No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Gonzales v. Oregon Upholds the Oregon Death with Dignity Act
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 March 2021
Extract
In his State of the Union address on January 31, 2006, President George W. Bush asserted: “for all Americans, we must confront the rising cost of care, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, and help people afford the insurance coverage they need.” Soon thereafter, the White House National Economic Council released a summary of President Bush's plans for health care reform. The Bush plan argues that increased consumer control over health care purchasing decisions will go a long way to solving America's health care woes. By making patients more value-conscious consumers, the Bush Administration hopes to reduce costs, improve quality and increase competition within the health care sector.
The problem of rising health care costs is not new. In fact, President Bush's statement could have come from any American President in the last fifty years.
- Type
- JLME Column
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006
Footnotes
The American Journal of Law & Medicine has been tracking and contributing to the development of health law since its inception at Boston University School of Law in 1975. The journal publishes articles authored by professors, attorneys, physicians, and other health-care professionals on subjects ranging from health law and policy to the legal, ethical, and economic aspects of medical practice, research, and education.
The Harvard Law & Health Care Society is a student-operated health law organization at Harvard University Law School. In addition to contributing to this column, the Harvard Law & Health Care Society also hosts speakers from private practice and academia, presents career panels, and promotes interdisciplinary dialogue with other Harvard University graduate schools.
References
However, ODWDA legally prohibits euthanasia in which a physician or another person actually administers the medication to end another person's life. Chin, A. et al., “Oregon's Death with Dignity Act: The First Year's Experience,” Department of Human Resources, Oregon Health Division, Center for Disease Prevention and Epidemiology, February 18, 1999, at 1, available at <http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year1.pdf> (last visited June 9, 2006).+(last+visited+June+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Ore. Rev. Stat. §§127.815, 127.800(12) (2003). For a summary of ODWDA's eligibility requirements, see Chin, A., supra note 1, at 2–3.Google Scholar
Ore. Rev. Stat §§127.815, 127.825.Google Scholar
Ore. Rev. Stat §127.800(8).Google Scholar
Lucas, M., “Justices Asked to End Oregon Death Act,” at <http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389918088> (last visited June 9, 2006).+(last+visited+June+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Lee v. State, 869 F.Supp. 1491 (D. Or. 1994). The District Court imposed a preliminary injunction in this case. The next year, the court issued a permanent injunction in Lee v. State of Or., 891 F. Supp. 1439 (D. Or. 1995).Google Scholar
Lee v. State of Or., 107 F.3d 1382 (9th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar
Lee v. Harcleroad, 522 U.S. 927 (1997).Google Scholar
Niemeyer, D. et al., “Seventh Annual Report on Oregon's Death with Dignity Act,” Oregon Department of Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology, March 10, 2005, at 6, available at <http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year7.pdf> (last visited March 3, 2006).Google Scholar
126 S.Ct. at 913.Google Scholar
Letter from Attorney General Janet Reno to Sen. Orrin Hatch, on Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (June 5, 1998) reprinted in Hearings on S. 2151 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., 5–6 (1999), cited in 126 S.Ct. at 913.Google Scholar
Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act, H.R.4006, Library of Congress website, available at <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR04006:@@@D&summ2=m&> (last visited June 9, 2006).+(last+visited+June+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Furrow, B. R. et al., Health Law: Cases, Materials, and Problems (Minnesota: West Group, 2004): at 1503.Google Scholar
Leibold, P., “Preventing Assisted Suicide and Improving Palliative Care: Are These Goals in Conflict?” available at <http://www.careofdying.org/SV/PUBSART.ASP?ISSUE=SV98SU&ARTICLE=LE> (last visited June 9, 2006).+(last+visited+June+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Pain Relief Promotion Act, S.1272, available at <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:s1272:> (last visited June 9, 2006).+(last+visited+June+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Id.; Furrow, et al., at 1503.Google Scholar
66 Fed. Reg. 56608 (2001).Google Scholar
