Last week, this blog devoted some space to the oral arguments held at the Montana Supreme Court over a lower court’s finding of a “constitutional right” to assisted suicide for “terminally ill” people.

Since then, there has been surprisingly little discussion about the decision being awaited in Montana. Nevertheless, some people have been moved to write on the topic and I want to highlight them here today.

William Peace at Bad Cripple wrote about it in “Montana, Suicide and Disability“:

(excerpt)

If you accept the premise that more people prefer death to a life with disability then Montana is not a place to live. Here I refer to anyone who has a disability or lacks human dignity. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other national news outlets are reporting about the Bill Baxter case. For those unfamiliar with Baxter he died of cancer and fought not to live but die with the help of his doctor. Montana’s highest court will decide this week if Mr. Baxter’s claim a doctor’s refusal to help him die violated his rights under the Montana’s State Constitution. This would be an interesting legal question if lives were not at stake. If Baxter’s position is upheld Montana would become the first state to declare an assisted death to be a constitutional right. Montana’s constitution holds that “the dignity of the human being is inviolable”. I can only assume not all humans are perceived in the same light. Among those that come to mind are those with a chronic illness, the elderly and people with a disability. I suppose the court like the rest of society sees some people as not fully human and thereby lack dignity. Much of course depends upon on what defines us as human and dignified. I consider myself to be fully human. I would also like to believe I have a certain amount of dignity. Much to my chagrin, many strangers that see me go by do not consider me fully human and certainly not dignified. A few have told me directly “I would rather be dead than in a wheelchair”.

Michael Kirsch, M.D. at MD Whistleblower shared his thoughts in “Physician-assisted Suicide: Constitutional Right or Just Plain Wrong?:

(excerpt)
Physician-assisted suicide is wrong and no court decision can make it right.

I expect some to claim that my categorical view against this practice is callous and dogmatic. I reject these arguments. There are some moral lines that simply must not be violated. The medical profession is sworn to relieve suffering and to comfort those who cannot be healed. This is our mission. Our patients trust us with preserving and protecting their lives. If we were to hasten or cause death, regardless of the motive, we squander this trust and sacrifice the essence of what it means to be doctors. It would change how we physicians view our own profession and would certainly change how society view us. Euthanasia would conspire with overzealous organ procurement in intensive care units and nursing homes as forces that distort how we view these human beings. If physician-assisted suicide were to become accepted, then it will inevitably enter the minds of physicians, nurses and family members who are caring for dying, or even chronically ill patients. Once this becomes an option, then it becomes legitimatized. It’s easy and frightening to extrapolate where this could lead us. The medical profession must remain guardians of life, not expediters of death. We need to keep our mission pure.

Finally, Kevin Yuill shared some of his own analysis on Spiked Online in “Assisted suicide: the real slippery slope“:

(excerpt)

In some ways, what happens in this state will have little impact beyond its borders. Just one million people live in this huge territory, which is nearly one-and-a-half times the size of the British Isles. But the implications of the outcome of this case, of course, do not end with Montana. If successful, which both sides admit looks likely, the plea for a right to a death with dignity will make the restrictions contained in the Oregon, Washington and the proposed British legislation – that the recipient of a physician-assisted suicide must suffer from a terminal illness and have less than six months to live – irrelevant.

These three individuals come from distinct perspectives. Bill Peace is a disability activist and anthropologist. Michael Kirsch is a practicing physician with some significant fears about some of the directions that medicine may be heading. Kevin Yuill is a professed liberal who teaches American studies in the UK.

For all their differences, there is significant overlap in their respective analyses – I hope people go read what these individuals have to say. –Stephen Drake