As several states, most notably Arizona pass more restrictive abortion laws there is a lot of ire from the pro-choice side about reduction of access and impediments placed in front of women seeking to end a pregnancy. And certainly several of the last major challenges to abortion laws were all about which restrictions violated the Roe test and then the undue burden standard. For example, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 39 states require a physician perform the procedure; 21 require a hospital stay; 17 mandate counseling; and 26 require waiting periods between counseling and the procedure. Interest groups expend significant amounts of money challenging and protecting these restrictions in court, in the state and federal legislatures, and in public opinion. Judges then apply the undue burden test as outlined in Planned Parenthood of SE PA v. Casey505 US 833 (1992).
What I find interesting is the similarities between the restrictions enacted in these new laws and Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. Under this law you cannot make use of it unless you have reached majority (18) and you are a resident of Oregon; you must have a diagnosis from two different physicians and they must agree that you have six months or less left of life. Doctors must discuss all other options with the patient and request notification of the family of the request. The patient must make two oral requests for the medication and these requests must be at least 15 days apart. Afterwards, the patient must make a written request with two witnesses. These witnesses cannot be family, beneficiaries, or medical personnel that treat the patient. The doctors must agree that the patient is capable of making appropriate medical decisions. The patient must wait 48 hours (2 days) after the written request to receive the prescription. The doctor must mail or personally deliver the prescription to the pharmacy. Finally, the doctor must contact the state health and human services department. In other words, the Death with Dignity Act creates similar if not more significant hurdles for those wishing to undergo the procedure than the new abortion laws coming out of some states.
In Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that the use of the Controlled Substances Act to prosecute doctors prescribing the lethal doses under the Death With Dignity Act is beyond the Attorney General’s powers. In essence, it was a question of federalism and state’s rights won the day. The states retain their police power over the health (and delivery of health care) within their borders. Therefore, the Death with Dignity Act withstood the challenge and remains good law.
Again, the constitutional question in Gonzalez focused on federal versus state powers, but the substance of the act dealt with the right to die. Often when we consider issues under the rubric of the ‘right to die’, the case is connected to the right to privacy (i.e. Cruzan v. Director, MO DOH 497 US 26 (1990) or WA v. Glucksberg 521 US 702 (1997)). A question that remains is does the Death with Dignity Act pass the undue burden test? If physician’s assisted suicide is covered under the umbrella of the right to privacy can the states (OR and WA) place these significant obstacles in front of the terminal patient?
 Granted, if the Death with Dignity Act was deemed unconstitutional under this hypothetical it would suggest that there can be physician’s assisted suicide on demand. But the application of the undue burden test to the strictures of the Death with Dignity Act seems like a good test of student understanding of the privacy material.