Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:11:51.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Montana's courting of physician aid in dying: Could Des Moines follow suit?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Arthur G. Svenson*
Affiliation:
University of Redlands Hall of Letters 329 Redlands, CA 92373-0999 [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Montana recently joined Oregon and Washington as the only states in the nation to legalize the choice among terminally ill adults to hasten death by self-administering a lethal dose of drugs prescribed by a physician. Unlike Oregon and Washington, however, Montana's legalization of physician aid in dying (PAID) resulted not from public consideration of a statewide initiative, but from the judicial resolution of a lawsuit, Baxter v. Montana. As originally conceived, a trial judge reasoned that the unenumerated right to PAID is embraced by enumerated state constitutional rights to privacy and dignity. On appeal, Montana's supreme court jettisoned this construct, and, in its place, fashioned a legal home for PAID out of state homicide, consent defense, and end-of-life statutes. Central to this court's statutory rendering is the finding that state law, allowing terminally ill Montanans sustained by life support to withdraw such treatment and die, discriminates against terminally ill Montanans not sustained by life support who seek death; these classes are similar, the justices reckoned, entitling both to choose death. This analysis examines Montana's courting of PAID, offering textual examination of state trial and appellate court opinions, an accounting of legal strategies advanced in amici curiae briefs, and commentary about the problems and prospects with Baxter's holding. I argue, ultimately, that the equality principles statutorily conceived in Baxter (1) could be parroted in the vast majority of states that both criminalize assisted suicide and enumerate constitutional equal protection guarantees, and (2) could replace sub silentio the equal protection paradigm applied to “physician-assisted suicide” by the United States Supreme Court in its landmark Vacco v. Quill ruling.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Tucker, Kathryn L. and Steele, Fred B., “Patient choice at the end of life: Getting the language right,” J. Legal Med. 2007, 28:305, p. 306.Google Scholar
2.Baxter v. Montana, Cause No. ADV 07–787, 25 (2008).Google Scholar
3.The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, Or. Rev. Stat. Sections 127.800127.897 (2007).Google Scholar
4.International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide et al., Brief Amicus Curiae for Montana, DA 09-0051, p. 8.Google Scholar
5.The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Rev. Code Wash. Sections 70.245.00170.245.903 (2009).Google Scholar
6.Baxter v. Montana, Cause No. ADV 07-787 (2008).Google Scholar
7.Scholars, Legal et al., Brief Amicus Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, p. 1.Google Scholar
8.Ibid., p. 4.Google Scholar
9.Paulsen, Monrad G., “State constitutions, state courts and First Amendment freedoms,” Vanderbilt L. Rev. 1951, 4:620, p. 642.Google Scholar
11.Williams, Robert F., “Introduction: The third stage of the new judicial federalism,” N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am., L. 2003, 59:211, p. 211.Google Scholar
12.Affidavit, , Baxter, Robert, June 28, 2008.Google Scholar
13.Baxter v. Montana, DA 09-0051, 7 (2009).Google Scholar
14.Complaint, Baxter, Robert, October 17, 2007, p. 8.Google Scholar
15.Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997).Google Scholar
16.Ibid., p. 799.Google Scholar
17.Ibid., pp. 800801.Google Scholar
19.Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept of Health, 479 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
20.Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 801802 (1997).Google Scholar
21.Ibid., p. 802.Google Scholar
22.Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, M.C.A. Sections 50-9-101.50-9-206 (1991).Google Scholar
23.Baxter v. Montana, DA 09-0051, 31 (2009).Google Scholar
24.Dallner, James E., “Death with dignity in Montana,” Mont. L. Rev. 2004, 65:309, p. 328.Google Scholar
25.Baxter v. Montana, Cause No. ADV 07-787, 17 (2008).Google Scholar
26.Dallner, James E., “Death with dignity in Montana,” Mont. L. Rev. 2004, 65:309, pp. 328329.Google Scholar
27.Baxter v. Montana, Cause No. ADV 07–787, 17 (2008).Google Scholar
28.Ibid., p.18.Google Scholar
29.Ibid., p. 25.Google Scholar
30.Ibid., p. 23.Google Scholar
31.Ibid., p. 22.Google Scholar
32.O'Reilley, Kevin B., “Montana court OKs doctor-assisted suicide,” Am. Med. News December 29, 2008.Google Scholar