21 U. S. C. §822(a)(2).Google Scholar
See, e.g., 21 U. S. C. §841(a)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. II); United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975) (“Registered physicians may be prosecuted for violation of the Controlled Substances Act when their activities fall outside the usual course of professional practice.”)Google Scholar
The former Attorney General's Interpretive Rule specifically instructed the DEA to enforce his interpretation “regardless of whether state law authorizes or permits such conduct by practitioners.” 66 Fed. Reg. 56608 (2001).Google Scholar
Oregon v. Ashcroft, 192 F.Supp.2d 1077 (D. Or. 2002); Oregon v. Ashcroft, 368 F. 3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. granted 543 U.S. 1145.Google Scholar
In terms of medical practice, state regulation has both benefits and drawbacks. On the one hand, it allows for the predominance of localized community norms in handling the difficult moral and practical concerns in medicine. On the other hand, varying state definitions of legitimate medical practice may create confusing standards for liability due to a lack of uniformity among the states.Google Scholar
368 F. 3d at 1125, citing Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460–61 (1991) (quoting Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985)).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Klarman, M., “Brown and Lawrence,” Michigan Law Review 104 (2005): 431. Klarman argues that in Brown v. Board of Education and Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court invalidated a state law criminalizing same-sex sodomy: “Both opinions were consciously written narrowly to avoid resolving the whole range of issues regarding classifications based on race and sexual orientation. Brown was decided as an education cases…The justices deliberately refrained from announcing a presumptive ban on all racial classifications…In Lawrence, the justices likewise strained to avoid resolving the same-sex marriage issue.” Id., at 446, 450. See also, Friedman, B., “Dialogue and Judicial Review,” Michigan Law Review 91 (1993): 577 (arguing that the Court is engaged in national dialogue about the meaning of the Constitution which keeps it in line with public opinion) cited in Michigan Law Review 104 (2005): at 440–441. Although one cannot definitively ascribe motives to Court as a whole, scholars have noted that the Supreme Court frequently faces backlash when it strays from public opinion in its decisions on sensitive topics, such as racial segregation and gay marriage. Id., at 453. Klarman suggests that the Court attempts to anticipate public opinion in its decisions in order to maintain its legitimacy and avert a backlash that could occur if it flouted public opinion. Id., at 488. See also, Chayes, A., “The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,” Harvard Law Review 89 (1976): at 1281, 1316 (noting that “the power of judicial action to generate assent over the long haul [is] the ultimate touchstone[] of legitimacy”) cited in Michigan Law Review 104 (2005): at 488. The public has strong and divisive opinions on physician-assisted suicide, and they vary across empirical studies. See, e.g. Quill, T. et al., “The Debate over Physician-Assisted Suicide: Empirical Data and Convergent Views,” Annals of Internal Medicine 128, no. 7 (1998): 552–558, also available at <http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/128/7/552> (last visited June 9, 2006) (“Public and professional opinion in the United States is deeply divided about physician-assisted suicide”). So the Court may well have sidestepped the moral issues in this case because of the difficulty of anticipating the future of public opinion and the risk to its legitimacy if the Court were to read public opinion incorrectly.Google Scholar
The Supreme Court only struck down statutes as unconstitutional under the non-delegation doctrine in two cases during the twentieth century. See Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan 293 U.S. 388 (1935) (rejecting the President's enforcement of state oil conservation orders under the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) because the Court found no standard for the president to follow in deciding to preclude interstate commerce of “hot oil”); See also A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (striking down section § 3 of the NIRA for delegating to the president the authority to approve “codes of fair competition” without dictating any administrative procedure for the President's essentially unsupervised determinations of unfair competition).Google Scholar
