## Facts

- Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 16, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, authorizing physician-assisted suicide for competent, terminally ill adult Oregon residents under specified procedures.
- The Act limited eligibility to persons diagnosed with a terminal disease expected to lead to death within six months and required multiple requests, waiting periods, and confirmation by a consulting physician.
- The Act provided criminal and civil immunity for physicians and others who complied with its terms, while Oregon generally criminalized aiding or soliciting suicide outside the Act’s framework.
- Plaintiffs included physicians suing on behalf of patients, terminally ill individuals (including putative class representatives), and nursing-home and residential care operators.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Act exposed terminally ill persons—particularly those with disabilities or in institutional settings—to elevated risks of mistake, coercion, depression-related impairment, and diagnostic or prognostic error.
- Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Act from taking effect while its constitutionality was litigated.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of an Equal Protection Clause challenge based on the Act’s differential treatment of terminally ill persons regarding protection from assisted suicide.
2. Whether plaintiffs established irreparable harm, a balance of hardships favoring relief, and that an injunction would serve the public interest.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court enjoined Oregon and relevant officials from enforcing the Oregon Death with Dignity Act pending further proceedings.
- The court found plaintiffs raised serious questions and, in significant part, demonstrated a likelihood of success on their equal protection theory.
- The court held the risk of irreversible loss of life constituted irreparable harm and that maintaining the status quo favored the balance of hardships and public interest.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction may issue where plaintiffs show likely success on the merits or, under the applicable standard, serious questions going to the merits combined with a balance of hardships sharply favoring relief, along with irreparable harm and consistency with the public interest.
- Equal protection analysis applies when a law creates a classification that treats one group differently from others with respect to legal protections; a state must provide an adequate justification for selectively withdrawing protections from a defined class.
- Where the challenged law authorizes conduct that may result in irreversible harm, courts may give substantial weight to preserving the status quo pending final constitutional review.

## Conclusion

The court temporarily blocked enforcement of Oregon’s physician-assisted-suicide statute, concluding that the Act’s selective removal of ordinary criminal-law protections for the terminally ill raised serious equal protection concerns and that the potential for irreversible harm warranted maintaining existing prohibitions while the constitutional questions were resolved.


Lee v. State, 869 F. Supp. 1491 (D. Or. 1994)