Physician-Assisted Suicide Almost Legal in Montana

Montana Supreme Court Rules Constitution Doesn't Restrict It

Sheryl Young
The Montana Supreme Court has decided that nothing in the state's laws would prevent a resident from seeking physician-assisted suicide.

In 2008, a lower court judge ruled that Montana's constitutional right to privacy law guarantees the right for terminally ill patients to ask their doctors for death drugs. A "Montana Death with Dignity Act" has been proposed.

Although the Montana Supreme Court declared that there is no such "guarantee" in the Constitution (case of Baxter vs Montana, Dec. 2009); the Court also stated that public debate should continue, and the final move toward physician assisted suicide would be made through the democratic voting process.

Montana would be the third state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, behind Oregon and Washington. Oregon's "Death with Dignity Act" was affirmed by voters in 1994; in 1997 it became legal for doctors to assist terminally ill patients toward death by obtaining lethal doses of prescription drugs. Washington legalized essentially the same law in 2008.

Oregon's original law was fashioned after that of another country, the Netherlands. However, the Netherlands has seen a blurring of the difference between physician-assisted suicide and physician-decided euthanasia. Some fear the U.S. will follow in this slippery slope. Here is a brief timeline:

1981: Holland's Rotterdam Court puts out specific guidelines for legal physician assisted suicide. The patient (1) must be experiencing unbearable pain, and (2) the patient must be conscious and able to give voluntary consent. The "pain" part is universally accepted as meaning physical pain.

1986: It is ruled that "psychic suffering" or "potential disfigurement of personality" could also be a legal reason.

1992: The Dutch Pediatric Association issues formal guidelines for killing severely handicapped newborns. It is decided that doctors would judge if a baby's "quality of life" was such that the baby should be killed.

1993: The Dutch Justice Ministry proposes extending court-approved euthanasia guidelines to formally include "active medical intervention to cut short life without an express request" from the patient; and that same year affirms euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

Belgium and Switzerland have followed suit in some of these policies.

According to Concerned Women for America, a 1996 USA Today poll found that 75 percent of Americans feel assisted suicide is acceptable. However, in a March 2000 Zogby poll, when posed directly with the question, "If you yourself were terminally ill..." only one-third of the people polled said they would choose euthanasia for themselves. Polls and surveys regarding legalized physician-assisted suicide in the last decade fluctuate greatly.

The most famous U.S. case of physician-assisted "suicide" is that of Terri Schiavo. Mrs. Schiavo was unable to decide for herself whether she wanted to live or die. The debate rages to this day as to whether she was actually in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) or could have been rehabilitated in the earlier years of her illness. Her parents and some doctors insisted she was hearing and responding; her husband and other doctors claimed she was in PVS. The deciding judge ruled for the latter.

Schiavo was not removed from life support; her body was not on life support. She was breathing on her own. Many people didn't know that. She was only on feeding apparatus. Once that apparatus was removed, it took Schiavo fourteen days to die of starvation in 2005.

According to OneNewsNow, Montana's pro-life organizations are lobbying against a Montana Death with Dignity Act. The President of the Montana Pro-Life Coalition, Dr. Annie Bukacek, told OneNewsNow that physician assisted suicide violates Montana homicide laws, violates ethical policies of the Montana Medical Association and the AMA, and also violates the Hippocratic Oath.

Regardless of the "quality of life," some Christians and Jewish people believe we should not take away God's timing through physician-assisted suicide because of Bible verses like Psalm 139:13-16. Others feel that if the person has no quality of life, perhaps it is God's timing to let them go rather than using medical means to keep them alive.

The original version of this article was printed at The Underground Online Magazine.

Sources not linked in text:
-Wikipedia: Euthanasia in the United States;
-BBC News;
-Henk Jochemsen, PhD, Legalization of Euthanasia in the Netherlands, The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, 11/29/00.
-Wesley J. Smith, Now they Want to Euthanize Children, Center for Science & Culture, 9/13/04 (re: Netherlands' progression to physician-determined euthanasia of sick children).
-John Stemberger, The Death of Terri Schiavo-- One Year Later: Principled Thinking & Christian Perspectives on Euthanasia and the End of Life, Florida Family Policy Council press commentary, 3/31/06.

Published by Sheryl Young - Featured Contributor in Politics

Freelance writer since 1997; Featured Political Contributor for Yahoo!; Tampa Tribune Community Columnist/Blogger; Chicken Soup for the Soul; Amy Foundation National Writing Award; happy wife, proud step-mom...  View profile

48 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Jack Wellman3/19/2010

    This is a sad state of affairs, but my concerns are where there are border-line decisions and where judgment calls are made concerning human life, it is hard to be objective about such a huge situtation. Good report.

  • Ali Canary2/15/2010

    Good analysis of a very complicated issue. I think people who are suffering should have a right to end their pain, but what if the decision is affected by depression, and that is treatable? Quite the dilemma.

  • J P Whickson2/1/2010

    I do understand the problem and moral dilema. I really think insurance companies should pay for hypnotism and hypnotist to help critically ill patients through the pain. It's not an option except for childbirthing.

  • plntpolice1/24/2010

    What a horrible dilemma this presents. I can understand the feelings on both sides, but I do think it is indeed a "slippery slope", especially in regard to babies with birth defects.

  • Abby Greenhill1/24/2010

    Personally, I would not be against it for myself. I do not want to live hooked up to machinesm, etc. I would prefer to save my husband the grief and money associated with extgending life when the quality doesn't exist. That would be my deicision to live(die) with and I'm fine with that. But I don't live in a state where it is legal - no decision to be made.

  • Bethany Marsh1/23/2010

    I don't know whether this is right or wrong... I only know if I were terminally ill or very elderly and to the point where I couldn't use the bathroom, bathe, eat on my own, or to the point where I didn't realize what was going on most of the time, I think I'd rather not live like that, personally. I can certainly see both sides. However, would I want to assist in someone's "suicide?" ... Don't think I could. Also, doesn't having another person involved not make it a technical suicide anymore?? Very interesting and informative article.

  • Lorraine Yapps Cohen1/22/2010

    I don't know. My value system says a life is not mine to take, not even my own.

  • Tiadora Anderson1/22/2010

    There is no easy answer. We prolong people's lives with medical intervention. I agree that it should not be to people to take a life.

  • Vincent Summers1/22/2010

    While I have nothing to do with politics, I recognize the sanctity of life. I don't care what legislation the governments pass. They have to answer as an organization to God (I already know the outcome there - it's a no-brainer) for what they do. Don't get me wrong -- I HATE suffering. But we don't have the right to do as we please with our lives, contrary to popular opinion.

  • Sheryl Young1/21/2010

    Yes, Jack Kevorkian, mentioned at the end of the article.

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.