See for example Industrial Union v. American Petroleum Inst. 448 U.S. 607 (1980) (holding that the Secretary of Labor had failed to make a threshold finding that the current standard of ten parts per million for airborne concentrations of benzene to which workers could be exposed posed significant health risks as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970 in order to promulgate a new standard). The Court's holding allowed it to avoid determining whether OSHA's requirement that the Secretary “set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity” was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the Secretary because of its failure to provide any specific feasibility criterion to guide the Secretary's decision. Id., at 612; 29 U.S.C. § 655 (b)(5).Google Scholar
519 U.S. 452 (1997).Google Scholar
467 U.S. at 842–843.Google Scholar
Id., at 865–866.Google Scholar
Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945).Google Scholar
519 U.S. at 455.Google Scholar
Id., at 461.Google Scholar
21 U. S. C. § 830(b)(3)(A)(ii).Google Scholar
Id. § 802(21).Google Scholar
126 S.Ct. at 908. (In short, “an agency does not acquire special authority to interpret its own words when…it has elected to merely to paraphrase the statutory language.”)Google Scholar
Id. at 927 (Scalia, J. dissenting).Google Scholar
Id (emphasis in opinion). The other “reasonable interpretations” suggested by Justice Scalia include “any oral or written direction of a practitioner for the dispensation of drugs” and “a practitioner's oral or written direction for the dispensation of drugs that the practitioner believes to be for a legitimate medical purpose.” Id.Google Scholar
“Skidmore's Power to Persuade,” the 7th section in this article.Google Scholar
126 S.Ct. at 928, n. 2. (Scalia, J. dissenting).Google Scholar
See §830(b)(3)(A)(ii).Google Scholar
126 S.Ct. at 928 (Scalia, J. dissenting).Google Scholar
467 U.S. 837, 842–845 (1984).Google Scholar
533 U.S. 218, 226–227 (2001).Google Scholar
126 S.Ct. at 916.Google Scholar
See 21 U. S. C. A. §821; 126 S.Ct. at 917.Google Scholar
126 S.Ct., at 920.Google Scholar
Id., at 918.Google Scholar
Id., at 921.Google Scholar
Id., at 938 (Scalia, J. dissenting).Google Scholar
488 U.S. 361, 417 (1989) (“[A] certain degree of discretion, and thus of law-making, inheres in executive or judicial action.” The Supreme Court has “almost never felt qualified to second-guess Congress regarding the permissible degree of policy judgment that can be left to those executing or applying the law.”) (Scalia, J. dissenting).Google Scholar
126 S.Ct. at 935 (Scalia, J. dissenting).Google Scholar
Id., at 938.Google Scholar
126 S.Ct. at 910.Google Scholar
The Court cites the recent case of Gonzales v. Raich for the proposition that the purpose of the CSA is to “conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.” 125 S.Ct. at 2203 cited in 126 S.Ct., at 922.Google Scholar
126 S.Ct., at 922 (Scalia, J. dissenting). Justice Scalia distinguishes this case from Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., where the Court rejected the inference that the Clean Air Act granted the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator the authority to consider implementation costs because that would alter the “fundamental details” of the CAA's regulatory scheme. 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001).Google Scholar
521 U.S. at 731.Google Scholar
126 S.Ct. at 932 (Scalia, J. dissenting) citing Memorandum from Office of Legal Counsel to Attorney General, App. to Pet. for Cert. 129a.Google Scholar
Id., at 923. The Court notes that the CSA explicitly presupposes the existence of state-level authority and declines to preempt it except in cases of “positive conflict” between the statute and state law. Id., citing 21 U.S.C. § 903.Google Scholar
Id., at 924.Google Scholar
Id., at 925.Google Scholar
Id., at 939 (Scalia, J. dissenting).Google Scholar
Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 11362.5 (West Supp.2005).Google Scholar
Id.; U.S. Constitution Art. I § 8.Google Scholar
Id., at 939–940 (Thomas, J. dissenting); 125 S.Ct. 2195.Google Scholar
Id., at 940.Google Scholar
497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
Id., at 280.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. amend. IV, § 1. Id. at 279 citing Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321 (1982).Google Scholar
Id., at 281.Google Scholar
In addition, Gonzales v. Oregon raises non-delegation doctrine issues that were not present in Cruzan, and Justice Scalia has made clear in Mistretta that he considers the non-delegation doctrine to be “not an element readily enforceable by the courts.” 488 U.S. at 415 (Scalia J. dissenting). Thus, he would have been unlikely to apply the rule that the Attorney General had reached beyond his delegated authority in this case.Google Scholar
521 U.S., at 702.Google Scholar
See Vollmar, V., “The Supreme Court and Death With Dignity in Oregon,” Jurist: Legal News and Research website, at <http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/02/supreme-court-and-death-with-dignity.php> (last visited June 9, 2006).+(last+visited+June+9,+2006).>Google Scholar