Oregon's Measure 16 Declared Unconstitutional
A federal district judge of Oregon declared on 3 August 1995 that Oregon's Measure 16, legalizing physician-assisted suicide, is unconstitutional.[1]
Measure 16 had been approved by a 51 to 49 percent majority of the popular vote during the 1994 federal election. It allowed physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medication to competent, adult patients whose life expectancy is less than six months. Procedural safeguards were built in to avoid abuses and ensure choice:
• the patient had to produce one written and two oral requests;
• the written request had to be signed by two witnesses;
• waiting periods of 15 days from the first oral request and 48 hours from the written request had to be respected; and
• treating physicians had to refer patients who were depressed or suffering from another psychological disorder to a specialist.
Oregon Measure 16 never entered into effect as a result of a preliminary injunction, granted by the same court some months ago. Some terminally ill patients with histories of depression, including one patient with AIDS, claimed that the measure violated the constitutional Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the US Constitution and the American with Disabilities Act and that it infringed on the freedoms of association and exercise of religion. In relation to the Equal Protection clause, they argued that, as terminally ill patients, they were not as well-protected against suicide as other people in the state. Judge Hogan, who dealt only with the Equal Protection Clause, ruled that the measure arbitrarily "withholds from terminally ill citizens the same protection from suicide the majority enjoys." He stressed that a treating physician was not qualified to evaluate potential mental impairments of suicide applicants. "With state-sanctioned and physician assisted death at issue," the judge warned, "some 'good results' cannot outweigh other lives lost due to unconstitutional errors and abuses."
- Trudo Lemmens
Top of this page
Return to Table of Contents
Return to Home Page
ENDNOTE
[1] Lee v Oregon [Civ No 94-6467-HO] 1995 WL 471792; 471797 (D Or).