Last week, amicus briefs were filed with the Montana Supreme Court – supporting an appeal by the state Attorney General to reverse a lower court decision that assisted suicide is a “constitutional right” in that state. Due to a variety of factors, NDY was unable to get word out to the media when our brief was filed.
The brief, available in rtf format here, was filed on behalf on Not Dead Yet, ADAPT, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, National Council on Independent Living, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.
Excerpt:
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
The District Court held that the application of the homicide statutes to physician-assisted suicide was unconstitutional because the Plaintiffs had a right in Montana’s Constitution to obtain lethal drugs, what the District Court euphemistically labeled “aid in dying,” a/k/a assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Disability amici curiae, five national disability organizations, with Montana members, support the state’s appeal that Montana’s homicide statutes applied to physician-assisted suicide do not violate any Montana constitutional provisions.
This case does not concern the settled issue of the individual’s right to refuse treatment, even if it might result in death. Certainly, people have a “right to die” by removing life supports and letting nature take its course. This case concerns only whether there is a Montana constitutional right to have active “assistance” in committing suicide. Before this Court is the question of the affirmative involvement of third parties – doctors.
Were this Court to uphold the District Court’s decision, it would also soon face a number of related issues in future cases:• Why should the Constitutional right be limited to providing only lethal medications? Why not lethal injections? What if the lethal medication does not work quickly enough? Why not assistance smothering the person?
• If such a constitutional right exists, why should a person’s right be limited to “aid” only from doctors? What about family members, friends, assisted suicide advocates?
• Why should it be limited to only people who have a disabling condition that is labeled “terminal?” Why not any disabling condition? Why not a firm decision to commit suicide by any competent person?
Please read the rest of the brief here. –Stephen Drake