Case Analysis Gonzales v Oregon Module 5-2 comparing the marets of the law PDF

Preview

Summary

writing as to why the specific side one the case arguing which side you agree with there is a lot of research in this paper do in current APA 7 this was done in APA6 which was in use at this time...

Description

1 RUNNING HEAD: Final Case Analysis

Case Analysis Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006),

Kimberley A. Woodard Southern New Hampshire University

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006),

The Ashcroft Directive was created by the federal government for the sole purpose regulate physician-assisted suicide. The Ashcroft directive declared suicide assisted by physicians is violating the Controlled Substance Act of 1970.(NCBI, 2013) The Ashcroft Directive stated Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act(Oregon.gov,2019)”OnOct ober27,1997, Or egonenac t edt heDeat hwi t hDi gni t yAc twhi c hal l owst er mi nal l y i l l Or egoni anst oendt hei rl i v es t hr ought hev ol unt ar ys el f admi ni s t r at i onofl et hal medi c at i ons ,ex pr es s l ypr es c r i bedbyaphy s i c i an

Oregon.gov,2019)was of criminal nature by allowing doctors to prescribe f ort hatpur pos e. ” ( lethal legal combination of “controlled substances” to patients who were terminally ill. The directive stated assisted suicide by physician serves ”no real medical” purpose, declaring if any physician were to follow conduct allowable by the Death With Dignity Act(Oregon.gov,2019) knowingly put themselves in a position that could lead to suspension or revocation of their medical license. The Controlled Substance Act 1970 intended purpose to “regulate manufacturing, importation, possession, use and distribution of anabolic steroids, depressants, hallucinogen, stimulants and other chemicals ” (Anderson, 2018). Changes to the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, that took place 1984, amended to include powers that allowed the Attorney General to revoke medical licenses, if he sees that a physician has acts inconsistent with public interest. The law allows the federal government to use its jurisdiction in support of these regulations contained within the Controlled Substance Act of 1970. Making the unauthorized distribution and illegitimate traffic of controlled substances illegal. Provisions within the Substance Control Act 1970 allows for the Attorney General the power to add, subtract and or reschedule substances as permitted by law. Banning substances , that have no use for a real medical purpose, allowing interpretation to the Attorney General. Before the Controlled

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), Substance Act, hundreds of laws that regulated drugs that varied in punishment and degree of control of the substance. President Richard Nixon signed the Substance Control Act of 1970, to bring the multitude of laws into one group of laws that are controlled at the federal level. The greatest connection between the source of law and the regulation is in the wording “real medical purpose”. Attorney General Ashcroft had free reign interpret and claimed the prescription of controlled substances to aid in an intentional death was just that, no “real medical purpose”. When physicians use controlled narcotics in these types of situations makes it fall within the purview the Controlled Substance Act 1970 In Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006),(Supreme Justia 2020) the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (CSA) physician-assisted suicide was brought before the court. Some of the general purposes for the CSA bring about resolutions to the problems associated with drug abuse. The act allowed the Attorney General to “add, remove, or reschedule substances only after making particular findings, and on scientific and medical matters, he must accept the findings of the secretary of Health and Human Services” (Gonzalez, 2006). In this case, the Attorney General brought into question the validity and legality of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODWDA)( Oregon.gov,2019) Attorney . General Ashcroft believed the ODWDA is in direct conflict with federal regulation for doctors in Oregon to aid in the suicide of terminally ill patients. The federal government used the CSA to explain that it was illegal for the State of Oregon to take part in assisted suicide of terminally ill patients. “Attorney General issued an Interpretive Rule to address the implementation and enforcement of the CSA with respect to ODWDA, declaring that using controlled substances to assist suicide is not a legitimate medical practice and that dispensing or prescribing them for this purpose is unlawful under the CSA” (Gonzalez, 2006)

