FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 354:1079-1084 March 9, 2006 Number 10 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Interview Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Oregon to reject the U.S. attorney general's authority to prohibit physicians in Oregon from prescribing Schedule II drugs for their terminally ill patients to commit suicide can seem paradoxical and confusing.¹ How is it that California cannot permit the patients of physicians who recommend marijuana, a Schedule I drug, to possess legally and use marijuana that they may need to survive, but Oregon can legally permit physicians to prescribe Schedule II drugs and patients to possess and use such drugs to end their lives?

The key to the answer lies in distinguishing . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The Controlled Substances Act

Statutory Interpretation

A Legitimate Medical Practice?

Justice Scalia's Dissent

The Role of Physicians

National Standards of Medical Practice

Source Information

From the Department of Health Law, Bioethics, and Human Rights, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston.

An interview with Professor Annas can be heard at www.nejm.org.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Legant, P. (2006). Oncologists and Medical Malpractice. J Oncol Pract 2: 164-169 [Full Text]