ASHCROFT'S LATEST CRUSADE

Leaders are judged by the battles they choose to wage.

It is for that reason that Attorney General John Ashcroft's decision to
upend Oregon's death with dignity law is particularly distressing.

On two separate occasions, Oregonians have passed a referendum giving
terminal patients the right to end their lives with narcotics prescribed by
their physicians. The law requires that patients be in the last six months
of life and deemed mentally competent by two physicians. It also requires
the patients to take the drugs themselves. In the four years since the
law's passage, about 70 people have used it to end their own lives. Others
have had lethal drugs prescribed to give them the option of suicide, but
have died of their illnesses without the drugs.

Early this month, Ashcroft asked the Food and Drug Administration to revoke
the prescription-writing licenses of Oregon doctors who follow this state
law, which would put them out of business. A federal judge has issued a
restraining order against Ashcroft's policy until it can be considered in
court.

Ashcroft insists that his department wants to go after physicians who
prescribe drugs with the intent of causing death, not those who are just
trying to alleviate pain. In a life or death matter, that's a fine line for
the Justice Department to walk. The fear now is that Oregon doctors will be
reluctant to give their terminal patients the drugs they need to keep them
comfortable out of fear that the federal government will go after them.

This action is a slap not only at Oregon but at states' rights. In 1997,
the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant a constitutional right to assisted
suicide, but in that decision, the justices clearly said that states can
allow assisted suicides.

The action is also an indication that Ashcroft's priorities are all wrong.
Why he would attack this particular state law with no provocation at a time
the Justice Department has such much on its plate is a sign that he plans
not just to enforce law, but to mold it using his personal standards.

While President Bush may not be the impetus behind this decision, it will
reflect badly on his administration. He needs to redirect his attorney
general to more pressing, more legitimate and less personal matters.