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), It was held argued the Controlled Substance Act does not give the Attorney General power to prohibit doctors within the State of Oregon from assisting in suicide to terminally ill patients. That met the requirements under ODWDA(Oregon.gov,2019) Oregon sought to restrict the application of the CSA by allowing assisted suicide to terminally ill patients within the state of Oregon, who met the strict criteria of the ODWDA. Oregon’s argument, the ODWDA gave physicians the power to prescribe the necessary medications. By permitting licensed physicians to administer lethal doses of narcotics the state used ODWDA to substantiate its argument, which was approved by many of the residents of the state of Oregon. The ODWDA stated it “exempts from civil or criminal liability state-licensed physicians who, in compliance with the ODWDA’’s specific safeguards, dispense, or prescribe a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of a terminally ill patient” (Gonzalez, 2006). The Interpretive Rule, Attorney General Ashcroft used also grants permission to the state which allows for the ODWDA to pass. This source of law also substantiates the states argument. The argument made by the federal government was one simplistic in nature, to uphold the CSA. Congress allowed the passage of Substance Control Act Giving the Attorney General the ability/ power to have a say in physicians administering dugs. This followed 21 U.S.C.§§824(a)(2). This code allows the Attorney General to revoke or deny drug use if it is “inconsistent with the public interest”, (Gonzalez, 2006). Giving the federal government to claim the regulation of scheduled drugs has an impact on commerce if that drug is “inconsistent with the public interest”. The federal government could claim the impact on commerce is a result of increasing drug sales for major pharmaceutical companies. There were quite a few case laws and judicial precedents that the federal government used. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452,( Leagal, 2020) Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,( Case briefs, 2020)

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218,( Case law,2000) these three were used to argue that the

regulation impacts commerce. Under the commerce clause(Law Cornell. 2020) All regulations made by the federal government have an impact on individuals, especially considering such regulations regarding ODWDA. People meeting the legal requirements set forth by the Constitution have the freedom of choice under the First Amendment under the Constitution of the United States. Having the right to choose whether an individual makes a personal choice to use position assisted suicide or not demonstrates to the general public that the protections set forth within the Constitution with freedom of choice is still protected and remains one of the fundamental freedoms in the United States. When the federal government restricts people, the right allowing the right to end they are pain and suffering, this may be construed on the government’s parts seen as cruel and unusual punishment. If that were deemed to be the case protections under the Eighth Amendment could be applied. Such regulations by the federal government have a potential impact on businesses. By far the greatest impact would be on physicians and other medical professionals dedicated to those in need, want and desire assisted suicide. Having proper access to your trusted physician without fear of retribution in the choice to choose end-of-life care is critical, and could have adverse reactions, especially pertaining to this situation. A regulation could affect pharmaceutical companies that provide the legal medication for these types of procedure. Companies that provide the medicine, may face restrictions such as. only allowed to allocate a specific type of medications within and allotted time, supplies may become scarce, thus leading to price increases and inaccessibility strictly due to the cost of the medication In this case, Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), (Supreme Justia 2020) the State of Oregon, sued Attorney General Ashcroft. Many other interested entities enjoined with the state

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), of Oregon not limited to the following terminally ill patients, physicians and pharmacists, businesses individuals along with other organizations. They were able to challenge administrative rules when they became the subject of an investigation. These groups have the right, in this instance, to defend themselves and request a review of administrative findings. The federal government follow the procedures and guidelines that are in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA states, “the submission and consideration of fact, arguments, offers of settlement, or proposals of adjustment when time, the nature of the proceeding, and the public interest permit; and to the extent that the parties are unable so to determine a controversy by consent, hearing, and discussion on notice and in accordance with sections 556 and 557 of this title (5 U.S.C. § 554 (c)(1-2)”.(Archives 2017) Argument that can be challenged is, agency rules. The proper procedure is done by arguing the new rules exceeds the authority granted to the agency by Congress. This was one of the main arguments they focused on in Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), (Supreme Justia 2020) The federal government enacted the ability to delegate its authority in this case. Congress is not able to regulate everything itself, delegating restricted power, specifically agencies such as the drug enforcement agency. These types of agencies have powers, Congress is required to give standards to be followed that limits the agency’s authority. Upon reading and investigating this case and other related materials I am of the opinion, the federal government acted outside its congressional power. Attorney General Ashcroft clearly overstepped his authority when he filed the directive that physicians aiding in physician assisted suicide under the ODWDA would be in violation of the Controlled Substance Act of 1970. The directive issued by Attorney General. Ashcroft is in direct conflict with Tenth Amendment of the

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), Constitution of the United States The Tenth Amendment states that powers that are not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. The state has the ability to provide public health and safety. Also, under the Due Process Clause, we have the right to refuse unwanted live saving medical treatment.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), Resources Anderson, (2018) Retrieved from https://www.drugs.com/csa-schedule.html Archives (2017) Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrativeprocedure Case briefs (2020) Retrieved from https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/administrativelaw/administrative-law-keyed-to-lawson/scope-of-review-of-agency-action/chevron-usav-natural-resources-defense-council-inc/ Case law (2000) Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/218.html Law Cornell (2020) Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/primary_sources/ashcroft_directive.html Law Cornell (2020) Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause Leagal (2020) retrieved from https://www.leagle.com/decision/1997971519us4521945 NCBI (2013) Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3839489/ Oregon.gov(2019) Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONR ESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/index.aspx Supreme Justia (2020) Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/243/ Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006),...