33.Butts, Charlie, “Death by mail-Montana's new assisted suicide law,” OneNewsNow January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
35.Baxter v. Montana, Cause No. ADV-07-787, Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, January 6, 2009.Google Scholar
36.Appellees' Brief, DA 09-0051, p. 11.Google Scholar
37.Montana Residents with Disabilities and Autonomy, Inc., Brief Amicus Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, p. 2.Google Scholar
38.Montana Human Rights Network et al., Brief Amici Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, p. 1.Google Scholar
39.American College of Legal Medicine, Brief Amicus Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, p. 10.Google Scholar
40.Ibid., p.11.Google Scholar
41.O'Reilly, Kevin B., “Oregon nixes use of term ‘physician assisted suicide,”’ Am. Med. News, November 6, 2006.Google Scholar
42.Appellees' Brief, DA 09-0051, p. 10.Google Scholar
43.Ibid., p. 2.Google Scholar
44.Appellants' Reply Brief, DA 09-0051, p. 2.Google Scholar
45.Family Research Council et al., Brief Amici Curiae for Montana, DA 09-0051, p. 1.Google Scholar
46.Montana Catholic Conference, Brief Amicus Curiae for Montana, DA 09-0051, p. 4.Google Scholar
47.Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).Google Scholar
48.Ibid., p. 178.Google Scholar
49.Montana Residents with Disabilities and Autonomy, Inc., Brief Amicus Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, p. 13.Google Scholar
51.Montana Legislators in Support of Privacy and Dignity, Brief Amicus Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, p. 20.Google Scholar
52.Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, Brief Amicus Curiae for Montana, DA 09-0051, p. 4.Google Scholar
53.Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 735 (1997).Google Scholar
54.Ibid., p. 788.Google Scholar
55.Montana Legislators in Support of Privacy and Dignity, Brief Amicus Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, pp. 1718.Google Scholar
56.Montana Residents with Disabilities and Autonomy, Inc., Brief Amicus Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, p. 9.Google Scholar
57.International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide et al., Brief Amicus Curiae for Montana, DA 09-0051, p. 8.Google Scholar
58.Ibid., p.7.Google Scholar
59.Montana Catholic Conference, Brief Amicus Curiae for Montana, DA 09-0051, p. 13.Google Scholar
60.Family Research Council et al., Brief Amici Curiae for Montana, DA 09-0051, pp. 46.Google Scholar
61.Scholars, Legal et al., Brief Amicus Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, pp. 89.Google Scholar
62.Ibid., p. 9.Google Scholar
63.Ibid., p. 11.Google Scholar
64.Ibid., p.13.Google Scholar
65.Appellants' Brief, DA 09-0051, p. 12.Google Scholar
66.Ibid., p.15.Google Scholar
67.Ibid., p. 12.Google Scholar
68.Baxter v. Montana, DA 09-0051, 27 (2009).Google Scholar
69.Ibid., pp. 67.Google Scholar
70.M.C.A. Section 45-5-102(1).Google Scholar
71.M.C.A. Section 45-2-211 (2).Google Scholar
72.Baxter v. Montana, DA 09-0051, 1112 (2009).Google Scholar
73.M.C.A. Section 45-5-102(1).Google Scholar
74.Baxter v. Montana, DA 09-0051, 13 (2009).Google Scholar
76.Ibid., p. 14.Google Scholar
77.Ibid., p. 17.Google Scholar
78.Ibid., p. 20.Google Scholar
79.Ibid., p. 12.Google Scholar
80.Associated Press, “Montana 3rd state to allow doctor-assisted suicide,” January 2, 2010.Google Scholar
81.International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide et al., Brief Amicus Curiae for Montana, DA 09-0051, p. 8.Google Scholar
82.Montana Human Rights Network et al., Brief Amici Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, pp. 56.Google Scholar
83.American College of Legal Medicine, Brief Amicus Curiae for Baxter, DA 09-0051, p. 4.Google Scholar
84.Ibid., p. 5.Google Scholar
85.Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 711 (1997).Google Scholar
86.Baxter v. Montana, DA 09-0051, 65 (2009).Google Scholar
87.Svenson, Arthur G., “Death with dignity's emerging conceit: Could Vacco v. Quill be losing its appeal?” University of La Verne Law Review 2009, 31:45, p. 64.Google Scholar
88.Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 799 (1997).Google Scholar
89.State v. Bulloch, 272 Mont. 361, 384 (1995).Google Scholar
90.Svenson, , 2009.Google Scholar
91.Baxter v. Montana, DA 09-0051, 36 (2009).Google Scholar
92.Blick v. Connecticut, Verified Complaint, September 30, 2009, p. 10.Google Scholar
93.Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 799, 805 (1997).Google Scholar
94.Simons, Kenneth W., “Overinclusion and underinclusion: A new model,” UCLA L. Rev. 1989, 36: 447, p. 483.Google Scholar