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