On January 17 of this year, the Supreme Court rejected the Attorney General's arguments that the Supreme Court should rule state laws allowing euthanasia unconstitutional. The AG specifically argued that the U. S. government had the right to not allow physicians to prescribe controlled substances for the purpose of euthanasia. The Supreme Court rules, based on the doctrine of states' rights, or that individual states control some laws for their citizens while the federal government controls others, ruled that the Federal government did not have the authority to interfere with Oregon's law. This ruling did not judge the issue of euthanasia. It was based on law governing the distribution of drugs considered controlled substances. .

             People who hold strong religious beliefs object to euthanasia because they believe that when a person dies should be God's decision alone. Some of these critics decry the increasing influence of science over religion (Almond, 1996), noting that euthanasia, for example as described by the Oregon law, is a practice that requires the cooperation of medical personnel to support death instead of life. In the United States this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Attorney General's efforts to get Oregon's euthanasia law overturned was backed by a number of religious groups (Hoffman). However, the United States Constitution requires that our governing bodies do not pass laws based on religious beliefs. In the United States, the rightness or wrongness of euthanasia based on religious reasons must be an individual decision, not one made by society in the form of laws. .

             Another argument against euthanasia is based on the possibility of financial motivations entering into the decision of whether a person should live or die. These critics note that medical science has made dramatic gains in its ability to sustain or save lives, but that these medical interventions are often extremely expensive.