On Wednesday, January 7, 2009; the state of Montana became the third state in the United States to legalize assisted suicide. Unlike the states of Oregon and Washington, where assisted suicide was legalized through an initiative process, Montana has had assisted suicide imposed on its citizens through a judicial edict.
The article in the Missoulian.com states:
A judge here on Wednesday dismissed a request to freeze her own decision upholding Montana's right to physician-assisted suicide until the state's Supreme Court rules on the matter.
The decision means that “as of today” Montanans have the right to physician-assisted suicide, said Stephen Hopcraft, a spokesman for Compassion & Choices, a national end-of-life choice group that worked with a now-deceased Billings man who sought to end his life with physician help while battling terminal leukemia.
Helena District Judge Dorothy McCarter ruled in December that the Montana Constitution guarantees both a right to privacy and to human dignity, which includes the right of terminally ill citizens to choose to end their lives with a doctor's help.
This judgement represents McCarter's peronal view and not a view that is generally held by legal authorities. Kathryn Tucker, the legal advisor to Compassion & Choices, the leading death lobby group in the United States, also attempted to win a similar court decision in the state of Alaska, where the judge who heard the case rejected her supposition.
Since when does assisting a suicide grant a right to privacy and to human dignity. The lack of available pain and symptom management might be seen as an infringement on human dignity, but that does not lead to the necessity to legalize assisted suicide, but rather a commitment to providing pain and symptom management for every citizen.
The article further stated:
The case has been appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. Former Attorney General Mike McGrath asked McCarter several weeks ago to delay the effect of her ruling until the high court rules on the matter.
McCarter on Wednesday dismissed the request.
McCarter is therefore saying to the Montana Supreme Court that she will impose assisted suicide upon the state of Montana, whether it is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the next several months or not. This represents the imposition of one person's ideology (Judge McCarter) upon the people of Montana, without first assuring that her judgement was sound.
Further to that, McCarter is not imposing any safeguards for vulnerable Montana citizens who may experience pressure from others to die by assisted suicide. This is a rejection of the very rule of law that the United States prides itself in protecting.
Without any safeguards or legislative definitions the courts in Montana would be unable to prosecute physicians who go further and euthanize patients. The distinction between the active administering of a poisonous substance and the prescription of a poisonous substance becomes blurred in the privacy of a doctors office or a person's private living room.
If McCarter is in fact correct, and the people of Montana have a constitutional right to assisted suicide based on a right to privacy, then they also have a right to euthanasia based on a right to privacy.
We hope the Montana Supreme Court moves quickly to call up the case and strike it down, before it spreads like cancer throughout the US.
The article ends by stating:
The issue could be a lightning rod at the 2009 Legislature, which convened here this week. Rep. Dick Barrett, D-Missoula, is proposing a would-be law to enshrine McCarter's decision and to better define how physician-assisted suicide would work.
Let's hope that cooler heads prevail in the Montana Legislature, leading to a rejection of assisted suicide and not a fulfillment of the McCarter edict.
Link to the article in the Missoulian.com:
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/01/08/news/local/news03.txt