From the Associated Press:
HELENA – Two terminally ill men and four physicians, all from Montana, have filed a lawsuit against the state and Attorney General Mike McGrath aimed at decriminalizing assisted suicide.
The suit was brought by Robert Baxter, 75, a retired truck driver from Billings who suffers from lymphocytic leukemia; and Steven Stoelb, 53, a former logger and forest technician from
Livingston who has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a connective-tissue disease caused by a defect in the body’s ability to produce collagen.
Doctors on board
They were joined by four Missoula physicians who treat terminally ill patients – Stephen Speckart, C. Paul Loehnen, Lar Autio and George Risi Jr. – and a nonprofit patients’ rights organization.
That “patients’ rights organization” is Compassion & Choices, an organization which has as its primary mission is to promote assisted suicide legislation.
I also suspect that all parties in this case are using a rather broad definition of “terminal” in that I’d be surprised if either of the “terminal” conditions will result in their deaths within six months. That’s an interesting move and possibly a harbinger of a bolder move in Montana than we’ve seen elsewhere.
Why is that? The parties are arguing the Montana constitution guarantees their right “to control their own death by obtaining medications from their physician to enable the patient to achieve a peaceful death, if they so choose.” Nothing about terminal. For that matter, there’s nothing in the reasoning that limits “assistance” to providing drugs – this could well be a justification for active euthanasia.
I’ll be honest. I didn’t see this one coming. But it turns out that Wesley Smith predicted something like this would happen back in 2000. He writes about the court ruling that paved the way for this latest move in Montana.
Go read his blog entry on the Montana Assisted Suicide Case if you want to have a better understanding of the history and rationale behind this latest move by euthanasia enthusiasts. –Stephen Drake
Stephen,
What is the basis for your suspicion about the Montana definition of “terminal illness”? This seems and important fact to reveal to make your argument clear. Without it, your comment is only a broad opinion. Are there instances of the definition of terminal illness being different in Montana than in other parts of the nation?
My suspicion is based on what things are *not* said in the article. In Oregon, “terminally ill” – the term being used to describe the individuals in Montana is defined as “expected to die within six months.” The coverage in Montana hasn’t said that about these two – or that they *expect* to be terminally ill in the future (which is another way to handle it).
There have been multiple attempts to expand the definition of “terminal” – look at various pro-euthanasia websites and you’ll seen quite a variety of expansive definitions of the term.
As for the specifics of Montana – I suggest following the link to Wesley Smith’s blog entry on this to see what he has to say in regard to the open invitation the Montana Supreme Court left years ago to a very broad challenge to the prohibition on assisted suicide and euthanasia.