Pubdate: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 Source: Arizona Daily Star (AZ) Copyright: 2002 Pulitzer Publishing Co. Contact: http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/23 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ashcroft.htm (Ashcroft, John) LIFE AFTER ASHCROFT A courageous federal court judge ruled on Tuesday that Attorney General John Ashcroft issued an illegal and arrogant directive when he tried to block Oregon's assisted suicide law. Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1997 and since that time about 70 persons have used the law to end their lives with a doctor's help, to the ire of Ashcroft and conservative members of Congress. Last November, Ashcroft announced that he had authorized federal law enforcement officers to take action against doctors who prescribe lethal drugs to people who are terminally ill. Only one state, Oregon, allows doctors to prescribe such drugs in the interest of helping critically ill patients die on terms that they prefer. President Bush and Ashcroft, both conservative Republicans, made it plain that they are offended by Oregon's law. Ashcroft went looking for a way to declare the Oregon law illegal and came up with a ruse that would make Svengali look like an amateur. Ashcroft decided he would invalidate Oregon's law by using the federal Controlled Substances Act. When that law was passed 30 years ago, it had nothing whatsoever to do with a state's right to regulate medical practice. The law was aimed at controlling illegal drug trafficking. But in November, in a maneuver that sounded like the death of justice itself, Ashcroft tried to use that law to throttle doctors acting within Oregon law. The Justice Department directive said physician-assisted suicide did not constitute a legitimate medical purpose and doctors who used controlled substances for that purpose faced the risk of having their licenses revoked. Oregon sued the federal government over Ashcroft's directive. Last week, District Judge Robert Jones, of Oregon, rebuffed Ashcroft, saying in effect that he was singlehandedly attempting to turn the democratic process on its head by circumventing the will of Oregon voters. "The citizens of Oregon, through their democratic initiative process, have chosen to resolve the moral, legal, ethical debate on physician- assisted suicide for themselves by voting -not once, but twice - in favor of Oregon's act," Jones wrote. The Oregon Death With Dignity Act was passed in 1994 and was overwhelmingly affirmed three years later, following another legal challenge. There was nothing mysterious about the will of Oregon's voters. The law they approved says that terminally ill patients with less than six months to live can request a lethal dose of drugs. Two doctors must confirm the diagnosis and agree that the patient is mentally competent. Ashcroft and his fellow conservatives in Congress are usually the first to bellow about the federal government's improper use of what they derisively call "social engineering," and yet in this case they tried to impose their own brand of social engineering on Oregon voters. Assistant Attorney General Robert McCallum, sounding not like his right-wing boss but more like a dewy-eyed liberal, declared: "A just and caring society should do its best to assist in coping with the problems that afflict the terminally ill. It should not abandon or assist in killing them. Doctors should not use controlled substances to assist suicide." Pardon us, but is this the same caring government that refuses to pay for prescription drugs for elderly patients who are not hospitalized? What is our national policy on the issue of death? Is it one that says it's OK for the elderly to die if they can't afford prescription drugs, but we'd better not assist those who are terminally ill and are willing to buy their own way into eternity? Do we, as Ashcroft suggests, support life and oppose death, or do we as a nation do this rather selectively, allowing some to die by neglect and forcing others to remain alive who prefer to die? Ashcroft's draconian directive, said Judge Jones, can be traced to an attempt by Congressional leaders "to get through the administrative door what they could not get through the congressional door, seeking refuge with the newly appointed attorney general whose ideology matched their views." The Justice Department hasn't yet decided whether it will appeal Jones' decision. Wisdom dictates it not waste more of taxpayers' time and money trying to usurp the will of Oregon voters. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom