Medical Assisted Suicide Case - Research Paper Example

Outline A. Introduction Overview of the case 2. Legalization of physician assisted suicide 3. ODWDA B. The Ruling of the Supreme Court 1. 9th Circuit Court ruling 2. Constitutional scope of the powers of the federal government 3. Powers of the federal government under CSA in enforcing standards C. Implication of the Ruling 1. How the US Supreme Court deals with controversial issues 2. Instructive ruling 3. Existing power sharing customs D. Positive Influence on Other States 1. Medical practice regulation 2. Push for state the regulatory power 3. Call for the amendment of the Controlled Substance Act E. Conclusion 1. Landmark ruling that influences medical practice 2. It helped in maintaining the custom of power separation Gonzalez vs. Oregon: Assisted Suicide Introduction The Gonzalez vs. Oregon ruling by the Supreme Court in 2006 was a decision which made it clear that that the United States Attorney General could not enforce federal laws against practitioners who prescribed drugs in accordance to the Oregon state laws in an attempt to initiate assisted suicide among those patients who were suffering from terminal illnesses. This issue of assisted suicide has elicited different opinions and views due to the impact that it has on medical practice and the life and safety of the patients. In the year 1994, the voters in Oregon supported and voted for the legalization of physician assisted suicide in given situations. This led to the enforcement of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act which allows those physicians who have valid licenses to prescribe lethal doses to those patients who under reasonable medical judgment have only six months to live. There is, however, a series of safeguards which are in place to help in avoiding abuse cases. One of the necessities is that the doctor must ensure that the request by the patient is voluntary and one which is well informed. When Attorney General John Ashford took office in 2001, he led efforts meant to overrule the ODWDA by giving and interpretive rule on the issue (Durke 78). In the rule, he declared that the use of controlled substances in assisted suicide was contrary to CSA and thus practitioners who practiced it would be held responsible under the law. The Ruling of the Supreme Court In the ruling made, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision which had been made by the 9th Circuit Court ruling. In the ruling, it was conclude that despite the fact that CSA gave the power of rulemaking to the attorney general; the same law prohibits the federal government from declaring a medical standard illegitimate including those standards which are authorized by the state laws. In making the decision, the court analyzed the constitutional scope of the powers of the federal government under CSA in enforcing standards. It established that there was no provision in the Act which gave the Attorney general the power to give a definition on what is considered to be the agreed or legalized medical practice. The Supreme Court judges concluded that the attorney general had the power to revoke and suspend the DEA registration of any physician if doing so will be in accordance with the interest of the public. This can happen when they are abusing prescriptions or using it in a way that is not consistent with state and federal laws. Moreover, they stated that the federal laws do not allows any member of the executive branch of the US government to criminalize the entire practice of prescribing the substance to aid assisted death when it is done in line with the state laws. Implication of the Ruling According to Sullivan and Hedberg, the Gonzalez v. Oregon ruling gave more light on how the US Supreme Court deals with controversial issues which touches on the exercise of powers between the federal agencies and the state agencies (41). Despite the breadth of the powers under the Commerce Clause, the US Supreme Court is always zealous about its authority in scrutinizing the legal basis of the claims made by state agencies on matters to do with the Commerce Clause. In this case, the court found that the Attorney general of the United States of America lacked any kind of legal authority when it comes to the regulation of medical practices. This ruling was in in line with the requirements of the CSA which somehow denies the executive the very powers that the attorney general was trying to exercise in this situation. Annas points out that the ruling by the judges in this case was instructive when it comes to the powers of the Congress in the regulation of medical health practices (23). The decision in Gonzales v. Oregon and in Gonzalez vs. Raich showed that the Supreme Court regards the Congress to possess more powers in the regulation of medical practices than the federal executive agencies. In addition, it suggests that the court will have to always review the existence of far reaching powers of enforcement by the congress. This struggle has always created some form of struggles between the federal and the state government with each striving to control and set the standards for public health practice. In practice, the Congress is always intimately involved in the protection of the welfare of the public when it comes to health and medical matters. They do this through the state spending, taxation and regulation of the practice. The Gonzalez vs. Oregon ruling will always serve as a reminder that the Supreme Court is mindful of the existing power sharing customs between the federal government and state government. It does not therefore treat the claims made by the federal government agencies on authority of preempting the laws made and enforced by the state laws. Positive Influence on Other States The ruling has not only had an impact on medical practice regulation in Oregon but also in other states. There have been increased efforts to allow states to regulate physician assisted suicide. California and Hawaii have stated similar push with the aim of giving the state the regulatory power over how doctors deal with assisted suicide request from the patients. Annas notes that this kind of push is an illustration and proof that the ruling was appropriate and applicable to all other states of the nation (22). Others have argued that there is a problem on how the Gonzalez ruling can be used in bringing back other US states on board. However, this has not stopped the call for the duplication of the Oregon laws in other states with California leading the line in efforts to achieve it. It is worth noting that the ruling has not given all the states a level playing field as was expected. Most practitioners in other states outside Oregon are still practicing under the rules as before. Medical groups called for the amendment of the Controlled Substance Act to allow for the use of federally regulated substances in assisted suicide when deemed necessary with each and every state giving guidance on the matter. The palliative Effect Gonzalez v Oregon Ruling During the proceeding, various medical groups led by the California Medical Association signed for the amicus brief to be on the side of the Oregon state. This does not mean that they supported assisted suicide but they did so out of the fear that a victory for Gonzalez would give the federal government and its agencies more powers to determine the standards and practices which are considered as legitimate. Physicians were quite aware that a ruling which empowered the federal agencies would have meant that it would be hard to give treatment for pain in palliative care. Before this decision, physician in some hospital and care facilities had fear when giving prescription for chronic pain. They carried out the practice even when deemed very necessary with a lot of fear since the prevailing practices and rules meant that they could be held accountable in the court of law as going against the CSA. With the verdict made by the Supreme Court, majority of physicians both in Oregon and in other states are now able to offer such prescriptions as long as they are not going against the state and federal laws. Conclusion The Gonzalez vs. Oregon ruling was a landmark ruling that influence medical practice not only in the state of Oregon but also in other states. It gave the states more powers when it comes to the setting of medical health practice standard. This decision was a positive move which helped in maintaining the custom of power separation between the state agencies and the federal agencies as per the requirements of the US Constitutions. Works Cited Annas, George. “Congress, Controlled Substances, and Physician-Assisted Suicide—Elephants in Mouseholes”. New Engl J Med 354.45(2006):10-45. Durke, Timothy. “The National Uniformity for Food Act: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice. Public Health Rep 24.67(2006):15-100. Gonzalez v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 904 (2006) Sullivan Dan and Hedberg, Korlath. “Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon—The Second Year. New Engl J Med 342.43 (2012): 15-50. Read More