Appeals court supports drugs for assisted suicide

By Tom Strode - May 31, 2004 - comment

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled federal Attorney General John Ashcroft does not have the authority to prohibit the use of federally regulated drugs for the purpose of aiding patients in committing suicide. A panel of the appeals court voted 2-1 to maintain a federal judge’s injunction blocking enforcement of an Ashcroft directive.

At this time, only Oregon has legalized assisted suicide.

It is expected the May 26 decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

In a November 2001 directive, Ashcroft declared the use of drugs regulated by the Controlled Substances Act is not permitted for assisted suicide. 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federally controlled substances to aid in suicide may have their licenses to prescribe and dispense such drugs rescinded.

The Ninth Circuit panel ruled Ashcroft exceeded congressional authority and violated the Controlled Substances Act. Opponents of assisted suicide decried the ruling as a twisted interpretation of American law.

In 2003, 42 people committed suicide in Oregon using drugs prescribed by doctors, according to the state’s report. That is the highest annual total since assisted suicide was legalized in 1997. A total of 171 persons have died by assisted suicide in Oregon, according to the state.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, End-of-Life Issues, 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