According to Oregon leaders, legislators based their decision to hold a referendum after hearing Dutch statistics that one out of every four patients who request lethal medication die a lingering, bad death. Voter rationale on supporting the issue may have come from anger that their original vote was not seen as decisive.
The June Supreme Court decision emphatically stated that this issue was to be determined at the state level. Thus, There appeared to be no federal barriers to law until November 8, when the U.S. DEA issued a statement noting that Oregon's law would cause physicians to violate federal narcotics laws. A DEA Administrator commented that prescribing a controlled substance with the intent to cause death was not a "legitimate medical purpose," as required by federal law.
According to reports in The Oregonian, supporters of the law vowed to sue if the DEA moves forward with its threats. One Oregon attorney commented that the fact that voters had approved the law brings it under the "legitimate medical purpose" of the law.
Before anyone can be sure of the effect of the DEA's threats, advocates will need to see what moves are made by parties on both sides of this contentious debate. Regardless of one's position, concerns about putting the law into practice should be a predominant issue. Will the statutory safeguards be workable?
Some experts are concerned about the "terminal illness" requirement of the statute. Does that category apply only to patients who will most certainly die without treatment? Should such a wide range of individuals have the option of assisted suicide?
At this point, we can all try to act cautiously and carefully in the wake of the Oregon vote. We should press for careful monitoring and measurement of the changed practices and their effect. Oregon's voters have spoken. We must do our best to ensure that the practice for which they voted occurs carefully and within the parameters of the law.