The Baxter Decision

By Margaret Dore

In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court issued Baxter v. State, which cracked open the door to the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia in Montana.* A local doctor subsequently announced that he was actively killing or assisting to kill his patients. As far as I know, no one did anything to stop him.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia became de facto legal. Some of these deaths were presumably voluntary. In my personal experience from other states, deaths also occur on an involuntary or nonvoluntary basis, for example due to financial concerns. Adult children want the money right away and/or fear that mom or dad will change their wills, leaving the children with nothing.

A Short History of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Montana

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA 

State Capitol

Assisted suicide means that someone provides the means and/or information for another person to commit suicide.  If a doctor is involved, the practice may be termed physician-assisted suicide.  Euthanasia is the administration of a lethal agent by another person. 

A.  Assisted Suicide

In 1895, the Montana Legislature enacted a criminal statute prohibiting assisted suicide as a "crime against the public safety."[1] In 1907, 1921 and 1947, this statute was re-codified, but its text remained unchanged.[2] The statute stated: "Every person who deliberately aids, or advises or encourages another to commit suicide is guilty of a felony."[3]

Join Us at the Fair!

This month, Choice is an Illusion will be at the fair in both Montana and Washington State. We have a long history of working in Montana, but this will be our first time in Washington.

In Montana, we will have a booth at the NW Montana Fair & Rodeo, in Kalispell, August 14-18, 2019. Click here to read our event flyer to learn more.

HB 477 PASSES the House

Yesterday, HB 477, which overrules Montana's Baxter decision by clarifying that physician-assisted suicide is against public policy and prohibited, passed the House of Representatives.

Many thanks to our sponsor, Representative Jerry Bennett, for making this happen.

The next step is the Senate.

Montana one step closer to reversing Baxter.

Today, the Montana House of Representatives voted to pass HB 477, which clarifies that "physician-assisted suicide" is prohibited and against public policy in Montana.  

To view HB 477, please click here.

Senator Shockley: Position Changed with Evidence

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/position-changed-with-evidence/article%20406ec244-237a-5cca-b240-1f2b407b49f3.html

October 24, 2014 6:30 am

I am a former legislator and a lawyer who at one time favored permitting physician-assisted suicide, but changed my position after looking at the evidence.

William Clarke is wrong about the legality of assisted suicide, and his definition of suicide, as described in his letter of Oct. 15. Physician-assisted suicide is against the law in Montana and killing oneself is suicide regardless of your health.

The present law is the Baxter case, which says that under certain circumstances a physician who assisted someone to kill herself/himself has a defense to a charge of homicide. It is a defense if the doctor is charged with homicide, that does not make it legal. If the doctor is charged with homicide and can convince a jury of certain facts, he or she will not be convicted. If the doctor fails to do so, he or she is convicted of a felony. Of course, there is the civil liability of the doctor, which is not addressed at all by Clarke.

Legalizing physician-assisted suicide will lead to elder abuse and other problems. The American Medical Association is against physician-assisted suicide for the same reason I am. It will lead to abuse of the elderly and others who are infirm, mentally or physically, but not really “terminally ill.” As an example, the much-touted Oregon law allows ordinary diabetes to be considered a terminally ill disease

Jim Shockley,

Victor

MAAS Will Appeal

On December 13, 2013, District Court Judge Mike Menehan dismissed MAAS's appeal with the Montana Medical Examiners Board. The order ruled that the appeal was moot due to the Board's having recently rescinded "Position Statement No. 20."  (Order, pp. 5-8).  The order also refers to Montana's assisted suicide case, Baxter v. State, as providing a defense to a homicide charge, as follows:

On December 31, 2009, the Montana Supreme Court issued its opinion in Baxter v. State, 2009 MT 449, 354 Mont. 234, 224 P.3d 1211, in which it held that under section 45-2-211 MCA, a terminally ill patient's consent to physician aid in dying constitutes a statutory defense to a physician charged with the criminal offense of homicide.  (Order, page 2, lines 17-21).

This part of the order is consistent with Greg Jackson's and Matt Bowman's article, Baxter Case Analysis, Spring 2010 ("the Court's narrow decision didn't even "legalize" assisted suicide"). Available at http://www.choiceillusionmontana.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html

Since Baxter, there have been two bills proposed in the Montana Legislature to legalize assisted suicide.  Both bills, SB 167 and SB 220, have failed.  Assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.

MAAS is disappointed with the dismissal, but pleased with that the order addresses Baxter, over which there is ongoing controversy as to its meaning..  MAAS will appeal.

* * *

For information about problems with assisted suicide and how it puts people at risk, see http://www.choiceillusionmontana.org/p/quick-facts-about-assisted-suicide.html 

Assisted suicide is still not legal

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/dignity-in-death-assisted-suicide-is-still-not-legal/article_1e19a630-b332-11e2-8c96-0019bb2963f4.html

May 2, 2013

I disagree that the defeat of House Bill 505 somehow renders assisted suicide legal under the Montana Supreme Court case, Baxter v. State. (“Montana Senate rejects doctor-assisted suicide bill”).

