Gonzales V Oregon

Gonzales v. Oregon
1. The name and year of your case and the issue it addresses- Gonzales v. Oregon, 2006: It deals with whether or not the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) authorized Attorney General, John Ashcroft, to ban the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon.
2. Briefly summarize the majority’s arguments- In a 6 to 3 opinion, the court ruled that attorney general, John Ashcroft, exceeded his authority in 2001 by attempting to use the Controlled Substances Act to prosecute doctors who prescribed lethal overdoses in an act of physician-assisted suicide under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, which happened to be the only law in the nation that allowed physician-assisted suicide.
3. Briefly summarize how you’ll address arguments of the majority- The Controlled Substances Act states that the manufacture, importation, possession, use, and distribution of certain substances is regulated, therefore making it legal under certain circumstances. However, prescribing lethal overdoses, like the doctors Ashcroft tried to prosecute did, seems to be going beyond the borders of which the CSA states. Also, the Oregon Death With Dignity Act only permitted physician-assisted suicide under the patient’s consent and if the patient was terminally ill. John Ashcroft didn’t necessarily exceed his authority in the sense that the doctors were prescribing lethal overdoses to their patients. A terminally ill patient wouldn’t seem to need a lethal overdose, let alone an overdose itself.
4. Briefly summarize the constitutional arguments you’ll make- Under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, physician-assisted suicide is allowed under specific situations and circumstances. Exceeding the limits and rules of this act is, quite obviously, against the law. The court disagreed that the physicians that Ashcroft was trying to persecute violated this law, but when the phrases ‘lethal overdoses’ and ‘terminally ill’ are looked at under the description of the act,... [continues]

Read full essay