FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE	AG

FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1998                                                                                                                                       (202) 514-2008

                                                                                                                                                                                  TDD (202) 514-1888




STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO ON OREGON'S


DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT








	The Department has conducted a thorough and careful review of
the issue of whether the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) authorizes
adverse action against a physician who prescribes a controlled
substance to assist in a suicide in compliance with Oregon's "Death
With Dignity Act."  We have concluded that adverse action against
a physician who has assisted in a suicide in full compliance with
the Oregon Act would not be authorized by the CSA.




	The Oregon Act was approved by Oregon voters on November 8,
1994, and went into effect on October 27, 1997.  The Act provides
for a detailed procedure by which a mentally competent, terminally
ill patient may request to end his or her life "in a humane and
dignified manner."  The procedure requires, for example, that the
patient's competence and the voluntariness of the request be
documented in writing and confirmed by two witnesses, that the
patient's illness and competence and the voluntariness of the
request be confirmed by a second physician, and that the physician
and patient observe certain waiting periods.  Once a request has
been properly documented and the requisite waiting periods have
expired, the patient's attending physician may prescribe, but not
administer, medication to enable the patient to take his or her own
life.  As a matter of state law, physicians acting in accordance
with the Oregon Act are immune from liability as well as any
adverse disciplinary action for having rendered such assistance.




	The CSA is a complex regulatory scheme that controls the
authorized distribution of scheduled drugs.  Physicians, for
example, are authorized to prescribe and distribute scheduled drugs
only pursuant to their registration with the DEA, and the
unauthorized distribution of drugs is generally subject to criminal
and administrative action.  The relevant provisions of the CSA
provide criminal penalties for physicians who dispense controlled
substances beyond "the course of professional practice," and
provide for revocation of the DEA drug registrations of physicians
who have engaged either in such criminal conduct or in other
"conduct which may threaten the public health and safety."  Because
these terms are not further defined by the statute, we must look to
the purpose of the CSA to understand their scope.







	The CSA was intended to keep legally available controlled
substances within lawful channels of distribution and use.  It
sought to prevent both the trafficking in these substances for
unauthorized purposes and drug abuse.  The particular drug abuse
that Congress intended to prevent was that deriving from the drug's
"stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central
nervous system." 




	There is no evidence that Congress, in the CSA, intended to
displace the states as the primary regulators of the medical
profession, or to override a state's determination as to what
constitutes legitimate medical practice in the absence of a federal
law prohibiting that practice.  Indeed, the CSA is essentially
silent with regard to regulating the practice of medicine that
involves legally available drugs except for certain specific
regulations dealing with the treatment of addicts.




	The state of Oregon has reached the considered judgment that
physician-assisted suicide should be authorized under narrow
conditions and in compliance with certain detailed procedures. 
Under these circumstances, we have concluded that the CSA does not
authorize DEA to prosecute, or to revoke the DEA registration of,
a physician who has assisted in a suicide in compliance with Oregon
law.  We emphasize that our conclusion is limited to these
particular circumstances.  Adverse action under the CSA may well be
warranted in other circumstances:  for example, where a physician
assists in a suicide in a state that has not authorized the
practice under any conditions, or where a physician fails to comply
with state procedures in doing so.  However, the federal
government's pursuit of adverse actions against Oregon physicians
who fully comply with that state's Death with Dignity Act would be
beyond the purpose of the CSA.




	Finally, notwithstanding our interpretation of the CSA as it
applies to the Oregon Act, it is important to underscore that the
President continues to maintain his longstanding position against
assisted suicide and any Federal support for that procedure.  This
position was recently codified when he signed the Assisted Suicide
Funding Restriction Act last year.  While states ordinarily have
primary responsibility for regulating physicians, the President and
the Administration nonetheless remain open to working with
interested members of Congress on this complex but extremely
important issue.




###






98-259