News Release

Contact: Jeana Frazzini, DDNC
jfrazzini@deathwithdignity.org / (503) 228.4415

PORTLAND, OR—Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its written decision in Oregon v. Ashcroft, giving the death with dignity movement another decisive victory over a hostile opponent who has used taxpayer dollars to undermine the democratic process.

The decision asserts “that the Ashcroft Directive is unlawful and unenforceable because it violates the plain language of the CSA [Controlled Substances Act], contravenes Congress’ express legislative intent, and oversteps the bounds of the Attorney General’s statutory authority.”
 
“The Circuit’s ruling is a sound rejection of the Ashcroft directive as a matter of law and as a matter of states’ rights.  The court sent the message that in a pluralistic society, we need to respect the will of those who would choose this option.  We should respect the democratic and legal process that has twice affirmed this law,” said Portland attorney Eli D. Stutsman who represents an Oregon physician and pharmacist on behalf of the Death with Dignity National Center.

“The people of Oregon spoke twice.  Congress failed to overturn the law twice and now federal courts have spoken three times – just how much tax money will John Ashcroft and this administration spend trying to undermine the will of the people and the democratic process?” said Scott Blaine Swenson, Executive Director of the Death with Dignity National Center.

“We are immensely pleased with the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Federal encroachment into the will of the people of any state, such as this attempt by the Attorney General to violate Oregon's state sovereignty, cannot be tolerated.  The unique authority of the state to meet the needs of its people must not be compromised by personal prejudice that manifests as executive fiat,” said Paul Spiers, Ph.D., President of End-of-Life Choices’ Board of Directors.

This decision affirms yet again, the legality of Oregon’s Death with Dignity law.  It also affirms the right of states to determine legitimate medical practice.

“Oregon patients can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that the court agrees that their suffering and manner of death is not the business of John Ashcroft,” said Barbara Coombs Lee, President of Compassion in Dying, whose attorneys represent patients in Oregon v. Ashcroft.

George Eighmey, Executive Director of Compassion in Dying of Oregon, agreed, "Patients derive great comfort and ease of mind knowing that the law is available to them if they need it to achieve a peaceful end.  At the end of life, people deserve no less.”

On November 6, 2001, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft issued an edict enabling the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to track and investigate physicians and pharmacists who prescribe and dispense medications under the Oregon law.  This ruling, a reinterpretation of the Controlled Substances Act, overturning former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno’s 1998 decision, and undermining a twice-approved state initiative, was regarded as the herald of a retrograde movement in end-of-life care.

Editorial boards, ethicists and medical professionals across the nation criticized the Ashcroft directive as short-sighted moral posturing that served no one’s best medical interests.  On April 17, 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Roger E. Jones, ruled in favor of the Oregon law – stating that the Attorney General had sought to stifle an “earnest and profound debate” concerning death with dignity.  Last autumn, the Ashcroft Justice Department appealed to the Ninth Circuit. 

Though further appeal is anticipated, including a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Death with Dignity National Center (DDNC) and Compassion in Dying (CID) are prepared to meet any future legal challenges. 

This case is about the practice of medicine in the states – not illicit drug use, trafficking or diversion as outlined under the Controlled Substances Act.  Compassion’s suit is on behalf of terminally ill Oregonians.  DDNC’s suit is filed on behalf of a Salem, Oregon, oncologist and pharmacist and advances the following principles against the Ashcroft directive:

1. The explicit language of the CSA, the case law which interprets it, and the legislative record that supports it make clear that the Attorney General’s role is to regulate the manufacture, dispensing and distribution of medications to prevent illicit use, diversion and trafficking.  Nothing contained in the CSA gives the Attorney General authority over the practice of medicine within the individual states.

2. Nearly six years of experience in Oregon confirm that the Death with Dignity law is part of legitimate medical practice, properly regulated by the state medical board and other local authorities.

3. Attorney General Ashcroft’s directive is invalid because it was issued without public notice, comment and thorough consideration of evidence.  It is an arbitrary and capricious government action and deserves no enforcement or deference by the courts.

4. Ashcroft relies upon a 1984 amendment to the CSA in order to target the State of Oregon and DEA registrants practicing under the Death with Dignity law.  This amendment does not empower the Attorney General to substitute his preferred medical policies for those of the State of Oregon.

5. Attorney General Ashcroft must persuade the court not only that his interpretation of the CSA is correct, but also that it was the intent of Congress to alter the state/federal framework in this instance by permitting federal encroachment into state-regulated medical practice.

6. Attorney General Ashcroft does not allege that physicians practicing under the Oregon law are diverting drugs for illegal use.  Indeed, the Attorney General concedes that Oregon practitioners are in compliance with the Oregon law.  Thus, no law is broken, no crime committed, no community standard of care violated. 

7. The Attorney General’s case is simply a policy disagreement with the State of Oregon over the practice of medicine.

Stay informed on the progress of this historic case online at www.deathwithdignity.org.
 

>> back to top

home | search | site guide | contact us | privacy policy