Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 127.800 (2026)

§1.01. Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

127.800 §1.01. Definitions. The following words and phrases, whenever used in ORS 127.800 to 127.897, have the following meanings:

(1) “Adult” means an individual who is 18 years of age or older.

(2) “Attending physician” means the physician who has primary responsibility for the care of the patient and treatment of the patient’s terminal disease.

(3) “Capable” means that in the opinion of a court or in the opinion of the patient’s attending physician or consulting physician, psychiatrist or psychologist, a patient has the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to health care providers, including communication through persons familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating if those persons are available.

(4) “Consulting physician” means a physician who is qualified by specialty or experience to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis regarding the patient’s disease.

(5) “Counseling” means one or more consultations as necessary between a state licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and a patient for the purpose of determining that the patient is capable and not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment.

(6) “Health care provider” means a person licensed, certified or otherwise authorized or permitted by the law of this state to administer health care or dispense medication in the ordinary course of business or practice of a profession, and includes a health care facility.

(7) “Informed decision” means a decision by a qualified patient, to request and obtain a prescription to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, that is based on an appreciation of the relevant facts and after being fully informed by the attending physician of:

(a) His or her medical diagnosis;

(b) His or her prognosis;

(d) The probable result of taking the medication to be prescribed; and

(e) The feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control.

(8) “Medically confirmed” means the medical opinion of the attending physician has been confirmed by a consulting physician who has examined the patient and the patient’s relevant medical records.

(9) “Patient” means a person who is under the care of a physician.

(10) “Physician” means a doctor licensed to practice medicine under ORS 677.100 to 677.228.

(11) “Qualified patient” means a capable adult who has satisfied the requirements of ORS 127.800 to 127.897 in order to obtain a prescription for medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.

(12) “Terminal disease” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months. [1995 c.3 §1.01; 1999 c.423 §1; 2017 c.409 §3; 2023 c.241 §1]

(Written Request for Medication to

End One’s Life in a

Humane and Dignified Manner)

(Section 2)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases, 1997–2019 · leading case: Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). · cites it 4× “, Ore. Rev. Stat. § 127.800 et seq. (Supp. 1996); App.”

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). · cites it 2× “Ore. Rev. Stat. § 127.800 et seq. (2003).”

People v. Amezcua & Flores, 434 P.3d 1121 (Cal. 2019). “, Or. Rev. Stat. § 127.800 et seq. ; Tex. Health & Saf.”

Morris v. Brandenburg, 2015 NMCA 100 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “Morris and Mangalik provide medical care to mentally competent, terminally ill adults who have expressed interest in what Plaintiffs call “aid in dying,” which the parties define as the “practice of a physician providing a mentally competent[,] terminally ill patient with a…”

Morris v. Brandenburg, 2016 NMSC 027 (N.M. 2016). · cites it 2× “See Oregon Death with Dignity Act, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 127.800 to .897 (1995, as amended through 2013); The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Wash.”

State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 333 P.3d 278 (Or. 2014). “See generally ORS 127.800 to 127.995 (setting out parameters and limitations for Death with Dignity Act); see also ORS 127.”

Myers v. Schneiderman, 140 A.D.3d 51 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “Finally, plaintiffs rely on two papers that purport to offer empirical evidence that Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (Or Rev Stat § 127.800 et seq.), now in effect for over 20 years, has not invited the fears articulated by people opposed to aid-in-dying, such as an adverse…”

Donorovich-Odonnell v. Harris, 241 Cal. App. 4th 1118 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “) 13 For instance, before obtaining a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs a terminally ill patient must submit two oral requests to his or her physician, a minimum of 15 days apart, and a written request that meets specified criteria, including the signatures of two…”

Gallant v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 974 P.2d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “2 On several prior occasions, patient had discussed with her daughter and with petitioner her desire that, in the event that she became terminally ill, she did not want her life prolonged through artificial or extraordinary means. On one occasion, patient and petitioner reviewed…”

Hamilton v. Myers, 943 P.2d 214 (Or. 1997). “That measure, designated by the Secretary of State as “Measure 51,” would, if enacted, repeal ORS 127.800 to 127.897, the “Oregon Death with Dignity Act.”

Konopka-Sauer v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 32 Misc. 3d 161 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “Within a year of diagnosis, Karen decided to end her life and did so in accordance with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODWDA [Or Rev Stat Ann § 127.800 et seq.]; exhibit 2 to Thorn opp aff).”

Morris v. Brandenburg, 2016 NMSC 27 (N.M. 2016). · cites it 2× “See Oregon Death with Dignity Act, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 127.800 to .897 (1995, as amended through 2013); The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Wash.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.