|
E-mail this page to a friend!
Supreme Court Vote Could Be Close on Challenge to
Death with Dignity Law
Noted professor, former court clerk, looks at the
issues
Oct. 3, 2005 - The decision by the Supreme Court on
the case involving physician-assisted suicide could end up being a close
one, says Duke University law and political science professor Neil
Siegel, a former Supreme Court clerk and advisor on court issues.
| |
Related Stories |
|
| |
Death with Dignity Case to be First Major Case for
Chief Justice Roberts
U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Physician Assisted Dying
Case on October 5th
Oct. 2, 2005 As the U.S. Supreme Court opens its
new session this week; one of the cases many senior citizens will watch
closely will be heard on Wednesday, when Oregon's landmark Death with
Dignity Law takes center stage. The question is about the federal
governments power over a states right to determine medical practices.
Read more...
|
|
The question in the case, Siegel explained, is
whether the federal government can prevent implementation of Oregon's
Death with Dignity Act, which legalizes physician-assisted suicide in
the state. Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft directed Justice
Department officials to effectively kill Oregon's law by using the
federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to suspend the
prescription-writing authority of physicians who assists in a suicide
pursuant to state law.
The Ninth Circuit invalidated Ashcroft's directive
as beyond federal authority to regulate doctors.
"When assisted suicide last came before the Court
in 1997 in Washington v. Glucksberg, none of the justices found a
constitutional right to death with dignity. But there was a lot of
sentiment that this is the kind of issue on which there should be
state-by-state experimentation," Siegel said. "But if you believe that
prescribing drugs to help end someone's life -- as opposed to trying to
preserve life -- is not within the legitimate confines of the practice
of medicine, it becomes reasonable for the attorney general to say this
is a misuse of state-prescribing authority, and Ashcroft's
interpretation of the CSA could be upheld."
Siegel noted that the Oregon case potentially
highlights differences in conservative viewpoints.
"There are issue-oriented conservatives who oppose
abortion and physician-assisted suicide, and there are 'federalism
conservatives' who believe those matters should be dealt with state by
state, not as a matter of federal law. Some in the latter group may find
unattractive the idea that the federal government is interpreting
federal drug law in ways that eviscerate state experiments."
Although the Oregon case involves a technical
dispute over the scope of federal law, Siegel finds a parallel to the
recent Terri Schiavo case. "Some prominent legal conservatives thought
it was absurd for the federal government to get involved, whereas many
social conservatives were concerned about the end-of-life issue, saying
the federal government should do whatever was needed to preserve Terri
Schiavo's life."
Siegel clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
during the 2003 Supreme Court term and served as special counsel to U.S.
Sen. Joseph Biden in preparation for Senate Judiciary Committee hearings
regarding the confirmation of new Chief Justice John Roberts.
Click to More Senior News on the
Front Page
Copyright: SeniorJournal.com |
