Gonzales v. Oregon

***Gonzales v. Oregon*** was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2006.  In 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to stop Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.  This law allowed terminally ill people to get a prescription for a medication that they could take to kill themselves.  (This is called "physician-assisted suicide.")  

Ashcroft tried to stop doctors from prescribing medicines for physician-assisted suicide.  He threatened to use a federal anti-drug law to punish them.

The state of Oregon went to court to fight Ashcroft.  Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that Ashcroft did not have the power to stop doctors from prescribing legal drugs in a way that was legal in Oregon.  This decision allowed physician-assisted suicide to continue in Oregon.

## History
### The Oregon Death with Dignity Act
In 1994, the people of Oregon voted to pass the Death with Dignity Act.

## Background of the case
In 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft tried to stop Oregon's doctors from prescribing medicines for physician-assisted suicide by using the Controlled Substances Act.  

DEA rules limit when doctors with this license can prescribe controlled substances:

This means that doctors can only prescribe controlled substances if their patients need them for real medical problems.  Basically, the doctor has to be acting like a doctor, not a drug dealer.  

The goal of this rule was to stop doctors who prescribed drugs to people who abused them.  If doctors did this, they would be  the Controlled Substances Act.  The punishment for doctors who do this is to lose their DEA license to prescribe controlled substances.

### The Ashcroft Directive
In 1994, when Oregon first passed the Death with Dignity Act, Janet Reno was the Attorney General.  She decided the Death with Dignity Act did not  the Controlled Substances Act.  

However, in November 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft put out a new rule (which became known as "The Ashcroft Directive"

The Ninth Circuit agreed with Judge Jones's injunction.  They ruled that Congress obviously did not mean for the Controlled Substances Act to be used to control physician-assisted suicide.  They meant for it to control illegal drug dealing.  They also ruled that Ashcroft did not have the power to control a state's medical practices.  That was the state's own business to control, the Court said.

Ashcroft asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.  By the time they did, there was a new Attorney General: Alberto Gonzales.  However, Gonzales supported the Ashcroft Directive, and continued Ashcroft's fight against the Death with Dignity Act.

Like the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court ruled that the Controlled Substances Act was meant to fight drug use and drug dealing.  Congress never meant for the law to deal with physician-assisted suicide.

The Court said that Congress *also* never meant for the Controlled Substance Act to control medical practices.  The states had always had the right to control their own medical practices.  Ashcroft decided that he could create a meaning of "legitimate medical practice" that every state would have to follow.  The Court ruled that the Attorney General did not have this power to take away the states' rights to decide this for themselves.  Also, since he was not a medical expert, he should not be deciding what "legitimate medical practice" was.

Finally, the Court ruled that under the Controlled Substances Act, the Attorney General had a very small role.  He did not have the power to cancel a state law.  He also did not have the right to punish doctors like criminals for acting in ways that were legal in Oregon.  The Attorney General did not have the power to take these rights from Oregon.

## Importance
Their ruling in *Gonzales* showed the states that the Supreme Court would not stop them from making physician-assisted suicide legal.  As of 2016, four more states have made physician-assisted suicide legal: Washington, Montana, Vermont, and California.  Now physician-assisted suicide is legal in five states  10% of the states in the country.  If the Supreme Court had made a different ruling in *Gonzales*, this never would have been possible.

A different ruling in *Gonzales* would have also given the Attorney General much more power over the states and their doctors.  It would have taken away the states' rights in some important areas.  Instead, it ruled in favor of states' rights and the separation of powers between the states and the federal government.

## Notes
## Related pages
* The Oregon Death with Dignity Act
* Controlled Substances Act
* Terminal illness
* Right to die

## References