Right-to-die or murder?
By KATIE OYAN - Associated Press 10/11/08
Eliza Wiley IR photo editor - Attorney for the plaintiffs, Kathryn Tucker, listens as co-counsel Mark Connell outlines their stance on the right of privacy and an individual’s right to die with dignity in judge Dorothy McCarter’s courtroom in Helena Friday. The case presents the question whether mentally competent, terminally ill Montanans may decide for themselves whether to self-administer medication to bring about a peaceful death when confronted by a dying process the individual finds intolerable.
The plaintiffs argue that mentally competent, terminally ill Montanans should be allowed to take prescribed medication that would bring about a peaceful death.
“Whether to endure further suffering or, instead, to cut such suffering short, is an intensely personal, private decision which an individual makes based upon his or her most deeply held values and beliefs,” said Kathryn Tucker, legal director for Compassion & Choices, one of the plaintiffs in the case. The group has headquarters in Denver and Portland, Ore.
“If Montana’s right of privacy protects anything, surely it protects this decision,” Tucker said.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit also include 75-year-old Robert Baxter, a retired truck driver who suffers from a terminal form of cancer, and four physicians who treat terminally ill patients.
The Montana Attorney General’s office maintains that intentionally taking a life is illegal, and that the issue of assisted suicide is the Legislature’s responsibility, not the courts. Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Anders argued that Montana has no formal evaluation process, safeguards or regulations in place to provide guidance or oversight for doctor-assisted suicide. She said ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would invite a flood of litigation.
District Judge Dorothy McCarter at one point asked the attorneys general why the state felt compelled to preserve the life of someone who is suffering and wants to die.
“I mean, we put our pets to sleep when they’re suffering like that, and that’s considered humane,” McCarter said. “And yet, if we want to do it to our loved ones, it’s considered murder.”
Tucker told McCarter that the phrase “assisted suicide,” which was used several times during the hearing, is pejorative and value-laden and has been rejected by numerous medical organizations.
“For people like Bob Baxter, who had surgery and radiation and chemotherapy, he doesn’t at all believe that choosing a peaceful death is a form of suicide,” she said.
She said Baxter was too sick to attend the hearing, but in a statement he said he is dying of a “painful, limiting” disease and wants the “choice to die with dignity.”
“I want my doctor to be able to prescribe medication for a peaceful death,” Baxter said. “I want to be able to gather my loved ones and die with dignity in my own home.”
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill patients have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide, but did nothing to prevent states from legalizing the process. Since then, only Oregon has done so.
Under Montana law, helping someone try to commit suicide is a crime. If an assisted suicide attempt is successful, a person can be charged with murder. If the attempt fails, a person can be charged with aiding or soliciting suicide, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
MCA 45-5-105
Aiding or soliciting suicide.
(1) A person who purposely aids or solicits another to commit suicide, but such suicide does not occur, commits the offense of aiding or soliciting suicide.
(2) A person convicted of the offense of aiding or soliciting a suicide shall be imprisoned in the state prison for any term not to exceed 10 years or be fined an amount not to exceed $50,000, or both.
5 stars with 1 rating.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
Nutmeg wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:42 PM:
It especially underscores McCain's fumbling bumbling decision-making abilities. He certainly deserves to retire and get some rest.
Also regarding Soap Opera Sarah's claim that her Dad and family were unsafe so she needed to fire her former bro-in-law... She let her security detail go shortly after she took office so it is clear she wasn't really scared of her former bro-in-law... she was just being vindictive.
Moral of this story = get out and vote for Obama-Biden! "
southy wrote on Oct 11, 2008 11:07 AM:
JesseChadwick wrote on Oct 11, 2008 4:57 AM:
Text Size:
Small | Medium | Large
View/Post Comments
Email this story
Print this story
Rate Article
Share Article
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
- GAO raises flags over Plum Creek road deal
- Right-to-die or murder?
- Democrats drop voter challenge lawsuit
- State pension funds absorb $386M loss
- Conservative coalition opposes 6-mill levy for university system
- Democrats label Brown as ‘Big Oil’
- Presidential campaigns keep elections office busy
- Pheasant hunters warned to watch out for bears in Mission Valley
- Wheat prices take a tumble
- Montana court appearance set for former Broncos player
- Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming lobby for nuclear command center
- State briefs
- Montana briefs





waterlogg1 wrote on Oct 12, 2008 12:32 AM: