ACS is pleased to distribute an issue brief by Kathryn L. Tucker, Director of Legal Affairs, Compassion & Choices, and Affiliate Professor of Law, Lewis and Clark School of Law, entitled Choice at the End of Life: Lessons from Oregon. In this issue brief, Tucker describes Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, the only law in the nation that legalizes assistance in dying for terminally ill patients, and she evaluates Oregon’s experience under the law for the decade it has been in effect. Tucker explains that the Oregon law empowers terminally ill, mentally competent adult Oregonians to control the timing and manner of death, subject to careful procedures, by obtaining from the attending physician a prescription for medication that will hasten death. It is particularly timely to draw lessons from Oregon’s experience, she contends, because a wealth of information is now available about the law’s implementation and because a measure virtually identical to Oregon’s law is slated to appear on the ballot this November in Washington State. The author’s conclusion, based on her review and analysis of the Oregon data, is that it has harmed no one and has benefited both the relatively few patients in extremis who make use of it and a great many more who draw comfort from knowing this option is available. She urges citizens of other states across the country to heed the lessons of Oregon and show the same compassion Oregon has shown to terminally ill, competent patients who wish to end their suffering.

ACS is pleased to distribute an Issue Brief by Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, entitled “On Secrecy and Transparency: Thoughts for Congress and a New Administration.” In this Issue Brief, Professor Stone examines government secrecy and transparency against the backdrop of the actions of President George W. Bush’s Administration in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. As Professor Stone explains, “[t]o achieve an unprecedented level of secrecy, the Bush Administration has promulgated secret policies, narrowly interpreted the Freedom of Information Act, broadly interpreted its power to classify government documents, closed deportation proceedings from public view, redacted vast quantities of ‘sensitive’ information from government documents and websites, fired and otherwise punished government whistleblowers, jailed journalists for refusing to disclose confidential sources, threatened to prosecute the press for publishing confidential information, and aggressively invoked both executive immunity and the state secrets doctrine.” Professor Stone considers valid national security concerns that compel government secrecy, but weighs them against concerns that compel transparency, such as the need in a democracy for citizens to know what their representatives are doing and be able to hold them politically accountable. He reminds readers that “[a]lthough the danger to the United States is quite real and not to be underestimated, so too is the danger of an overly aggressive insistence on secrecy.” Evaluating complicated competing interests, Professor Stone considers solutions and concludes with recommendations, including: (1) curbing the authority of the executive to classify information solely because its disclosure has the potential to harm national security; (2) providing greater protection for national security whistleblowers, with express protection for public employees who disclose unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful government actions; (3) clarifying and limiting the use of the state secrets privilege; and (4) establishing a qualified journalist-source privilege.