# Oregon Assisted Suicide Law Upheld by SCOTUS **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427 "2006-01-17T22:49:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/21 "2006-01-18T04:24:10Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The whole argument is begging the question with a dash of appealing to authority. All it is boils down to assisted suicide is not medicine therefore its not medicine. But it’s not an appeal to authority if they are an authority. That’s only a fallacy when you ask a “smart” person for an opinion about some general issue. If you ask for advice in their field of expertise, it is not a fallacy. As for begging the question, can you be more specific? He’s not definining medicine as medicine. Quite the contrary-- he’s going to the dictionary to get the actual definition. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/22 "2006-01-18T04:51:33Z")
Key part sentence in the opinion: > [@](#): > > The structure of the CSA, then, conveys unwillingness to cede medical judgments to an Executive official who lacks medical expertise. > [@yBeayf](#): > > What are the ramifications of this decision? Is this decision a fluke, or the beginning of a new deference to states’ rights? No. Although the news has been claiming that its a states’ rights case, it’s actually the opposite, if anything: > [@](#): > > Even though regulation of health and safety is “primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern,” Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 719 (1985), there is no question that the Federal Government can set uniform national standards in these areas. See Raich, supra, at \_\_\_ (slip op., at 6). It reaffirms, and perhaps even broadens _Raich_. Instead, the Court looks to the structure and language of the act, and determines: > [@](#): > > In connection to the CSA, however, we find only one area in which Congress set general, uniform standards of medical practice. Title I of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, of which the CSA was Title II, provides that > “[The Secretary], after consultation with the Attorney General and with national organizations representative of persons with knowledge and experience in thetreatment of narcotic addicts, shall determine the appropriate methods of professional practice in the medical treatment of the narcotic addiction of various classes of narcotic addicts, and shall report thereon from time to time to the Congress.” §4, 84 Stat. 1241, codified at 42 U. S. C. §290bb–2a. > > This provision strengthens the understanding of the CSA as a statute combating recreational drug abuse, and also indicates that when Congress wants to regulate medical practice in the given scheme, it does so by explicit language in the statute. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/23 "2006-01-18T05:07:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I have to admit, though, that Scalia’s argument that suicide cannot be legitimately lumped in with “health” and “medicine” makes a lot of sense. I don’t see why. Consider the literal meaning of _disease_ i.e. dis-ease. If medicine’s mandate is to relieve disease, then in the specific circumstances of those eligible for the Oregon law, this mandate is fulfilled by assisted suicide. Generally, death is _not_ considered a valid medical outcome because there are alternatives which preserve life while removing or easing the disease, and that option is almost universally preferred by the patients. In the Oregon law’s case, candidates need to have less than six months to live, per expert opinion. Suicide, to me, seems a valid medical course of treatment in such cases. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/24 "2006-01-18T05:30:16Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Suicide, to me, seems a valid medical course of treatment in such cases. But the CSA gives the AG the authority to make that decision, not you. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/25 "2006-01-18T05:51:48Z")
I was just countering the statement of yours I quoted. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/26 "2006-01-18T05:59:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But it’s not an appeal to authority if they are an authority. That’s only a fallacy when you ask a “smart” person for an opinion about some general issue. If you ask for advice in their field of expertise, it is not a fallacy. Thats the point, the AMA is not an authority in this case. Simply put, what constitutes a valid goal of medicine is a social decision not one that comes from an authority. If enough people consider assisted suicide an acceptable treatment of a disease than assisted suicide is a valid form of treatment no matter what the AMA says. > [@John Mace](#): > > As for begging the question, can you be more specific? He’s not definining medicine as medicine. Quite the contrary-- he’s going to the dictionary to get the actual definition. I might be misreading the part I quoted before but I think he might be begging the question at that point. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/27 "2006-01-18T06:29:00Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If the AG is out of his league in this area, then so are physicians. The physicians didn’t write Oregon law. > [@](#): > > The real issue, when it comes down to it, is whether or not the SCOTUS finds a “right to die” in the constitution, and that decision will have to wait for another day. No. SCOTUS does not have to find that a right to die exists in the Consitution. It would have to find something in the Constitution which would prevent the state of Oregon from allowing it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/28 "2006-01-18T06:37:42Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The physicians didn’t write Oregon law. I never said they did. I meant that both sides of the ruling were talking about whether the controling authority (AG or the AMA) were in a position to determine what constitutes “medicine” or “health”. > [@](#): > > No. SCOTUS does not have to find that a right to die exists in the Consitution. It would have to find something in the Constitution which would prevent the state of Oregon from allowing it. I don’t understand. Even \*Roe \*wasn’t determined that way. That was based on the finding of a right to privacy in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/29 "2006-01-18T06:58:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t understand. Even \*Roe \*wasn’t determined that way. That was based on the finding of a right to privacy in the constitution. Roe determined that laws _prohibiting_ abortion violated a preexisting right to privacy. Roe did not find that right itself, it relied on a previous ruling (_Griswold V. Connecticut_) which claimed that the right to privacy existed in the “penumbras and emanations” of several Constitutional Amendments. My point is that SCOTUS does not have to say that a right exists in order for an individual state to make something legal. It only has to measure any law passed by the state to see if it violates anything in the constitution. That’s more likely to happen if something is made _il_legal but I suppose it’s possible to challenge a right granted by the state in some circumstances. With regard to Right to Die, I don’t think the Constitution is definitive either way. That means each state can make it legal or illegal according to its own will and neither choice is unconstitutional. Of course, Congress could make it illegal (or legal) on a federal level and that would settle it, but as it stands, I’m pretty sure the states just have their own discretion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/30 "2006-01-18T07:04:12Z")
