NationStates Jolt Archive

Montana Becomes Third State to Allow Death with Dignity

Montana Judge Dorothy McCarter issued the positive ruling in Baxter et al v. Montana late Friday December 5, 2008. McCarter's ruling makes Montana the third state after Oregon and Washington to allow terminally ill patients the legal choice of aid-in-dying.

Compassion & Choices Legal Director Kathryn Tucker and Missoula litigator Mark S. Connell have taken the lead with the case, filed October 2007. Tucker said the court found "it is the individual patients who should be entitled to make these critical decisions for themselves and their families, and not the government."

Robert Baxter is a 75 year old retired truck driver and lymphocytic leukemia patient from Billings. "I am glad to know that the court respects my choice to die with dignity if my situation becomes intolerable," Baxter said after the ruling.

The other four plaintiffs are doctors who want a ruling on whether they’ll face criminal charges should they assist a patient with aid-in-dying. None of the physicians are health care providers for Baxter.

"The Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally (ill) patient to die with dignity," McCarter said in the ruling. "The patient's right to die with dignity includes protection of the patient's physician from liability under the state's homicide statutes," the judge wrote.

The right to privacy, personal autonomy and dignity are deeply rooted in the political and cultural heritage of Montana. Establishing the right of terminally ill patients to seek aid in dying is well within the Montana tradition of living with dignity and personal responsibility. The case asserts that terminally ill, mentally competent Montanans have a protected right to choose aid in dying under the Montana State Constitution.

The Montana Supreme Court reinforces living with dignity and personal responsibility saying, “We have chosen not to ‘march lock-step’ with the United States Supreme Court…we have held that Montana’s unique constitutional language affords citizens (of Montana) a greater right to privacy.” District Court Judge Jffrey M. Sherlock wrote, “Montanans generally mind their own business and do not wish to restrict other people in their freedoms unless the exercise of those freedoms interferes with other members of society.”

Kathryn Tucker’s 2007 Montana Law Review article (http://www.compassionandchoices.org/documents/KT_MTLawReview.pdf) provides more detail on the state’s unusually strong protections for individual liberty, privacy, dignity and autonomy. “Such a case (as Baxter) asserts that mentally competent, terminally ill Montanans have a right protected under the Montana State Constitution’s guarantees of privacy and dignity to chose to control their own deaths by obtaining medications from their physician for this purpose.”

link (http://www.compassionandchoices.org/), link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82928), link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/06/montana-assisted-suicide_n_148994.html)

EDIT: Read full court decision here (PDF) (http://compassionandchoices.org/documents/Opinion_Montana.pdf)

Although I am no expert on the Montana Constitution, I agree with the outcome here and hope that more states recognize the right of mentally competent, terminally ill persons to recive aid in dying with dignity.

What say you o' nabobs of NSG?

This makes me happy. Im amused however that two of the three states now that allow death with dignity are states that are stereotypically viewed as backwards bumpkins.

This makes me happy. Im amused however that two of the three states now that allow death with dignity are states that are stereotypically viewed as backwards bumpkins.

Um. Montana I can see, but Washington or Oregon backwards bumpkin?

Um. Montana I can see, but Washington or Oregon backwards bumpkin?

Oregon usually gets lumped in with the hicks dont they? I really dont know.

Oh, TCT, I thought that Florida was among them.

seems like a good idea to me.

so is this kind of thing up to the makeup of the courts? i doubt that any state constitution addresses such issues directly.

Depends. Does it say what sort of aid they can get for euthanasia?

seems like a good idea to me.

so is this kind of thing up to the makeup of the courts? i doubt that any state constitution addresses such issues directly.

Constitutions, both state and federal, tend to have sweeping and/or ambiguous passages that require concrete application by the courts.

Here, in addition to an express right to privacy, Article II, Section Four of the Montana State Constitution says: “The dignity of the human being is inviolable.”

It is naturally up to the courts to say what that means and enforce it.

No, seriously I thought Florida was one of the states that allowed this.

To take the devil's advocate position. Why don't the arguments against the death penalty work against 'dying with dignity?'

Work with me here, I'm infected with influenza and feel like I'm exhaling most of my brain tissues every time I blow my nose. But that brings me to my point. How do we KNOW these people are "mentally competent" and thus fit to make the decision to kill themselves? They're faced with horrible, crippling and terminal illness. Wouldn't that affect your judgment?

Sure, you can say a judge, or jury, a psychologist or court or what-have-you declared them mentally competent. But then again I can say for capital punishment that a court ruled "guilty." If one is to take the first assessment at face value, why not the second? Similarly, if not the second, why the first?

And sure you can say that if a court makes a mistake and wrongfully convicts an innocent person, that mistake can't be taken back. Fair enough, but if a mistake is made and the 'dying with dignity' person really wasn't mentally competent after all, that mistake can't be taken back either! There is always the possibility of mistakes... so along the lines of abolishing the death penalty for that reason, we should abolish dying with dignity too.

