Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

No Last Rites for 'Death With Dignity'

By ZP Heller, AlterNet. Posted February 3, 2006.


The Supreme Court granted terminally ill patients the right to die without federal intervention. Now the cause is spreading across the country.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by ZP Heller

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Last month, the Supreme Court upheld Oregon's Death With Dignity Act in Gonzales v. Oregon by a margin of 6-3. The court's decision was a critical setback for the Bush administration's crusade against Death With Dignity, more commonly known as physician-assisted suicide. Formerly Oregon v. Ashcroft, this legal battle dated back to the fall of 2001 and outlasted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft, as well as the original patients involved in the case, who have died from their respective terminal illnesses. It was a hard-fought victory for states' rights that will no doubt have tremendous repercussions for several states looking to push their own Death With Dignity legislations in the coming years.

While the Supremes' decision was a shot across the bow of the Bush administration and its "culture of life" agenda, it was a direct hit on the legacy of John Ashcroft. As a Missouri senator, Ashcroft unsuccessfully tried twice to bring national attention to the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Once Ashcroft became attorney general, however, he declared that physician-assisted suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose" for prescribing overdoses of federally regulated drugs to terminally ill patients. Ashcroft claimed that Death With Dignity therefore violated the 35-year-old Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

In writing the court's majority opinion, Justice Kennedy stated that Ashcroft made an overly broad interpretation of the CSA, which was designed to curb drug trafficking and not to impede the actions of state-licensed physicians. "The text and structure of the CSA," Kennedy wrote, "show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it." Kennedy never questioned the federal government's authority to regulate drugs. Instead, he contended that Ashcroft exceeded his power as attorney general.

Interestingly, this case came on the heels of Gonzales v. Raich, in which the Supreme Court upheld a federal override of a California law legalizing marijuana last year. The CSA defines marijuana as having no established medical benefits, a drug that is too dangerous to use under medical supervision. As Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project pointed out, politicians established this categorization, not health experts. "Attempts to reclassify marijuana so that doctors may prescribe it have been blocked repeatedly by Drug Enforcement Administration bureaucrats with no medical training -- just what Kennedy said the CSA is not meant to do," Mirken said. In short, these two contradictory Supreme Court rulings suggest that terminally ill patients may relieve suffering through lethal overdoses of legal drugs, but under no circumstances are patients to use marijuana as a palliative.

Dissenting from the decision were justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and, in his first dissent since becoming chief justice, John Roberts. "If the term legitimate medical purpose has any meaning," Scalia wrote, "it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death." In a separate dissent, Thomas argued that the majority ruling wasn't in keeping with the court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich.

Yet, according to Kathryn Tucker, a co-counselor in Oregon v. Ashcroft, it was Thomas and Scalia who were inconsistent. "Their voting was hugely hypocritical," Tucker told me, "and it reveals a lack of principle, especially when Scalia talks so much about states' rights." For Tucker, who is also the director of legal affairs for Compassion and Choices, the Court's ruling allowed her an enormous sigh of relief. "This Oregon law was beleaguered because it had been fought on every level," she said, "and now there is growing excitement outside of Oregon that this power will stay with states."


Digg!

Zack Pelta-Heller is a graduate student at The NewSchool and a regular contributor to AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I don't understand...
Posted by: Colin on Feb 3, 2006 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...what's wrong with euthanasia or suicide.

Can someone explain it to me?

(PS - I'm an atheist so I couldn't give a monkeys what it says in one religious book or other)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Devil's advocate Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Devil's advocate Posted by: veive
» RE: I don't understand... Posted by: Liberal
Reply to Stormchilde
Posted by: RedRobin on Feb 3, 2006 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must respond to Stormchilde. Yes, suicide hurts others, but this is death-by-choice for terminally ill people, people who are already dying. Their loved ones are already hurting.
My friend is dying of ALS. I know that he will hang on until the bitter end, and go through suffering that gives most of us nightmares. I will miss him terribly when he dies. BUT... if he decides to end his life earlier, I will still miss him terribly, but I will be so happy that he did not suffer any more than he already has.
Death with Dignity will not extend the grieving process, in my opinion. (Has research been done on this topic?) Some people do not want their loved ones to suffer before death, and some people would really rather not go through that either. And that is really nobody's business except the patient, his/her family, and the attending physician.
Have you ever been to a funeral and heard the question,"Did s/he suffer much before s/he died?" (I personally dislike that question; if you don't already know, then it is none of your business. Besides, do you REALLY want to know how much the deceased did suffer? Not really.)
Besides, if one believes in God and heaven, why would you want to hang around here anyway? What are we so afraid of? I believe that the Deity loves us, and if we choose to check out a little early, when we are dying already, the Deity will welcome us anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Context Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Context Posted by: jwg
While Dr. Kervorkian rots in prison.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 3, 2006 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A law is only as good as its enforcers. Kervorkian brought the issue to the courts through civil disobedience, and Michigan could not convict him. So they passed the law that specified that physician-assisted suicide is a felony.

As AG, Ashcroft imposed federal laws that were directly opposed to state laws, such as medical marijuana in California. The radical neo-cons oppose, contrary to the tradition of conservatism, individual choice. It's long past the time when we should have been hearing from conservatives that the Bush administration is extremist.

They are radical when they impose conformity. We know that the need for conformity in adults is, psychologically, an indication of a profound personal disturbance. Laws will not help, so long as we continue to elect and appoint immature individuals to positions of power. Death with Dignity is only as good as the maturity of the people we elect to political office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]