By the way, in illustration of my points above, individual states could have legalized abortion before Roe if they wanted to. The question was not whether states were allowed to make abortion legal but whether they were able to make it a crime. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/31 "2006-01-18T07:05:24Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Of course, Congress could make it illegal (or legal) on a federal level and that would settle it, but as it stands, I’m pretty sure the states just have their own discretion. Huh? The reason the case came before the SCOTUS is precisely becuase there was a controlling federal law. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/32 "2006-01-18T07:10:12Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Huh? The reason the case came before the SCOTUS is precisely becuase there was a controlling federal law. There was no specific federal law prohibiting assisted suicide, the challenge was about whether the SCA could be invoked as a means to prevent it. The Court said no, so that means there is no controlling federal authority at all preventing a state from allowing assisted suicide. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/33 "2006-01-18T07:12:10Z")
Csa ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/34 "2006-01-18T07:13:09Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Roe determined that laws _prohibiting_ abortion violated a preexisting right to privacy. Roe did not find that right itself, it relied on a previous ruling (_Griswold V. Connecticut_) which claimed that the right to privacy existed in the “penumbras and emanations” of several Constitutional Amendments. Doesn’t matter that \*Roe \*didn’t find that right. It was found to be there. \*Griswald \*found the right to privacy which overturned the CT anti-birth control laws. The same would happen if states had anti-assisted suicide laws (which most do) and someone sued claiming that a right to die exisits in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/35 "2006-01-18T07:16:05Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There was no specific federal law prohibiting assisted suicide, the challenge was about whether the SCA could be invoked as a means to prevent it. The Court said no, so that means there is no controlling federal authority at all preventing a state from allowing assisted suicide. That wasn’t the issue in front of the court. The issue was whether the physicians issuing drugs were violating the CSA. The Feds contended that they were but Oregon disagreed. That was the issue not whether or not a State could pass an assisted suicide law. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/36 "2006-01-18T07:17:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Doesn’t matter that \*Roe \*didn’t find that right. It was found to be there. \*Griswald \*found the right to privacy which overturned the CT anti-birth control laws. The same would happen if states had anti-assisted suicide laws (which most do) and someone sued claiming that a right to die exisits in the constitution. I thiught we were talking about a state that made it _legal_. Maybe we’re talking past each other here but all I was saying was that SCOTUS does not have to find a Constitutional right to die in order for a state to make it _legal_. It might be necessary to find that right in order to overturn a _prohibition_, but I’m not claiming that a prohibition is unconstitutional or that such a right exists. I’m saying it doesn’t _have_ to exist in order for Oregon to legalize it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/37 "2006-01-18T07:21:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > That wasn’t the issue in front of the court. The issue was whether the physicians issuing drugs were violating the CSA. The Feds contended that they were but Oregon disagreed. That was the issue not whether or not a State could pass an assisted suicide law. I don’t see anything different between what I said and what you said. Yes, the issue was whether CSA could be invoked as a means for the feds to prevent doctors from administering certian drugs. I agree. I was only saying that _hypothetically_, the only way the feds could _now_ prevent assisted suicide in Oregon would be to pass a federal law. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/38 "2006-01-18T07:24:52Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I thiught we were talking about a state that made it _legal_. Maybe we’re talking past each other here but all I was saying was that SCOTUS does not have to find a Constitutional right to die in order for a state to make it _legal_. It might be necessary to find that right in order to overturn a _prohibition_, but I’m not claiming that a prohibition is unconstitutional or that such a right exists. I’m saying it doesn’t _have_ to exist in order for Oregon to legalize it. OK. I’m not saying that finding the right to die would be the only way either. I’m just saying it could be one way, and that someone will probably try to challenge anti-assisted suicide laws that way in the future. That’s what I mean by “the real issue”. This ruling is being touted in the news as SCOTUS saying the feds can’t stop assited suicide laws. But the feds most certainly could pass a law specifically forbiding the states from allowing assisted suicide. Hence my conjecture that eventually SCOTUS might have to decide the right to die question. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/39 "2006-01-18T14:52:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The real issue, when it comes down to it, is whether or not the SCOTUS finds a “right to die” in the constitution, and that decision will have to wait for another day. Those cases have already been decided. _See_, [Washington v. Glucksberg](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=521&invol=702&pageno=728) (state may prohibit physician assisted suicide because there is no fundamental liberty interest at stake); [Cruzan v. Director](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=497&invol=261) (patients have a liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment, even if refusal will result in deat). This case is mainly an administrative law case. The primary issues were: 1. Is the AG’s opinion entitled to deference (so that even if the Court disagrees with his interpretation, it must accept it)? 2. If so, what standard applies to the deference? 3. If not, what is the correct interpretation of the statute (with some subquestions here)? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427/40 "2006-01-18T15:53:42Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Those cases have already been decided. _See_, [Washington v. Glucksberg](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=521&invol=702&pageno=728) (state may prohibit physician assisted suicide because there is no fundamental liberty interest at stake); [Cruzan v. Director](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=497&invol=261) (patients have a liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment, even if refusal will result in deat). Damn! I missed all the fireworks. 🙂 > [@](#): > > This case is mainly an administrative law case. That was my impression. There is no sweeping, constitutional issue at stake. You wouldn’t know that from reading the headlines, though. It’s always nice to see on of our resident lawyers checking in to these threads. Those SCOTUS rulings are a bitch to read! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oregon-assisted-suicide-law-upheld-by-scotus/340427.md?page=3)