BRZONKALA [Lopez/Morrison] and assisted suicide
gepps at LAW.UOREGON.EDU
Thu Sep 7 16:31:55 PDT 2000
I myself have wondered about the P & I implications of the residency requirement.
As the Act was passed by popular initiative, it is not clear that it had a solid
constitutional review. But of course it would need a plaintiff with
standing--probably a doctor--to challenge this part of the law.
Douglas Laycock wrote:
> I wondered about a residency requirement on assisted suicide. Thanks for
> the info. Requiring that kind of advance planning will greatly inhibit the
> interstate trade. Might draw a privileges and immunities, commerce clause,
> and right to travel challenge too. Surely Oregon could not generally
> forbid its medical providers to treat patients from out of state. Is it
> justified by Sosna v. Iowa (we don't want to be a divorce mill (or in this
> case, suicide mill))?
> At 02:55 PM 09/07/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> >Without cavil as to Professor Laycock's larger points, I must note that
> the Death
> >with Dignity Act restricts its terms to persons who have been residents of
> >for six months. Thus the travel rationale might be vitiated in this case.
> >Douglas Laycock wrote:
> >> Bryan Wildenthal says that surely Congress could not regulate
> all of
> >> medical practice or all of legal practice, although it might be different
> >> if the focus were on excessive cost or people being denied access. Both
> >> halves of this seems to me wrong. I think the practice of law and medicine
> >> is inextricable from interstate commerce, but if I am wrong about that,
> >> then it does not become interstate commerce for some purposes and not
> >> others, depending on the Congressional policy goal. Lack of access to
> >> services Congress approves is no more national than access to services
> >> Congress disapproves.
> >> The actual impact on interstate commerce will be greatest for those
> >> services so important that people are willing to travel for them. People
> >> travel to big cities, often across state lines, for scarce specialties.
> >> People would travel to Oregon if it were the only state to permit assisted
> >> suicide. Other states, unable to prohibit advertising of what was
> >> available in Oregon, might well feel that Oregon was imposing its policy on
> >> the whole nation. One may conclude that Oregon's interest outweighs the
> >> federal interest, but it seems plainly wrong to say there is no federal
> >> interest.
> >> Lawyers may be an even easier case. Lots of law firms operate
> >> and have offices in many cities. Lots of lawyers practice in multiple
> >> states. Lots of lawyers who practice in only one state represent clients
> >> from other states. Much of what lawyers do is to facilitate, litigate, or
> >> untangle transactions in interstate commerce. Probably there are sound
> >> policy reasons for Congress not to interfere with state court procedural
> >> rules. But it is simply mistaken to say that lawyers are not engaged in
> >> interstate commerce.
> >> Douglas Laycock
> >> University of Texas Law School
> >> 727 E. Dean Keeton St.
> >> Austin, TX 78705
> >> 512-232-1341 (phone)
> >> 512-471-6988 (fax)
> >> dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu
> >Garrett Epps
> >Associate Professor
> >University of Oregon School of Law
> >357 Knight Law Center
> >1221 University of Oregon
> >Eugene OR 97403
> >PHONE: (541) 346-1578
> > FAX: (541) 346-1564
> >gepps at law.uoregon.edu
> >Trouble sleeping? Try my latest works:
> Douglas Laycock
> University of Texas Law School
> 727 E. Dean Keeton St.
> Austin, TX 78705
> 512-232-1341 (phone)
> 512-471-6988 (fax)
> dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu
University of Oregon School of Law
357 Knight Law Center
1221 University of Oregon
Eugene OR 97403
PHONE: (541) 346-1578
FAX: (541) 346-1564
gepps at law.uoregon.edu
Trouble sleeping? Try my latest works:
More information about the Conlawprof