• Home
  • News
  • Montana Supremes Could Find a Constitutional Right to Assisted Suicide

Constitutional Law

Montana Supremes Could Find a Constitutional Right to Assisted Suicide

Posted Sep 1, 2009 10:52 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The Montana Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case asserting the state constitution protects the right to physician-assisted suicide.

Lawyers on both sides say there’s a good chance the high court will be the first in the nation to find a constitutional right to die, the New York Times reports. Two other states, Washington and Oregon, established a right to physician-assisted suicide in voter initiatives.

The case was brought on behalf of Robert Baxter, a 76-year-old truck driver who died last year from lymphocytic leukemia. Baxter sued because he wanted to die with the help of a physician.

Baxter's case is based on “a free-spirited, libertarian-tinctured state constitution written in 1972 at the height of a privacy-rights movement," the story says.

One provision of the state constitution reads, “The dignity of the human being is inviolable.” The statement often leads to rulings endorsing privacy rights and personal liberty over other concerns, according to the story.

Comments

1.

peter
Sep 1, 2009 11:15 AM CST

Isn’t there a constitutional right to anything that is done in the pursuit of happiness or that society deems is the norm?

who are you to judge and determine what is my right?

Flag this comment

2.

Dayron Leon
Sep 1, 2009 11:36 AM CST

Law in regard to victim-less crimes (prostitution, drugs, assisted suicide) should be held with the following rationale: any involving consent, adults of eligible age, and causing no direct harm to another should be legal. That is the only plausible definition of “freedom”. What somebody does with their time and body, while not hurting another is nobody else’s business. It’s not your responsibility to save others.

Flag this comment

3.

Dayron Leon
Sep 1, 2009 11:37 AM CST

Sorry: “any ACT involving consent, adults…”

Flag this comment

4.

J.D.
Sep 1, 2009 12:29 PM CST

If there’s a constitutional right to death, doesn’t it follow that there must be constitutional right to life?

The U.S. Constitution specifically states everyone has a “right to life” but the abortionists have a problem with any legislation that applies this clearly delineated right to an unborn baby.

In other words, the left worships death: death to the unborn and death to anyone wanting to kill themselves.

It’s a sad statement of the liberal mind.

Flag this comment

5.

AndytheLawyer
Sep 1, 2009 4:12 PM CST

JD—“Unborn baby” is an oxymoron.  If you haven’t read “Roe v. Wade” since Con Law 101, you should revisit it.  It’s not even a left-right issue.  It’s a personal freedom issue.  A liberal woman is simply a conservative woman who’s found herself inconveniently pregnant.  She may well choose to carry to term, but the central point is that she gets to choose—not the church, not the state, and certainly not brother J.D.

But all thiis just detracts from the central issue—the right to choose to die with dignity when life is too horrible to continue living.  JD—if you wish not to avail yourself of that right, then I encourage you to write a living will confirming your wish to remain on life support systems, with daily heroic medical rescue efforts.  Just curious, though—who writes the check?

Flag this comment

6.

J.D.
Sep 2, 2009 9:08 AM CST

Roe v. Wade is based on scientific possibilities in the 1970s. Clearly, it’s outdated and the Court should revisit it. I suspect that a growing baby can live outside the womb much later now—thanks to scientific advancements—than it could in 1973. And if true, then the entire holding unravels.

Besides, the Legislative Branch makes law—not the judiciary. If you haven’t read a basic “Gov’t 101” book since grade school, you should revisit it.

AND Andy, again you have failed at reading comprehension. I never said that the “right to death” isn’t valid. Perhaps people SHOULD have the right to suicide. But if we’re going to give people the right to choose whether they live or die, then you’re going to have some difficulty denying that to a baby in the womb.

It’s pretty sick how easily the left dismisses life.

Flag this comment

7.

fed up
Sep 2, 2009 11:40 AM CST

To #6, the right-to-life crowd should take more responsibility for children with “wrongful life”, those born with birth defects who often get inadequate medical care. 

Insurance companies often deny medical treatment of those with congenital deformities on the basis of a “preexisting condition”.  A number of those with “wrongful life” suffer from the moment of birth, require a lifetime of costly medical treatment, and suffer economic losses throughout their lives in terms of diminished employment and social contacts.  Some of the most egregious congenital birth deformities are craniofacial disorders that leave the afflicted with facial disfigurement, speech impairments, and other disabilities. 

By contrast, if the same child were injured shortly after birth, for example in a car crash caused by a drunk driver that damaged the child’s face and speaking ability, plaintiff’s lawyers would rightly seek substantial damages in compensation.   

I would like to see the concept of “wrongful life” expanded to allow class-action lawsuits on behalf of children born with congenital deformities against the institutions (i.e. the Catholic Church) and constituencies (right-to-life zealots) who promote life under any circumstance, then turn their back on children born with congenital deformities.

Flag this comment

8.

J.D.
Sep 2, 2009 12:55 PM CST

What are you trying to say, #7? It’s the fault of republicans and the church that children are born with birth defects? How do you conclude that the right does less for those in need than the left? Study after study shows that the right gives much more in donations to good causes than the left. Some of that certainly goes towards disability issues and child illness.

But you claim that the right isn’t compassionate about people with maladies, but your solution is to kill them in the womb?

