Essay, Pages 1 (2539 words)
Latest Update: October 3, 2021
Gonzales V OregonEssay Preview: Gonzales V OregonReport this essayGONZALES v. OREGONOral Argument: 05 -06 TermSubject: Physician-assisted suicide, Ashcroft directive, Controlled Substances Act, Oregon Death with Dignity ActA group of Oregon residents, including a doctor, a pharmacist, and several terminally ill patients, sued the United States Attorney General to challenge an interpretive ruling of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The rule, referred to as the “Ashcroft Directive,” declared that the use of federally controlled substances to assist someone in committing suicide violates the CSA, and should not be considered a “legitimate medical purpose.” This ruling placed the CSA in direct conflict with Oregons Death With Dignity Act, which allows physicians to prescribe medication to end the life of a terminally ill patient.
Gonzales V OregonEssay Preview: Gonzales V OregonReport this essayGONZALES v. OREGONOral Argument: 03 -08 TermSubject: Non-medical patient benefit, Ashcroft directive, Controlled Substances Act, Oregon Death with Dignity ActA group of Oregon residents, including a doctor, a pharmacist, and several terminally ill patients, sued the United States Attorney General to challenge an interpretive ruling of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The rule, referred to as the —Ashcroft Directive,„ declared that the use of federally controlled substances to assist someone in committing suicide violates the CSA, and should not be considered a —legitimate medical purpose.„ These actions, among others, led the Oregon Health and Safety Authority (OSHA) to consider whether to issue an emergency rule prohibiting the prescribing of Schedule I drugs or prohibited the prescriber of Schedule II drugs, such as the most common Schedule I antidepressant, to receive Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in patients receiving care for suicide.‟ the federal court denied the appeal and said that the decision did not affect the decision’s applicability under the NHTSA rules.[/p]
Gonzales V OregonEssay Preview: Gonzales V OregonReport this essayGONZALES v. OREGONOral Argument: 02 -06 TermSubject: Physical activity, Ashcroft directive, Controlled Substances Act, Oregon Death with Dignity ActA group of Oregon residents, including a doctor, a pharmacist, and several terminally ill patients, sued the United States Attorney the Attorney General to challenge an interpretive ruling of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The rule, referred to as the ―Ashcroft Directive,† declared that the use of federally controlled substances to assist someone in committing suicide violates the CSA, and should not be considered a ―legitimate medical purpose.† These actions, among others, led the Oregon Health and Safety Authority (OSHA) to consider whether to issue an emergency rule prohibiting the prescribing of Schedule I drugs or prohibited the prescriber of Schedule II drugs, such as the most common Schedule I antidepressant, to receive Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in patients receiving care for suicide.‡ the federal court denied the appeal and said that the decision did not affect the decision’s applicability under the NHTSA rules.[/p]
Gonzales V OregonEssay Preview: Gonzales V OregonReport this essayGONZALES v. OREGONOral Argument: 01 -14 TermSubject: Controlled substance use, ashcroft directive, R.C.S.A., and Ashcroft directive, Controlled Substances Act, Oregon Death with Dignity ActA group of Oregon residents, including a doctor, a pharmacist, and several terminally ill patients, sued the United States Attorney general to challenge an interpretive ruling of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The rule, referred to as the †Ashcroft Directive,•
The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the USS. Supreme Court’s decision in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, which established the Controlled Substances Act as a legitimate medical procedure, in turn gave greater power at the state level to make federal pharmacists or patients take medical care of terminally ill patients. But other U.S. Supreme Court decisions in this area have included the rule for use only in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or in the primary care setting; the rule for using only in those with an elevated risk of a serious psychiatric illness; as in Oregon, for use only in patients who have a life-threatening illness, or for the death of a patient with a serious medical condition such as cancer; and, for use only, for the death of a patient who has had serious medical conditions. The Oregon Department of Public Health, in its written statement at the time of the ruling, noted that if a person’s primary care physician was prescribed a medication that was the only way to end an attempted or dangerous overdose of the medical or psychiatric drug, that “may have a potentially significant medical effect” without affecting a patient’s primary care choices.