Instead we should rehabilitate these people. Maybe put them in prison for life. It's OK, imprisonment is reversible. :D

OK enough of that. Anyway I'm glad for the ruling.

No, seriously I thought Florida was one of the states that allowed this.

I don't really know, but the Compassion in Dying website, this (http://www.deathwithdignity.org/news/news/florida.asp), and general results from Google, tell me no.

To take the devil's advocate position. Why don't the arguments against the death penalty work against 'dying with dignity?'

Work with me here, I'm infected with influenza and feel like I'm exhaling most of my brain tissues every time I blow my nose. But that brings me to my point. How do we KNOW these people are "mentally competent" and thus fit to make the decision to kill themselves? They're faced with horrible, crippling and terminal illness. Wouldn't that affect your judgment?

Sure, you can say a judge, or jury, a psychologist or court or what-have-you declared them mentally competent. But then again I can say for capital punishment that a court ruled "guilty." If one is to take the first assessment at face value, why not the second? Similarly, if not the second, why the first?

And sure you can say that if a court makes a mistake and wrongfully convicts an innocent person, that mistake can't be taken back. Fair enough, but if a mistake is made and the 'dying with dignity' person really wasn't mentally competent after all, that mistake can't be taken back either! There is always the possibility of mistakes... so along the lines of abolishing the death penalty for that reason, we should abolish dying with dignity too.

Instead we should rehabilitate these people. Maybe put them in prison for life. It's OK, imprisonment is reversible. :D

OK enough of that. Anyway I'm glad for the ruling.

I appreciate your attempt to play devil's advocate but, assuming that courts are as likely to make mistakes about mental competence as they are about false convictions, the harm is still very different: In one case, the worst that happens is that the state kills an innocent against their will. In the other case, the worst that happens is that someone who is not fully competent is allowed to take their own life.

Regardless, the rights and presumptions stack up differently here. One should error in favor of the rights of privacy and dignity of the individual.

Constitutions, both state and federal, tend to have sweeping and/or ambiguous passages that require concrete application by the courts.

Here, in addition to an express right to privacy, Article II, Section Four of the Montana State Constitution says: “The dignity of the human being is inviolable.”

It is naturally up to the courts to say what that means and enforce it.
ahhh so its quite a reasonable ruling then.

Oregon usually gets lumped in with the hicks dont they? I really dont know.

Nah, Oregon's stereotype is hippies, not hicks.

On topic, while I'm obviously not qualified to comment on whether this is a sound interpretation of the Montana constitution, I'm pleased with the decision.

This makes me happy. Im amused however that two of the three states now that allow death with dignity are states that are stereotypically viewed as backwards bumpkins.

"Death with dignity.":rolleyes:

You want to argue that people have the right to choose death when the're in pain, fine. But why the euphamisims? Their are many ways to die with dignity, and we ignore this by equating assisted suicide in particular with "dying with dignity." Personally I find the notion of suicide pointless and defeatist. Others may feel differently. But I see no reason why this particular way of dying should be considered equivallent to dying with dignity. What makes suicide inherrently more dignified than any other form of death?

At least that's my first response to this particular term, though I'm fully aware of the arguments against it.

"Death with dignity.":rolleyes:

You want to argue that people have the right to choose death when the're in pain, fine. But why the euphamisims? Their are many ways to die with dignity, and we ignore this by equating assisted suicide in particular with "dying with dignity." Personally I find the notion of suicide pointless and defeatist. Others may feel differently. But I see no reason why this particular way of dying should be considered equivallent to dying with dignity. What makes suicide inherrently more dignified than any other form of death?

At least that's my first response to this particular term, though I'm fully aware of the arguments against it.


Because dying by your own accord when youre slowly withering away is more "dignified" then withering away slowly and just waiting for it to inevitably kill you. It allows you some comtrol. How many times as a dying old person said "I wish my family didnt have to see me like this,"?

Also, what you find "pointless and defeatst" is thankfully irrelevent.

"Death with dignity.":rolleyes:

You want to argue that people have the right to choose death when the're in pain, fine. But why the euphamisims? Their are many ways to die with dignity, and we ignore this by equating assisted suicide in particular with "dying with dignity."

No we don't. There is absolutely nothing inherent about the phrase that is exclusive.

It's not "death with dignity, except for all the dignified people who died in non-suicidal ways; they suck donkey balls and I have the pics."

The euphemism is euphemistic enough without having to pretend that it's somehow stealing something from people in completely non-related situations.

This makes me happy. Im amused however that two of the three states now that allow death with dignity are states that are stereotypically viewed as backwards bumpkins.

It's a lot easier to enforce the policy in things like this in bumpkin territory than in big, complicated places. The bad thing about freely allowing euthanasia is the abuse that would come with it, even if small. The odds of that are a lot smaller the less people there are, and may be worth it for humanitarian reasons while the opposite in the big places.

