimate medical purpose" is under the CSA. Does a member of the executive branch of government have the power to make this decision?

B.) Ashcroft also determined the provision of a controlled substance for physician aid-in-dying is not a "legitimate medical purpose". Does a member of the executive branch of government have the authority to determine what constitutes a "legitimate medical purpose"?

C.) Was the issue of whether terminally ill patients have a constitutional right to make end-of-life decisions befoe the court?

Gonzales v. Oregon , 545 U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Case study is above questions that is all that was given

Explanation / Answer

1) Well, being a member of the executive branch of government, Ashcroft definitely has that authority to decide what is legitimate purpose and what is not. But, he should be able to take a wise decision in consultation with the physicians because, they are the one who best knew the condition of the terminally ill patients. Ashcroft should just be the guiding authority instead of an authority who could pass on law which is not under his arena of work.

Ashcroft's contention that physicians taking a decision and allowing the medical suicides of the terminally ill patients is a violation. But, as per medical fraternity, such deaths are not a violation, because it will permanently reduce the suffering of the patient or the sufferer and their respective families.

2) A member of the executive branch of government will not have any medical knowledge. It is just that they would know what all are the controlled substances. But the real decision power and authority will lie with the physicians. Because it is their job and no one knew the condition of the patient better than them. They are the right people who could take a decision on whether a patient can live or if he is terminally ill, then the next best option is to end the life in the critical scenarios. Therefore, Ashcroft will have no authority in determining the provion of the controlled substances to the dying patients.

3) Yes, absolutely. Terminally ill patients should have that constitutional right to make end-of-life decisions. Since they are the better persons to judge they situation based on their suffering, and no one else knew what is going on with them, they should definitely have that leverage to take a decision to end-the-life.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.