Gonzales vs. Oregon

Gonzales vs. Oregon

Sources

Teitelbaum, Joel, and Sara Rosenbaum. "Gonzales v. Oregon: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice." Public Health Reports. Association of Schools of Public Health, 2007. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

"Gonzales v. Oregon (formerly Oregon v. Ashcroft) (04-623)." Gonzales v. Oregon (formerly Oregon v. Ashcroft) (04-623). Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

Balch, Burke. "Supreme Court Allows Use of Federally Controlled Drugs to Assist Suicide." 1 Feb. 2006. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

"GONZALES v. OREGON." Gonzales v. Oregon. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802109/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-623

http://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/2006/NRL02/Feb06AssistSuicideBackCover.pdf

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_623#sort=ideology

CONCLUSION

Scalia and Thomas's Decision

Kennedy's Argument (Majority)

Of the other three justices, they argued that nobody should have the right to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to anybody. They also said that the government should respect states choices, using the phrase, "presumption against preemption", which said that federal law should not displace state law. In Thomas's dissent, he said that the majority decision was a problem, because it went against the decision of Gonzales v. Raich, which was the case that established that the United States may punish you for growing cannabis even in states that approve it for medical purposes.

Justice Kennedy was for the decision that the Controlled Substances Act couldn't overrule the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. He wrote that “declaring illegitimate a medical standard for care and treatment of patients … specifically authorized under state law.” (As cited in Teitelbaum, 2007). The justices examined the parameters of the Controlled Substances Act and found that no where did it say that the Attorney General has the right to define what legal medicine practice is. The court also said that the Attorney General has no "... intent to regulate the practice of medicine [which is] understandable given the structure and limitations of federalism, which allows the States great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons.” (Gonzales v. Oregon, 2008)

SIDE AGAINST

SIDE FOR

The final decision for the case was on January 17, 2006, where out of the nine justices, six of them found that the Oregon Death with Dignity Act should not be overruled by the Controlled Substances Act. The Controlled Substances Act could only be enforced if the substance was being abused or being illicitly dealt.

Summary

Other Information

The case was started on February 22, 2005, and was decided on January 12, 2006. The decision after 2006 has not changed, and it has not been overturned. Out of the nine Justices', six of them ruled that the Controlled Substance Act should not affect/overrule the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. The court's decision impacted Oregon because it said that "Oregonians' knowledge that their will has been respected and that they have the peace of mind that comes with choices instead of constrictions." (As cited in Gonzales v. Oregon, n.d). It was more of a good decision because it let Oregon doctors give terminal ill patients end-of-life options.

Gonzales vs. Oregon was a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court which said that the United States Attorney General could not use the Controlled Substances Act against the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. The Controlled Substances Act was enacted in 1970, and wanted to control legal and illegal traffic of controlled substances. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act was established in 1994, which said that terminally ill adults could obtain lethal doses of drugs from physicians upon request. In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court decided that the Controlled Substances Act could only prevent doctors from engaging in illegal drug dealing, but could not be used to override the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.

Discussion Questions

1. Why do you think more justices voted for the Death with Dignity Act, when it is basically saying the physician can help a person commit suicide?

2. Do you think a terminally ill person should have the right to say that they want to die? (If they are in the right mind)

3. So far, Oregon is the only state to have adopted the "Death with Dignity Act". Why do you think other states haven't adopted it as well?

William Gao

6th Period

September 12, 2015