• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• BOOKSTORE

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

July 1, 2005
Legal Briefs

Gonzales v. Oregon

by Mark Moller

PRINT PAGE

CITE THIS

  Sans Serif

  Serif

In 1994, Oregon voters passed a ballot initiative establishing the "Death with Dignity Act," a controversial measure that legalized physician-assisted suicide through the administration of lethal doses of medication to patients within six months of dying from a terminal illness. In 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft filed a directive declaring that any physician administering a lethal dose of medication under the Death with Dignity Act would be in violation of the Federal Controlled Substance Act. Oregon challenged this directive. Arguing in support of the state of Oregon, this Cato brief stresses that regulating physician-assisted suicide within individual states is beyond the scope of the federal government's powers. Ashcroft's intervention in this situation undermines the Tenth Amendment's specific command that powers not delegated to the federal government be reserved to the states. Constitutional principles and precedents favoring state and local laws suggest that Ashcroft's directive should be invalidated.

Full text

© 2009 The Cato Institute
Please send comments to webmaster