In this case, it is likely that the [Oregon] Department of Corrections’ (OCC’s) physician-assisted suicide policy has been violated by the Oregon Department of Public Health: the Oregon Department’s ”Ashcroft Directive does not allow you to choose whether or not to attempt a lethal act of lethal self-harm. If we conclude that your decision is constitutional and should not have any substantive consequences, at least you must be free from any further ethical obligations that can result from your action. If you do not do this, or if your decision has been appealed, your right to the same due process right applies: your right to have your suffering and legal right to access the medical records of others, and the right not to suffer a legal process of death. If you can’t decide, then you have no real ability to stop the abuse the Oregon Department of Corrections is doing to you.
[…]
This case has a potential of significant consequences in every legal sense. Please understand that I have received no support from an outside legal counsel for this case or the Oregon Department of Public Health to defend the right to choose an alternative life outcome. If you have a second or third attempt to prevent a process from ending, you are entitled to this type of outcome on the basis of your legal and factual testimony, but for those efforts to prevent their completion or recovery, the Oregon Department of Public Health will not be at your expense.
On behalf of the United States Board of Nursing, I strongly urge you to fully consider the facts of this case before making the decision to terminate or terminate the Oregon Department of Public Health or anyone who has participated in such an effort to prevent a procedure that will effectively end your individual right to choose.
What do you think about this Article? What do you think about the fact that this was determined by the Washington State Department of Health? Do you think that the Washington State Department of Health has made a mistake in deciding to award the death penalty to an inmate for murder? If so, why? What is your opinion? Please send your comments, questions, or criticisms to [email protected].
Oregon State Board of Nursing
1701 NE 5th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55110
It is my belief that the Oregon Department of Public Health (OCC) failed to provide an adequate alternative to the Oregon suicide policy on the grounds that this policy, as it relates to a physician-assisted suicide program. Despite these facts and the fact that there were numerous legal issues involving this situation, OCC was able to find a federal judge or a federal judge that supported the Oregon State Board of Nursing decision and upheld the decision. The Oregon decision was based on a “guideline” to allow Oregon suicide treatment to begin upon suicide. A law that requires Oregon suicide treatment to begin shall not create any new
By writing to OCC’s Board of Health (hereafter, BHP), the Oregon Department of Public Health has said the OCC acted “in its lawful and self-regard”. As OCC stated before the ruling, “Oregon has used the ”Ashcroft Directive to try to deny individuals their due process rights.” As the Oregon Health Department’s own policy notes, “[I]t can be argued that the Oregon Controlled Substances Act allows an advocate to make decisions that are in the best interests of the individuals who are harmed by the practice. The Oregon Department has used its ‘approach’ authority to deny individuals’ right to have access to their physicians’ records while the State and state agencies are using the Oregon approach, rather than following the proper procedures and proper ethics. This is especially true since the Oregon approach provides the individual with no meaningful means to stop future harm from occurring. We believe that the Oregon approach should be upheld on the basis of reasonable and sound medical judgment.”
The practice by Oregon-affiliated legal physicians of performing oral exams for terminally ill patients as well as administering non-medical drugs has been referred
The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the USS. Supreme Court’s decision in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, which established the Controlled Substances Act as a legitimate medical procedure, in turn gave greater power at the state level to make federal pharmacists or patients take medical care of terminally ill patients. But other U.S. Supreme Court decisions in this area have included the rule for use only in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or in the primary care setting; the rule for using only in those with an elevated risk of a serious psychiatric illness; as in Oregon, for use only in patients who have a life-threatening illness, or for the death of a patient with a serious medical condition such as cancer; and, for use only, for the death of a patient who has had serious medical conditions. The Oregon Department of Public Health, in its written statement at the time of the ruling, noted that if a person’s primary care physician was prescribed a medication that was the only way to end an attempted or dangerous overdose of the medical or psychiatric drug, that “may have a potentially significant medical effect” without affecting a patient’s primary care choices.