Oh, yeah. Reeeeal compassionate, there.

Unbelievable.

And this crazed “right-to-life zealots” is so abhorrent. A person who wants to stick up for the defenseless is a zealot? Wow. Just wow.

Flag this comment

9.

Bean Counter
Sep 2, 2009 2:16 PM CST

JD @8, I don’t think that is what Fed Up is saying @7.  I think Fed Up has a good point that, if there is right to life, there should be a right to good healthcare.  It does not make sense to bring a life to this world, so the life can waste away (say in a 3rd world country). 

Of course, we are not in a 3rd world country.  But “right to good healthcare” should be a integrated part of “the right to life.” 

It is hypocrisy to claim that we must respect and protect life when they are unborn while denying newborns (or anyone living) treatments, perhaps due to lack of insurance, and left them to die. 

Perhaps, outsourcing healthcare IS the answer.

Flag this comment

10.

AndytheLawyer
Sep 2, 2009 2:44 PM CST

Good Points, #9.  I look forward to the day when the USA is no longer the only first-world nation on Earth without a national health system.  Call it socialized medicine if you like—all I want is the same socialized medicine that every single conservative republican congressman and senator now enjoys.

Flag this comment

11.

conservative
Sep 2, 2009 5:19 PM CST

Andy - - I guess you think that the “conservatives” have a better “socialized medicine” policy than the liberal left representatives and senators.  Seems that socialized medicine is good for us, but not good enough for them.  We aren’t all so naive as they think we are - -  or, maybe some of us are.  If it walks like a duck - - -

At any rate, how did health insurance become health care?

As far as this particular story is concerned, I agree with peter we are “endowed by our Creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  I see nothing in the Constitution that says the President or the Legislative branch have the authority to tell companies how much they can compensate their CEOs, to use taxpayer money to bailout failed businesses of their choosing, take over the auto industry nor tell me what kind of light bulb I should have in my bathroom.  The right to die with dignity is just one example of the egregious disregard the current administration and congress have for us - - the people they are charged to represent.

Flag this comment

12.

fed up
Sep 3, 2009 7:02 AM CST

#8, I would describe “right-to-life zealots” as fringe groups that are ideologically driven fanatics who aid, abet, and support the murder of abortion doctors, either before the fact by offering financial and moral support, including making and hosting websites that identify abortion doctors by name, home address and photograph, and show, for example, the doctor’s photograph with a sniper’s crosshairs superimposed.  I would also include those who, after the fact, support assassins with either direct financial or moral support, or the kind of tacit, wink-wink, the doctor-got-his-due talk by fringe members of the media.

We may find common ground in that assisted suicide and abortion are forms of homicide, the taking of a human life, and even justifiable homicide in a general sense (not per any particular justifiable homicide statute).  As you know, our nation has a strong tradition of justifiable homicide including capital punishment, self-defense, military actions and civilian collateral damage, and - in Texas at least - justifiable homicide over the alleged theft of a television.  On Nov-14-07, Joe Horn, 61, Pasadena, TX shot and killed two immigrants, Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 48, for allegedly burglarizing a neighbor’s home of a television, even after a 911 operator warned Horn not to shoot as police were enroute.  Horn was later cleared by a Grand Jury. 

As for your comment about Republicans, my post does not include the word.  But since you raised the issue, in the past Republican legislators have submitted bills that exclude coverage of birth defects from health insurance polices, see Rep. Frank Farkas, R-St. Petersburg, the sponsor of HB 913, SB 1134, 2002 session. 

Is it the fault of the Church that children are born with birth defects?  According to Blacks Law Dictionary, Wrongful Life refers to a type of medical malpractice claim brought on behalf of a child born with defects, alleging that the child would not have been born but for negligent advice to, or treatment of, the parents. Azzolino v. Dingfelder, 315 N.C. 103, 337 S.E.2d 528, 532.  So if the Church or a right-to-life constituency advises a parent to give birth and the child is deformed, it should be held liable for the damages.  This concept is in keeping with tort law that holds the Church liable for the actions of pedophile priests, for example.

A better solution may be mandatory birth insurance to cover congenital deformities.

Flag this comment

13.

AndytheLawyer
Sep 3, 2009 2:44 PM CST

#11—I can’t tell what side of the right-to-die debate you’re on—against because it would violate the sanctity of life, or for it because nobody . . . especially the government . . .  should be able to take that decision from the individual citizen?

Flag this comment

14.

another harvest moon
Sep 6, 2009 6:53 PM CST

Great article!!

Our new movie deals with this subject matter. I would suggest readers of this article to check it out if they have a chance.

Another Harvest Moon is a sensitive drama about four elderly Americans coping with life in a nursing home. Starring: Ernest Borgnine, Anne Meara, Doris Roberts and Piper Laurie.

Or check us out on facebook - http://www.facebook.com/harvestmoonfilm

Flag this comment

15.

Michael Kirsch, M.D.
Sep 8, 2009 5:52 PM CST

I don’t think that Montana will have the last legal word on this, although I am not an attorney.  Issues of morality and ethics cannot be easily legislated or ruled on by a court.  Even if the court decides that physician-assisted suicide is a right, it will still be wrong.  www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.