REPRIEVE FOR SUICIDE LAW: LETHAL PRESCRIPTIONS CONTINUE PENDING TRIAL

Given U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's proven eagerness to curb civil
liberties, his decision to trump the twice-stated will of Oregon voters by
denying the terminally ill the right to end their lives with dignity should
have surprised absolutely no one.

Still, Ashcroft's move earlier this month to overturn Oregon's landmark
assisted suicide law was breathtaking in its timing, scope and arrogance.
That the attorney general - in the midst of a national crisis during which
he should be fully immersed in protecting this nation against biological
weapons, nuclear attacks and other acts of terrorism - found the time to
impose his own ideological views on the state of Oregon remains nothing less
than astounding.

It was heartening to learn this week that U.S. District Judge Robert E.
Jones extended for five months a restraining order that blocks Ashcroft's
order to revoke the licenses of Oregon physicians who prescribe lethal doses
of drugs to terminally ill patients. For the time being, Oregon will remain
the only state where people are allowed to end their lives using prescribed
drugs if they have taken the steps required under the state's Death with
Dignity Act - having two doctors agree that they have less than six months
to live and are mentally competent.

Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers made a convincing argument that Ashcroft
illegally reached his decision in a secretive process, allowing no public
scrutiny or comment before issuing his edict. He overstepped his authority
by having the federal government decide how doctors can practice medicine, a
responsibility that belongs to the states. He ignored the fact that Janet
Reno, his predecessor under the Clinton administration, had already set the
limits of federal power in interpreting the federal Controlled Substances
Act.

Justice Department attorneys argued that Oregon does not have the right to
allow patients to obtain lethal drugs under the Controlled Substances Act.
That overlooks Reno's previous interpretation, as well as the reality that
the federal act was intended to prevent illegal drug trafficking when it was
passed three decades ago, not to interfere with states' abilities to
regulate the practice of medicine.

When the case comes to trial early next year, Ashcroft will have a hard time
making the case for this heavy-handed, ideologically driven attempt to
interject the federal government into the life-and-death decisions of
terminally ill Oregonians.

It will be fascinating to watch government lawyers explain why the federal
government has the right to subject physicians and patients in Oregon to the
same charade that exists in other states - of prescribing high doses of pain
medications to hide intentions that are obvious to everyone.

It will also be interesting to see how Justice Department attorneys counter
the moving statements made by terminally ill Oregonians who have joined the
state in its lawsuit. They include 68-year-old Karl Stansell, who has
terminal throat cancer, has received chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and
is being fed through a tube. His doctors have informed him he has less than
six months to live as the cancer spreads through his body.

"Eventually I will be unable to swallow anything and will die in agony,"
Stansell said in a statement filed with the court.

Your response, Mr. Ashcroft.