On December 5th, a Montana court ruled to legalize doctor-assisted suicide, physicians could now prescribe life-ending medication to terminally ill patients without the threat of criminal prosecution. According to the Associated Press, Judge Dorothy McCarter declared that ‘terminally ill, competent” patients may self-administer life ending medication and that physicians who prescribe the medications need not fear criminal prosecution. The decision will likely be appealed to Montana legislature.
The case, Baxter et al. v. Montana was filed in 2007 by Robert Baxter, a 75 year-old retired truck driver from Billings, Montana who suffers from lymphocytic leukemia and has a history of prostate cancer, hypertension and gastro esophageal reflux disease. Along with Baxter, the other plaintiffs listed are four physicians and a non-profit patients’ rights group called Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society (the name doesn’t waste anytime getting to the point does it?).
The political/legal aspect of this case decision is far reaching. The judge of the case stated that the Montana constitution gave patients a constitutional right to die with dignity. “Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally (ill) patient to die with dignity.” BUT the terms terminally ill and competent have yet to be defined. Judge McCarter said that it is up to the doctors to determine competency and whether a patient is terminally ill or not. The ruling protects doctors from homicide laws and presents a slippery slope for prosecuting doctors on charges like homicide.
The Diocese of Helena was unable to provide a statement at the time of the articles publication, but I’m sure that many different religious groups will have a strong response to this ruling. Montana is now the third state to legalize physician assisted suicide. For groups with religious objections to abortion I feel like these same groups will have an issue with physician assisted suicide. Where are the sanctity of life groups? Or does the intentional killing of a terminally ill person differ from an abortion and the sanctity of life doesn’t apply here? This case ruling is new and it’s only a matter of time before religious groups are protesting the decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I feel it is quite important to narrowly and strictly define the ambiguous terms such as terminally ill and competent that you mentioned. Personally, I have serious worries about what it says of our cultural and societal norms that we may have people ending their lives because they are terminally ill-this could have serious ramifications for these norms, and cause individuals to feel pressure to end their lives because they feel they are a burden on their families, their doctor isnt taking good care of them because they are too busy etc. So I am really really really hesitant to say that such legislation is acceptable, though at the end of the day, if someone does not want to go on living, I guess I legally cannot force them to. I simply worry about what this says about where we are going as a society, and wonder if physicians aren't given too much power here, since they effectively get to choose if a patient gets to live or die. Further, I wonder what happens when there are physicians who do not want to adminster these drugs down the road if such legislation becomes the norm.
I agree with Drew's points about the message this legislation would send. And I'm also uncomforable with doctors being forced to prescribe life-ending medication if a "competent terminally-ill" person asks for it.
However, at the end of the day when an competent adult is suffering and seeing his family suffer, he or she should not have to kill themselves in a gruesome flesh-destructive manner. I think right-to-die laws should be available, but wording of legislation must be narrowly tailored.
I find myself agreeing with the previous two comments. The tension between individual rights and the moral "slippery slope" that arises is difficult to negotiate. The potential for coercion on the part of the patient is great, and it puts the physician in a difficult moral and professional position. The terms and concepts of "competent" and "terminally ill" need to be narrowly defined so as to avoid abuse. I would agree that I don't think it is right to force a person who is terminally suffering and wants to die to continue their life, but I do not know how to best approach that issue through legislation.
Although I do not disagree that the right to die issue will be contested by religious groups, I do disgree that it can be framed the same way as the abortion debate. Their are major differences between a competent adult choosing to end his/her life and the abortion of an unborn fetus/child, the most important of which is agency. I think that religious groups have the right to protest this decision, but I think it would be difficult to frame in a religious way, as in through the first amendment. If this issue could be framed this way it seems that those who support, not those who oppose the right to die would have the ability to most persuasively make a first amendment argument.
The concerns expressed by the previous 3 comments are usually brought up with the euthanasia debate. However, most of them are addressed in statewide assisted suicide legislation. For example, in Washington and Oregon – the first 2 states to legalize euthanasia, they have very strict standards for these lethal medications. An individual must be diagnosed with a terminal illness and have a life expectancy of less than 6 months. The doctors must provide alternative treatments, other physicians to see, as well as proof from two witnesses who can attest to the patient’s competence. I think that the right to die is a fundamental human right. Individuals who are in extreme pain and faced with a terminal illness should be given the choice to end their fight, if they so choose.
Many religious groups feel that an individual should not be able to take their own life. Every person is valuable, and as such, their life must be protected. I would argue that quality of life must be more important than the protection of an unsatisfied life.
I agree with Sara's post. The right that one holds to end their life if significant pain is present or death eminent. This is their choice to make, and no one has the right to make it for them - not even religious groups who fight for "life." If life is so painful that one suffers, it's unacceptable not to let them kill themselves through humane procedures. In regards to doctors proscribing this medication, I do see the issues that have been discussed thus far. It would have to been highly regulated so that these drugs couldn't get on the street. Also, there is an issue with doctors not wanting to do it. I do not feel they need to assist in the suicide. However, I would warn people who are deciding to go into the medical profession ahead of time about these legal suicides. This is a tough issue.
I think elderly people or babies doesn't apply in this case of assisting suicide, I don't know if that is very popular nowadays but I'm not in accord with it. I agree with the use of Generic Viagra to improve sexual life.
Post a Comment