In addition to
arguments against physician-assisted dying, opponents feared that terminally ill people throughout the nation would flock to Oregon to take advantage of the law. This fear has not been realized, largely because drafters of the law limited its use to Oregon residents. Despite the measure's passage, implementation was tied up in the courts for several years. In 1997, the
Oregon Legislative Assembly referred Measure 51, which would have repealed the act, to the ballot. Proponents of Measure 51 argued that the Death with Dignity Act lacked a mandatory counseling provision, a family notification provision, strong reporting requirements, or a strong residency requirement. Measure 51 opponents argued that sending the measure back to voters was disrespectful considering they had already passed Measure 16 via the initiative process. They also felt that the safeguards in the Death with Dignity Act were adequate. Measure 51 was defeated in the November 4, 1997,
special election with 445,830 votes in favor, and 666,275 votes against. Some members of the
United States Congress, notably Senator
Don Nickles of
Oklahoma, tried to block implementation of Measure 16, but failed. In 2002, federal judge
Robert E. Jones blocked a move by
United States Attorney General John Ashcroft to suspend the license for prescribing drugs covered in the
Controlled Substances Act of doctors who prescribed life-ending medications under the Oregon law. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the block, stating that the "Attorney General lacked Congress' requisite authorization". In October 2005, the
U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of
Gonzales v. Oregon to determine the fate of the Death with Dignity law. Arguing on behalf of the state was Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson. Oregon's five
Democratic members of Congress also filed a brief in support of the State's position.
United States Solicitor General Paul Clement argued on behalf of the Bush administration, which challenged Oregon's right to regulate the practice of medicine when that practice entails prescribing federally controlled substances. On January 17, 2006, the court ruled 6–3 in favor of Oregon, upholding the law. ==See also==