ASHCROFT'S GOING AFTER WRONG 'ENEMY'

Let me see if I have this straight: We have terrorists on the loose,
anthrax wafting through the mail and the Justice Department is in hot
pursuit of terminally ill patients?

We have another plane crash to investigate, a network of foreign "sleepers"
apparently eluding the FBI, and Attorney General John Ashcroft is taking
aim at the state of Oregon?

What's going on here? The rest of us are worried about suicide bombers, and
he's worried about doctor-assisted suicide.

It was bizarre enough last month when federal officers began a crackdown on
cannabis clubs in California that provide medical marijuana to AIDS and
cancer patients. I chalked that up to reefer madness.

Then Ashcroft, using the same legal ploy, decided to go after an Oregon law
that permits and regulates assisted suicide. He issued a blunt directive to
the Drug Enforcement Administration that doctors would lose their licenses
to prescribe federally controlled drugs if they prescribed them for
assisted suicides. Doctors obeying the state law would be breaking federal law.

Assisted suicide has been on the national agenda since Jack Kevorkian used
carbon monoxide on his first patient. He jump-started a passionate argument
about the right to die and a deep conversation about the need for
compassionate care at the end of life.

Oregon was the first state to pass a careful law allowing doctors to
provide, though not administer, a lethal prescription to patients with less
than six months to live who wanted the drugs and were judged capable of
making that choice. Voters passed the referendum in 1994 and again by a
wider margin in 1997. Since then, only 70 Oregonians have chosen assisted
suicide. But more have found comfort in having the option.

Now it appears that elections make little impression on Ashcroft. After
all, the former U.S. senator lost one in 2000, only to gain a Cabinet seat
for his conservative views.

Remember back in 1997 when the Supreme Court ruled that there wasn't any
right to die in the Constitution but encouraged state experiments? In Chief
Justice William Rehnquist's words, "Our holding permits this debate to
continue as it should in a democratic society."

But the attorney general ordered the DEA to do what Congress, the courts
and the voters didn't. A group of doctors and patients have won a temporary
injunction, but the whole mess goes to court Tuesday.

Ashcroft is not the only opponent of assisted suicide who frames it as a
"pro-life" issue. But there is something particularly perverse in applying
"pro-life" politics and "rescue" rhetoric to patients who are dying.

Richard Holmes, one of the patients in the suit, told a reporter, "I'd love
to stay alive. But I've also had enough medical diagnosis to know this,
that my days are numbered." Near the end of a long battle with liver
cancer, he wants to be able to choose that number.

Of course, no one needs a barbiturate to end his life. "I could do myself
in a lot of other ways. I've got three guns in the house," he says.

But isn't this where we came in?

Scare tactics will not only frighten doctors away from prescribing drugs
for patients considering suicide. It will also frighten doctors from giving
patients an alternative: enough painkillers to make their last days bearable.

In his order, Ashcroft writes blithely, confidently, that there are
"distinctions between intentionally causing a patient's death and providing
sufficient dosages of pain medication necessary to eliminate or alleviate
pain."

But that is not nearly as clear to doctors who use, say, morphine in a
delicate balance between relieving pain and hastening death. As we lie
dying, do we want our doctors worrying that DEA agents are counting how
many painkillers make a criminal?

Every study will tell you that dying patients are more terrified of pain
than death. Surely the attorney general of the United States should be
fighting terror, not promoting it.

Goodman is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Boston Globe.