To live or not to live: that is the questionTerminal illnesses affect many people every year. Some patients simply cannot stand the pain. In 1994, Oregon passed the Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) which allowed doctors to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients with only 6 months to live; This is called physician-assisted suicide. The DWDA consists of a list of procedures that a patient must undergo to qualify for assisted suicide. Once the patient meets all requirements, they receive the lethal doses and die before the estimated time of death, which is six months. However, in 1970, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was passed to regulate drugs. The CSA has classified controlled substances into five different categories, with Schedule 1 being the worst substances. United States Attorney General John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that Oregon's DWDA violated the CSA, and Ashcroft threatened to revoke medical licenses if assisted suicide was practiced. The big question is whether Ashcroft has the authority to declare that the DWDA violated the CSA, whether state law can undermine federal law, and whether the law can deprive a human being of the right to life. The Oregon District Court issued an injunction against Ashcroft and in favor of Oregon. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of Oregon, but for different reasons than the district court. The majority opinion did not think the law gave Ashcroft the authority to overturn how Oregon determined the appropriate use of drugs that were not themselves banned. The minority opinion argued that the decision went against the reasoning of Gonzales v. Raich and thus the Sup... ... middle of paper ...... speaks for itself. Schiavo's husband filed a motion to remove the feeding tube, but Schiavo's parents argued that she was conscious. The case was settled by a previous case like Cruzan v. Missouri which debated whether or not the due process clause allowed "Crusan's parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment on behalf of their daughter" (hear). The Cruzan case was decided 5-4 in favor of Missouri because "under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise these rights" (hey). This decision affected the Schiavo case because Schiavo's parents and husband argued over whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to die or not. The final decision in Schiavo's case was to remove the feeding tube because Terri Schiavo was able to communicate her wish to discontinue treatment. The Supreme Court upheld her decision because she has the right to refuse treatment..