The U.S. Congress has been called upon by pro-lifers to block the assisted suicide law in the state of Oregon by passing legislation that makes clear that the purpose of medicine is not to end life but to cure diseases.
The Supreme Court overturned on 17 January an order by the U.S. attorney general calling for the prosecution of physicians who prescribed lethal drugs under Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, saying it was “beyond his expertise”.The 6-3 ruling has sparked outcry from pro-lifers, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life Committee and the Family Research Council, who all called on members of Congress to revise the Controlled Substances Act to prohibit the use of regulated drugs in state-sanctioned assisted suicide.
"In no sense can assisting a suicide be called a 'legitimate medical purpose' for any drug," said a statement from Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of the USCCB's Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. "Congress now has an obligation to reaffirm that fact."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said "it is entirely appropriate for Congress to revise the Controlled Substances Act to make clear that federally regulated drugs may not be used to facilitate state-sanctioned assisted suicide."
The legislative counsel for the National Right to Life Committee’s medical ethics centre, refuted the court’s conclusion that the attorney general could not apply the drug control law in Oregon’s situation because it does not involve illicit drug abuse.In no sense can assisting a suicide be called a 'legitimate medical purpose' for any drug.
Richard Doerflinger, USCCB, Pro-Life Activities
"The court held that the use of federally controlled drugs for the purpose of assisting suicide is not 'drug abuse' because the physician is not facilitating drug addiction, but instead seeking to kill," Timbs said in a statement. "This is a shocking conclusion since one of the things that we most fear in drug abuse is danger to the life of the addict."
Ms. Timbs said the decision was little more than the court’s interpretation of what Congress intended in passing the Federal Controlled Substances Act.
"Nothing in the decision suggests that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to amend the act to make clear that federally controlled drugs may not be used to kill people," she said.
Doerflinger added that, although the Supreme Court unanimously upheld state laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide in 1997, “it has not yet addressed the question whether Oregon’s law, allowing physician-assisted suicide for certain vulnerable persons, violates constitutional guarantees such as equal protection under law.”
An amicus brief has been filed by the USCCB arguing that assisting someone in committing suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose.
Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with USCCB’s position: “If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.
