SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search
« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Thursday, December 31, 2009, 3:58 PM

In a very strange decision, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the living will statute of Montana can be used as a defense by doctors who lethally prescribe, when the patient is terminally ill and the poison is self administered.  This is an audacious decision in one regard–as far as I know that theory wasn’t thoroughly briefed or argued–a point acknowledged in the decision.  That should demand a motion for reconsideration so that can be done–particularly given that the U.S. Supremes ruled unanimously in Vacco v. Quill that there is a legal and factual distinction between withdrawing life support and assisting suicide.  The good news is that statutory interpretations can be remedied in the legislature.  The bad news, it seems to me, is that the court used the advocacy term “aid in dying” as a legitimate medical treatment. More analysis and details over at Secondhand Smoke.

2 Comments

    Tweets that mention No Constitutional Right to Assisted Suicide in Montana–But Not Against the Law » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com
    December 31st, 2009 | 8:26 pm

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DNC DUDES, Priscilla Brooks. Priscilla Brooks said: No Constitutional Right to Assisted Suicide in Montana–But Not … http://bit.ly/6Ui0cb [...]

    elixelx
    January 1st, 2010 | 4:19 pm

    And this is how it should be for both abortion as for euthanasia…doctors should, indeed must, provide the poison, even insert the needle, but the final pull of the switch should be done by the persons themselves–that way no doctor may ever be accused of sullying his oath!
    After all, I do not become an abortionist by selling you a hanger

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact