The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper The Spokesman-Review
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883
Current Temperature
46°F
Current Conditions
Broken clouds
View complete weather report

Color Scheme

Subscribe now

Justices back Oregon’s suicide law

Charlene Andrews, left, who is terminally ill with breast cancer, whispers to Barbara Coombs Lee, chief petitioner for Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, after it was announced that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's assisted-suicide law. (Associated Press / The Spokesman-Review)
Joan Biskupic USA Today
Charlene Andrews, left, who is terminally ill with breast cancer, whispers to Barbara Coombs Lee, chief petitioner for Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, after it was announced that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's assisted-suicide law. (Associated Press / The Spokesman-Review)

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Bush administration’s attempt to block the only state law that allows doctors to prescribe drugs to help the terminally ill end their lives.

The 6-3 decision in favor of Oregon’s assisted-suicide law opens the door to similar laws at a time when the nation’s evolving demographics – baby boomers are entering their 60s – are pointing toward a spike in the elderly population and fueling debates over how much control patients should have over the end of their lives. Lawmakers in California and Vermont are considering laws that would allow assisted suicide; 44 states either classify assisted suicide as homicide or have passed laws that specifically ban assisted suicide.

Since 1998, at least 208 terminally ill patients have used Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act to obtain lethal doses of drugs to end their lives. The emotional debate over the law often has focused on personal liberty. But for the court, it was a question of states’ rights vs. federal power: whether then-U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft exceeded his authority in 2001, when he issued a directive that said physician-assisted suicide had no “legitimate medical purpose” and threatened to punish doctors who gave out lethal prescriptions under Oregon’s law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court’s majority, said Ashcroft lacked the legal and medical expertise to intervene. Kennedy, emphasizing states’ authority to regulate medicine, noted Ashcroft issued the directive without consulting anyone in Oregon. Kennedy said adopting the White House’s stance that Oregon’s law ran afoul of U.S. anti-drug laws would mean a “radical shift of authority from the states to the federal government.”

The Bush administration had argued that Ashcroft’s directive was supported by the federal Controlled Substances Act, and that he had the authority to trump the state law because prescriptions in Oregon were not being used “for a legitimate medical purpose.”

Dissenting in the court’s ruling were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They said Ashcroft had validly exercised his authority under federal anti-drug law.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said “we are disappointed with the decision” and added: “The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life.” McClellan said the Justice Department is weighing whether the issue could be revisited.