Last Friday a district judge heard arguments for Baxter v. State, a Montana lawsuit brought by a terminally ill patient (who did not appear), four physicians, and the physician-assisted suicide advocacy group, Compassion and Choices. Plaintiffs in the case seek to legalize physician-assisted suicide by overturning a section of Montana’s homicide statute as it applies to physicians. Currently, Oregon is the only state that has legalized physician-assisted suicide. Plaintiffs also seek to establish a state constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. The United States Supreme Court has held in 1997 that there is no Constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide.
The Montana Attorney General’s office stated that intentionally taking life is illegal, and assisting someone to commit suicide is illegal as well. The AG’s office asserted that the issue of physician-assisted suicide is, and always has been, the responsibility of the Legislature, and not the courts.
A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would seriously endanger Montana residents, as the plaintiff’s proposals would result in an assisted suicide policy that was much broader and less regulated than Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.
For example, plaintiffs have defined “terminal illness” as an incurable and irreversible condition that, without medication, would cause death in a reasonably short time. This definition would include conditions like asthma and diabetes. In addition, there is no six-month timeline for patients to qualify as “terminally ill.” This contradicts the accepted, standard medical definition of terminal illness, which includes a six-month timeframe.
Plaintiffs argue that the law in Montana should be changed to allow the physician who is providing the lethal medications for assisted suicide to be the same physician who determines that the patient is (1) terminally ill, and (2) competent to make the decision voluntarily. This places patients in great danger, and diverges from Oregon’s law, which requires that there be a second physician to make the determination of terminal illness and competency.
In addition, plaintiffs argue that patients should be able to make requests for assisted suicide orally, in writing, or both. The Oregon law, on the other hand, requires that the request must be signed and in writing, by both the patient and two witnesses. It is clear that the plaintiffs’ recommendations do not provide adequate patient safeguards.
None of the plaintiff-physicians are board-certified in psychiatry, anesthesiology, or any of their sub-specialties, including pain medication. It is hard to see how the opinions of these physicians on end-of-life palliative care and treatment can be given weight.
During the arguments on Friday, District Judge Dorothy McCarter compared ill patients to pets, arguing that human beings should be put down as pets are. “I mean, we put our pets to sleep when they’re suffering like that,” McCarter said. In a society of advanced pain medication technology and developed palliative care programs, it is difficult to understand McCarter’s rationale.
With Washington’s physician-assisted suicide Initiative 1000 being voted on in November, Montana is not the only state where assisted suicide advocates are taking action. Only last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill promoting assisted suicide in California. Suicide advocates’ mission to spread the practice of physician-assisted suicide across our nation has become more than apparent, and has re-awakened another battlefield in the fight to protect the sanctity of life.
