Attorney General Ashcroft Case Study

495 Words2 Pages
Attorney General Ashcroft does not have the legal right to threaten physicians with revoking their license since, only seven years before Oregon passed the Act which allowed to assist their patients in death. Some may believe that the Attorney General took his personal and moral opinion to work, where he could change law to his preference. The District court agreed with the statement above, therefore, they concluded that Attorney General Ashcroft did not have the authority to override a state 's decision regarding what is or is not a "legitimate medical practice" and that Ashcroft exceeded his authority under the CSA. In July 2005, Oregon v. Ashcroft changes to Gonzales v. Oregon. Alberto Gonzales, the new Attorney General, much like his predecessor (Ashcroft) also believes that Congress did clearly intended to give the Attorney General the power to invalidate the Oregon Act. Attorney General…show more content…
In the Baxter v. Montana case, the Plaintiffs ' statement was that the right to assisted death is based on three of the explicit rights in the Montana Constitution; equal protection, personal dignity, and individual privacy. The right to privacy and equal protection are also in the U.S. Constitution, therefore, Mr. Baxter should be able to do as he pleases in the privacy of his own home. The state denying Baxter these natural rights, brings up more issues besides the right to die. More importantly, it was also clear that throughout the case Mr. Baxter was diagnosed with lymphocytic leukemia and was terminally ill. The District Court of the First Judicial District agreed and held that a competent, terminally ill patient has a right to die with dignity and appealed the case. Sadly, Baxter died before the case was decided on. Now this case has gone to a higher court where The Montana Supreme Court stated

More about Attorney General Ashcroft Case Study

Open Document