To live or not to live: that is the question Terminal illnesses affect many people every year. Some patients simply cannot bear the pain. In 1994, Oregon passed the Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) which authorized doctors to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients with only 6 months to live; this is referred to as physician-assisted suicide. The DWDA consists of a list of procedures that a patient must undergo to receive assisted suicide. Once the patient has met all the requirements, he or she is given the lethal doses and dies before the previously estimated date of death of 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 Table 1 representing the worst substances. U.S. 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 overall question is whether Ashcroft has the power to declare that the DWDA violated the CSA, whether state law can undermine federal law, and whether the law can take away a human being's 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 statute gave Ashcroft the authority to override how Oregon determined the appropriate use of drugs that were not themselves prohibited. The minority opinion held that the ruling went against the reasoning in Gonzales v Raich and therefore 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 resolved by previous cases such as the Cruzan v Missouri case which discussed whether or not the Due Process clause allowed “Cruzan parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment on behalf of their daughter” (oyez). The Cruzan case was ruled 5-4 in Missouri's favor because “under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were unable to exercise those rights” (oyez). This ruling affected the Schiavo case because Schiavo's parents and husband debated whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to die or not. The final decision in the Schiavo case was to remove the feeding tube because Terri Schiavo was able to communicate her desire to stop treatment. The Supreme Court upheld his decision as it is his right to refuse treatment.