 |
 |
| AP Photo Archive |
|
| Ruth Gallaid from Eugene, Ore., who supports euthanasia, protests in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, Oct. 5, 2005. |
|
The definition of suicide is becoming blurred in the latest attempt to pass a bill allowing physician-assisted suicide in the state of Vermont. A small group of practicing physicians is slowly but surely gathering a following for the controversial bill.
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has left the door wide open for these doctors. On Jan. 17, 2006, in the case of Oregon v. Ashcroft, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the state of Oregon.
With the case, former Attorney General John Ashcroft attempted to abolish Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, which allows terminally ill patients to request lethal doses of medication.
In November 2001, Ashcroft released an official White House statement, saying the 1970 Controlled Substances Act prohibits doctors from prescribing lethal doses of medication for the purpose of suicide.
The Controlled Substances Act states that medical prescriptions must “be issued for a legitimate medical purpose.”
“Assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose,” Ashcroft said. He also went on to say that any doctor who prescribed lethal doses of medication would risk losing his or her license to prescribe medicine.
In the majority opinion of the Ashcroft v. Oregon case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that Ashcroft acted “without legal authority.”
