The Supreme Court’s decision to re-evaluate Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act has thrown the issue of physician-assisted suicide back into the national spotlight. The Bush administration’s allegation that the act violates the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1969 only skims the surface of the deeper issue upon which the Court will rule. In Gonzales vs. Oregon, the Supreme Court will opine on the federal government’s right to regulate physician-assisted suicide within individual states, and more importantly, the medical community.

The CSA is a consolidation of numerous laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, and other chemicals and intends to prevent the abuse of such substances. The Bush administration’s application of the CSA contradicts the long-held view of the Clinton administration that the federal government will not displace the state as primary regulator of the medical profession. Although the Court has previously ruled that the Constitution does not afford patients a fundamental right to assisted suicide, the question of who should have ultimate say on its morality and use remains of utmost importance. Instead of fostering an environment for productive and noteworthy discussion on this question, the Bush administration is trying to impose its own moral agenda by augmenting federal control.

The debate about physician-assisted suicide ultimately boils down to whether prescribing a large dose of lethal medicine for an assisted suicide constitutes a “legitimate medical purpose.” But what constitutes a “legitimate medical purpose” for prescribing a large dose of a lethal medicine? While this question can be best answered by medical ethicists, the US government has hijacked this question from the medical profession, allowing lawyers and legislators to set guidelines that would be best handled by medical professionals.

From the physician’s point of view, the value of physician-assisted suicide hinges mainly on the physician’s responsibility to provide medical care as he or she sees fit. While each physician takes the Hippocratic Oath upon graduating from medical school, the promise to “do no harm” finds different interpretations. For some physicians, such an oath means that a physician should never take a life. However, for many others, the oath means that a physician should do anything in his or her power to relieve a patient’s suffering, which would include cutting short an otherwise prolonged terminal illness

The debate is further muddled by the fact that the medical community does not unite under one Hippocratic Oath. Indeed, the graduating class of every medical school in the country drafts its own oath, and those of the most prominent medical schools are archived on the American Medical Association’s website, each containing varied wording with completely different implications.

Though these incongruities may seem disconcerting, discrepancies within the medical profession are a vital part of the community’s growth. As both technology and medical knowledge have advanced, the medical community has adjusted its definitions of right and wrong accordingly. It is precisely these disagreements within the medical community that allow for eventual acceptance or rejection of a viewpoint or practice. There was a time when it was considered immoral for a physician to examine a corpse or amputate a limb. Indeed, the original Hippocratic Oath forbids the use of a knife on a patient. However, the medical community has managed to come to a consensus about issues like autopsies, amputation, and surgery without government regulation.

The medical community must come to its own consensus about whether or not it will accept the practice of physician-assisted suicide. And if its longstanding history is any indication, given time, it will do it on its own. The Supreme Court’s decision may legally remove the debate from within the medical community, but it is not in keeping with the responsibility and respect with which our society’s physicians have traditionally been endowed. A decision on the acceptance or rejection of physician-assisted suicide cannot stem from one administration’s effort to establish its moral position on an issue. Rather, that consensus must be based on the personal comfort and knowledge of the physicians that serve as the keeper of a society’s health. In addition to eliminating physician-assisted suicide in the U.S, the Bush administration’s case, if it succeeds, will curb the autonomy of the medical community, risking the loss of growth and diversity in the process of healing.