The Supreme Court in the US state of Montana is due to begin hearing arguments to decide if severely ill people there have the constitutional right to ask their doctor to help them die. A lower court judgement last December decided that they did, but now the state of Montana is trying to have that ruling overturned.
Proponents of assisted suicide believe support for legalisation is growing among lawmakers and the public around the world. In the past year three names have been added to the list of places which permit it. The BBC's Vincent Dowd investigates whether assisted suicide is set to become even more common.
The Supreme Court in Montana has ruled that nothing in the state's law prevents patients from seeking medical assistance to commit suicide. The ruling paves the way for Montana to become the third US state alongside Washington and Oregon to allow patients to seek the procedure. The decision comes a year after a lower court ruled it constitutional. Doctors will now be able to prescribe the necessary drugs to the terminally ill without fear of prosecution. The state's Supreme Court said there was nothing in its precedent showing that doctor-assisted suicide was against public policy. However, it did not go as far the district court, which ruled last year that the right of terminally-ill patients to ask their doctors to help them die was protected by the state's constitution.
Marlisa Tiedemann Dominique Valiquet Law and Government Division Revised 17 July 2008 PRB 07-03E PARLIAMENTARY INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICE SERVICE D’INFORMATION ET DE RECHERCHEPARLEMENTAIRES
In this report, Professor Knaplund discusses the Montana Supreme Court case of Baxter v. State of Montana (2009 MT 449), which ruled on the issue of a doctor's liability in a physician aid in dying (PAD) situation. In this case, the plaintiff was suffering from mutual symptoms related to his terminal lymphocytic leukemia and the chemotheraphy treatments he was receiving for it. Along with several other named plaintiffs, including board-certified physicians and the group Compassion and Choice, Mr. Baxter sued to have the state's homicide statute declared to of the constitutional rights of those who are dying to seek a physician's aid in achieving death.
SENATE BILL NO. 167 INTRODUCED BY A. BLEWETT A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT ALLOWING A TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT TO REQUEST MEDICATION TO END THE PATIENT'S LIFE; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES; PROVIDING THE RIGHT TO RESCIND THE REQUEST; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING IMMUNITY FOR PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES; PROVIDING RULEMAKING AUTHORITY; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE."
This paper examines the controversial and complex issues of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). I begin by defining and distinguishing these two terms and explain how they relate to each other. I also describe the medical doctrine of double effect, in which relieving pain comes at the expense of hastening death. Then, I give a brief overview of the common law defense of necessity, which is practically the sole defense available to or used by physicians accused of committing euthanasia or PAS. Finally, I analyze the legal doctrines of euthanasia and PAS, focusing on legislation and cases in the European Union — primarily the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Switzerland — and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, and Montana.
The term “physician-assisted suicide” usefully identifies a practice that is, and should be, a source of considerable controversy these days. Typically, the practice in question involves two crucial actors: a doctor and a terminally ill patient whose death is likely to occur within a short time. Knowing the condition of the patient and responding to the patient’s request, the doctor prescribes a drug that should cause the patient’s death shortly after it is taken. That’s the “physician-assisted” half of the practice. The “suicide” occurs, if it ever does, shortly after the patient ingests the drug. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon and Washington. Until very recently, it has been illegal in every other state, and claims to its being a federal constitutional right were rejected by the United States Supreme Court a dozen years ago in the Glucksberg and Quill decisions.1 But a recent development in Montana has altered the landscape somewhat. On December 31 of last year, the M