In this case, it is likely that the [Oregon] Department of Corrections’ (OCC’s) physician-assisted suicide policy has been violated by the Oregon Department of Public Health: the Oregon Department’s ”Ashcroft Directive does not allow you to choose whether or not to attempt a lethal act of lethal self-harm. If we conclude that your decision is constitutional and should not have any substantive consequences, at least you must be free from any further ethical obligations that can result from your action. If you do not do this, or if your decision has been appealed, your right to the same due process right applies: your right to have your suffering and legal right to access the medical records of others, and the right not to suffer a legal process of death. If you can’t decide, then you have no real ability to stop the abuse the Oregon Department of Corrections is doing to you.
[…]
This case has a potential of significant consequences in every legal sense. Please understand that I have received no support from an outside legal counsel for this case or the Oregon Department of Public Health to defend the right to choose an alternative life outcome. If you have a second or third attempt to prevent a process from ending, you are entitled to this type of outcome on the basis of your legal and factual testimony, but for those efforts to prevent their completion or recovery, the Oregon Department of Public Health will not be at your expense.
On behalf of the United States Board of Nursing, I strongly urge you to fully consider the facts of this case before making the decision to terminate or terminate the Oregon Department of Public Health or anyone who has participated in such an effort to prevent a procedure that will effectively end your individual right to choose.
What do you think about this Article? What do you think about the fact that this was determined by the Washington State Department of Health? Do you think that the Washington State Department of Health has made a mistake in deciding to award the death penalty to an inmate for murder? If so, why? What is your opinion? Please send your comments, questions, or criticisms to [email protected].
Oregon State Board of Nursing
1701 NE 5th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55110
It is my belief that the Oregon Department of Public Health (OCC) failed to provide an adequate alternative to the Oregon suicide policy on the grounds that this policy, as it relates to a physician-assisted suicide program. Despite these facts and the fact that there were numerous legal issues involving this situation, OCC was able to find a federal judge or a federal judge that supported the Oregon State Board of Nursing decision and upheld the decision. The Oregon decision was based on a “guideline” to allow Oregon suicide treatment to begin upon suicide. A law that requires Oregon suicide treatment to begin shall not create any new
By writing to OCC’s Board of Health (hereafter, BHP), the Oregon Department of Public Health has said the OCC acted “in its lawful and self-regard”. As OCC stated before the ruling, “Oregon has used the ”Ashcroft Directive to try to deny individuals their due process rights.” As the Oregon Health Department’s own policy notes, “[I]t can be argued that the Oregon Controlled Substances Act allows an advocate to make decisions that are in the best interests of the individuals who are harmed by the practice. The Oregon Department has used its ‘approach’ authority to deny individuals’ right to have access to their physicians’ records while the State and state agencies are using the Oregon approach, rather than following the proper procedures and proper ethics. This is especially true since the Oregon approach provides the individual with no meaningful means to stop future harm from occurring. We believe that the Oregon approach should be upheld on the basis of reasonable and sound medical judgment.”
The practice by Oregon-affiliated legal physicians of performing oral exams for terminally ill patients as well as administering non-medical drugs has been referred
Does Oregon have the constitutional right to disregard the United States government and permit physicians to assist patient suicides with federally controlled substances (narcotics)? Or is the federal government entitled under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to prevent these federally regulated drugs from being prescribed for lethal use regardless of state law?
In my opinion, a state does not have the right to reject a federal law, especially in this case. Oregon is violating the principle of federalism by seeking to prevent the federal government from pursuing its own legitimate public policy. In the just-announced Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal government is entitled to enforce the CSAs prohibition of the use of marijuana — even though California laws permit the drug to be possessed legally for medicinal purposes and the marijuana in question was clearly being used by California residents for medicinal purposes. The federal government is entitled to enforce federal law against medical marijuana users even in the face of contrary state laws, a ruling that is clearly applicable to the assisted-suicide controversy. Being that the Court found this to be true for medical marijuana — which, after all, involves mere symptom relief — it hardly seems likely that it would reach a drastically different conclusion regarding the prescription of more potent controlled substances with the intent to kill.
