Appeals court refuses to rehear assisted suicide case

By Tom Strode - Aug 13, 2004 - comment

Appeals court refuses to rehear assisted suicide case
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the Justice Department’s request for reconsideration of the court’s May decision blocking a federal ban on the use of drugs to aid patients in committing suicide in Oregon.

The appeals court announced its decision Aug. 16. The Justice Department had urged the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case as an 11-member body. That request came after a three-judge panel voted 2-1 to uphold a federal judge’s injunction blocking enforcement of Attorney General John Ashcroft’s 2001 order that barred the use of federally regulated drugs for the purpose of assisting patients in committing suicide.

The Justice Department’s only judicial recourse is to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

In a November 2001 directive, Ashcroft declared the use of drugs regulated by the federal Controlled Substances Act in assisted suicide is not allowed. While his ruling did not overturn Oregon law, it meant physicians who prescribe or pharmacists who distribute federally controlled substances to aid in suicide may have their licenses to prescribe and dispense such drugs rescinded.

A total of 171 persons have died by assisted suicide in Oregon, which is the only state that has legalized the practice.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Suicide

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com