National Medical Board

Jacob Sullum | February 23, 2005

Yesterday the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Bush administration's appeal of a decision that barred it from overriding Oregon's assisted-suicide law. Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the Controlled Substances Act does not authorize the Drug Enforcement Administration to revoke the federal prescription licenses of doctors who help patients obtain drugs with which to kill themselves. It said "the attorney general's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide and far exceeds the scope of his authority under federal law."

Like Ashcroft v. Raich, the medical marijuana case the Court heard last fall, this is a situation where the supposedly conservative Bush administration has abandoned federalist principles because it does not like state policy choices. Also like Raich, it raises the question of whether and to what extent the DEA will continue to use the Controlled Substances Act as a pretext to regulate the practice of medicine. In addition to declaring that marijuana and suicide are outside the proper scope of medicine, even when state law says otherwise, the DEA in effect decides who should receive narcotic painkillers for what purposes, in which doses, and for how long. If the courts do not rein it in, what (aside from manpower constraints) is to stop the DEA from scrutinizing every prescription decision involving a controlled substance and deciding on that basis which doctors should be allowed to continue practicing medicine?

Comments

|2.23.05 @ 9:40AM|#

This will be an extremely interesting decision.

sage|2.23.05 @ 10:02AM|#

Gee, I wonder how they are going to rule. I have a hunch it will be against doctors and patients.

Warren|2.23.05 @ 10:32AM|#

...the supposedly conservative Bush administration has abandoned federalist principles

What the fuck are you talking about? The Bush administration was "supposedly conservative" in 2000. Since 9/11, the administration has been openly and unquestionably neoconservative. Furthermore, Bush never "abandoned" federalist principals because he never had any to begin with. Bush may be opposed to other people (especially Democrats) imposing their twisted, self-serving values on 'the people' (especially the fundamentalist red-state people), but he has always believed that he was chosen by the Almighty Himself to ensure that "his will be done" upon all humanity.

|2.23.05 @ 10:43AM|#

he has always believed that he was chosen by the Almighty Himself to ensure that "his will be done" upon all humanity

I hope that wasn't written to make me feel better!

|2.23.05 @ 11:28AM|#

"Bush never "abandoned" federalist principals because he never had any to begin with"

Yeah, this struck me as a bit tongue-in-cheek. Um, someone explain to me what federalist principles Bush has stuck by?

Ahem, "principles" is not the same thing as "platform". Talking like a libertarian doesn't make you a principled libertarian.

As for the whole "federalism" ruse, there's never anything "principled" when it comes to the two major parties embracing federalism. It's never about principles, it's about pragmatism. When the party in power tries to force its will on the states, and that will conflicts with the pragmatic desires of the other party, then that other party embraces federalism because they don't want that will forced upon them. However, once they're the ones doing the forcing, then the "federalism" ruse gets left in the dust on the side of the road. It's a convenient excuse to stop the other side from gaining ground---it isn't and never was about "principles".

For example, when's the last time the right discovered its "small government, federalist" roots? When the dems were in power. And now that the repubs are in power, the dems are whispering about their "jeffersonian roots". This is not coincidence.

Statism is fine and dandy, as long as you're the one making the rules.

|2.23.05 @ 11:33AM|#

Um, yeah, as for the actual topic of this thread: it's been said before, but I am forced to restate it for the idiots in DC: if we are supposedly a nation built on the principles of property rights, then how can we not own the most personal thing in my world, my own body? If I don't have dominion over my own life and death, then what am I but a total ward of the state?

|2.23.05 @ 11:39AM|#

DEATH PENALTY FOR SUICIDE ATTEMPTS!!!!

|2.23.05 @ 12:41PM|#

hurry up and secede oregon.. were all waiting.

|2.23.05 @ 12:47PM|#

Maybe I'm just ignorant of supreme court procedures, but how long is it going to be before we hear their diktat on Raitch v. Ashcroft? It sort disappeared off the radar and I'm still interested.

|2.23.05 @ 2:58PM|#

"Bush never "abandoned" federalist principals because he never had any to begin with"

Warren and Evan, Gov. Bush abandoned his federalist principals when he changed his name to President Bush. Its all about how much power one thinks he has.

I am looking forward to this decision myself. Hopefully, the constitution wins!

|2.23.05 @ 3:05PM|#

Lord Duppy,

The court hears cases in the fall and winter and releases its opinions in the spring.