"Death with dignity.":rolleyes:

You want to argue that people have the right to choose death when the're in pain, fine. But why the euphamisims? Their are many ways to die with dignity, and we ignore this by equating assisted suicide in particular with "dying with dignity." Personally I find the notion of suicide pointless and defeatist. Others may feel differently. But I see no reason why this particular way of dying should be considered equivallent to dying with dignity. What makes suicide inherrently more dignified than any other form of death?

At least that's my first response to this particular term, though I'm fully aware of the arguments against it.

Your objections to the "euphemism" are noted, but dismissed as pendantic, misguided, and trivial. :p

We are talking strictly about cases of terminally ill patients for whom assisted suicide is a vastly superior option to a long, painful death. Among the advantages of such an end, is one has a chance to control one's end and to retain some semblance of dignity in death. Thus, "death with dignity."

Why on earth should we force people to live against their will when they are in pain and will die anyway?

Dignity is overrated. If you have no hope of recovery, are in terrible pain and determined to end your life, at least have the decency to give us a good show on the way out. :)

"Death with dignity.":rolleyes:

You want to argue that people have the right to choose death when the're in pain, fine. But why the euphamisims? Their are many ways to die with dignity, and we ignore this by equating assisted suicide in particular with "dying with dignity." Personally I find the notion of suicide pointless and defeatist. Others may feel differently. But I see no reason why this particular way of dying should be considered equivallent to dying with dignity. What makes suicide inherrently more dignified than any other form of death?

At least that's my first response to this particular term, though I'm fully aware of the arguments against it.


It's the difference between dying while you still have control of your own body and mind as compared to slowly fading away. Consider if you were in that position. You find out you have a terminal illness, no way you can survive. This illness will shut down the way your body functions, so you'll be crapping yourself because you can't control it, pissing yourself because you can't control it, and all in constant pain. Don't forget the possibility of losing your mind; short term memory loss so you don't remember conversations you just had.

And by the way, your family is watching and paying the bill both emotionally and monetarily.

That, compared to dying peacefully and painlessly.

"Death with dignity.":rolleyes:

You want to argue that people have the right to choose death when the're in pain, fine. But why the euphamisims? Their are many ways to die with dignity, and we ignore this by equating assisted suicide in particular with "dying with dignity." Personally I find the notion of suicide pointless and defeatist. Others may feel differently. But I see no reason why this particular way of dying should be considered equivallent to dying with dignity. What makes suicide inherrently more dignified than any other form of death?

At least that's my first response to this particular term, though I'm fully aware of the arguments against it.

It's dignity compared to constant pain because they can't prescribe anything strong enough to kill the pain, pissing yourself because you're incontinent, and being unable to do anything but lie in bed.

I approve of this. It seems strange to say it, but this ruling about death makes me happy, because it's a sane and mature decision by the court.

I approve of this. It seems strange to say it, but this ruling about death makes me happy, because it's a sane and mature decision by the court.

And God knows there are too few of those in the US.
EDIT: All though, in all fairness, our courts seem to have been on a roll lately.

And God knows there are too few of those in the US.
EDIT: All though, in all fairness, our courts seem to have been on a roll lately.Don't jinx it! :(

Dignity is overrated. If you have no hope of recovery, are in terrible pain and determined to end your life, at least have the decency to give us a good show on the way out. :)

Hear, hear. I'd definitely prefer not to die in pain, but I'd much rather die hilariously than die with dignity.

If you have a right to live, then you should have a right to die.

End of story.

Read full court decision here (PDF) (http://compassionandchoices.org/documents/Opinion_Montana.pdf)

I'll provide some highlights when I finish reading it.

What makes suicide inherrently more dignified than any other form of death?

the terry schiavo debacle

I am (sort of) pleased but surprised to find that so few have any objection to the idea of death with dignity being a right. :eek::)

I decided to forgoe summarizing the court decision for now, but would be glad to answer any questions or concerns.

Whatever happened to suck-starting a shotgun?

This makes me happy. Im amused however that two of the three states now that allow death with dignity are states that are stereotypically viewed as backwards bumpkins.

I used to work at a company that publishes government directories. When I started there, I was assigned to call government offices from a bunch of states to update a series of directories we published.

One of my states was Montana. Wouldn't you know it, their Web site was the most up-to-date of all the state Web sites I went to. It was also the most user-friendly. When I called the first office I needed to, the woman told me, "oh, you can get everything you need from our Web site."

By comparison, New York's was terrible.

I haven't read the decision and I know nothing about Montana law, but I agree with the idea that a terminally ill patient should be able to choose assisted suicide. I think it is possible that doctors may do more harm by prolonging the suffering of such patients than they do by helping such a patient to die on their own terms.

No, seriously I thought Florida was one of the states that allowed this.
Don't you remember the Terri Schiavo case?