Sometimes the United States Supreme Court must dive into a controversy that has implications beyond the actual facts and issues in the case. In such situ ations, the court may decide a case on what seems to be a narrow legal technica l ity, but which is actually a major policy shift that will shape the future of ge n erations to come . A case in point is the dispute in Gonzales, Attorney General v. Oregon. This controversy started when the citizens of Oregon authorized the establishment of a radical new measure legalizing physician-assisted suicide. The unconventional measure, which had been dubbed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODWDA), protected physicians from prosecution under criminal law and from litigation under civil law, for prescribing drugs for terminally ill patients who wished to commit suicide. So far so good. The problem arose b e cause the drugs that would have been prescribed under the law were listed on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and are thus subject to federal scrutiny. The situation was, in fact, scrutinized by the United States attorney general (AG), who issued an interpretive ruling that stated that any physician who pr e scribed such drugs under the authority of the act and with the intent to have those drugs used for suicide could lose his or her license to practice medicine. The attorney general reasoned that drugs controlled by the CSA were to be used only for legitimate medical purposes and suicide is not a legitimate med i cal purpose. Moreover, such activities were deemed by the AG to be “inconsi s tent with the public interest.” A lawsuit was filed by several interested parties in the federal district court in Oregon which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and which then enjoined the AG from enforcing his interpretation of the CSA. The appeals court agreed. The AG filed an appeal which ended up in the United States Supreme Court. Now 16 years earlier in another case, this one a ground-breaker known as Cruzon v. Director, Missouri Department of Health 110 S.Ct . 2841 (1990), the Supreme Court had ruled that the right to die was constitutionally preserved by the Due Process Clause. Consequently, it had little problem in this case telling the attorney general to, in effect, “mind his own bus i ness.” The CSA is supposed to stop physicians from trafficking in illegal drugs. It is not supposed to give the federal government the power to police a state’s authority to regulate the practice of medicine. Consequently, the AG clearly overstepped his authority when he tried to short circuit the Oregon law. [See Gonzales, Attorney General v.
Oregon, 126 S.Ct . 904 (United States Supreme Court).]

Question 

1. What is the central issue in this case? Explain.
2. In what way does the central issue not reflect the real issue in the case? Explain.
3. In what way might the court’s previous ruling in the Cruzon case have a f fected the decision making in this case? Explain.
4. How might this case affect advanced directives and living wills? Explain.
5. How might this case affect future generations? Explain.