In the 2011 legislative session, Sen. Anders Blewett and I introduced competing bills in response to Baxter, which did not legalize assisted suicide. Baxter does, however, have toe-in-the-door type language, which invites legalization in the future. Neither bill passed. His bill had sought to legalize assisted suicide; mine had sought to reverse Baxter.

During the hearing on Blewett’s bill, he conceded that assisted suicide was not legal under Baxter. He said: “under the current law ... there’s nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution.” Dr. Stephen Speckart provided similar testimony: “most physicians feel significant dis-ease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision.” (To view a transcript, see http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf .)
This session, there was a similar situation. SB220, which had sought to legalize assisted suicide, was defeated. HB505, which would have reversed Baxter, was also defeated.

In other words, Baxter, which did not legalize assisted suicide, remains the law. Assisted suicide is not legal in Montana. For more information, see www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html .

Greg Hinkle,
Senator (ret.)
Thompson Falls

"If [Kress] is convicted, it will be under Baxter, not HB505."

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/physician-assisted-suicide-bill-will-not-be-retroactive/article_754b842a-adb8-11e2-b78b-0019bb2963f4.html

Physician-assisted suicide:  Bill will not be retroactive

Dr. Eric Kress, who claims to have assisted three suicides, is either uniformed or disingenuous about the legality of assisted suicide as described in his guest column (April 7). The present law, as taken from the Baxter case, is that under certain circumstances a physician who assisted someone to kill himself has a defense to a charge of homicide. If the doctor is charged with homicide and convinces a jury of certain facts, he will not be convicted.

Kress claims instead that his conduct will be judged under House Bill 505, which if enacted, will clarify the law of assisted suicide in the future. HB505 is not retroactive and will not apply to Kress and his three cases. If he is convicted, it will be under Baxter, not HB505.

I started out thinking that I was for legalizing physician-assisted suicide and moved to the other side after listening to the evidence. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide will lead to elder abuse. I support HB505, which clearly prohibits physician-assisted suicide.

Jim Shockley, Attorney at Law, 

Victor MT

Pass HB 505 - Rick Blevins, MD

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013303120037

The Montana Legislature is considering the question of physician-assisted suicide. The Senate has rejected an Oregon-style bill that would have legalized such a practice. The House has passed House Bill 505, which will end the confusion about assisted suicide in Montana. I am in favor of this bill and wish to clarify misconceptions expressed in a Viewpoint article published March 4.


HB 505 seeks to clarify the relevant law, which has been misinterpreted as a result of the Montana Supreme Court Baxter decision of 2009. This decision did not legalize physician assisted suicide, contrary to claims made by authors of the Viewpoint article. The court only stated that a patient’s consent, if given, may be used as a legal defense. Lawyers are scratching their heads about the meaning and the ramifications of this decision which is why the Legislature should act to provide needed clarity.


HB 505 only addresses the aiding or solicitation of suicide, including physician-assisted suicide. It specifically “does not include end of life palliative care in which a dying person receives medication to alleviate pain that may incidentally hasten the dying person’s death or any act to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment” authorized by the Montana Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. The quotes are directly from the text of HB 505.

Please contact your senators and tell them to end the confusion. Please tell them to vote “yes” on HB 505.— Rick Blevins, M.D.,

"Compassion & Choices is a successor organization to the Hemlock Society"

http://helenair.com/news/opinion/readers_alley/assisted-suicide-law-could-lead-to-patient-mistreatment/article_32bac11c-4985-11e2-9338-0019bb2963f4.html?print=true&cid=print

12/19/12

Theresa Schrempp Seattle, Wash.

I am a lawyer in Washington State where assisted-suicide is legal. 

Your readers should know that Compassion & Choices is a successor organization to the Hemlock Society, originally formed by Derek Humphry. In 2011, Humphry was the keynote speaker at Compassion & Choices’ annual meeting here in Washington State. In 2011, he was also in the news as a promoter of mail-order suicide kits from a company now shut down by the FBI. This was after a 29 year old man used one of the kits to commit suicide.

In 2007, Compassion & Choices was a plaintiff in Montana’s assisted-suicide case. Compassion & Choices requested legalization of assisted-suicide for “terminally ill adult patients.” The definition of this phrase was broad enough to include an otherwise healthy 18 year old who is insulin dependent or a young adult with stable HIV/AIDS. Such persons can live for decades with appropriate medical treatment.

Once someone is labeled “terminal,” an easy justification can be made that their treatment should be denied in favor of someone more deserving. Those who believe that legalizing assisted-suicide will promote free choice may discover that it does anything but.

Supporting authority not included in the published letter, below:

1.  This is a link to Compassion & Choices' newsletter announcing that Humphry would be the keynote speaker at its annual meeting in Washington State on October 22, 2012:  http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/derek.pdf

2.  This is an excerpt from Oregon's Register-Guard newspaper:

"A spotlight was cast on the mail-order suicide kit business after a 29-year-old Eugene man committed suicide in December using a helium hood kit.  The Register-Guard traced the $60 kit to [the company, which] has no website and does no advertising; clients find [the] address through the writings of Humphry."

http://projects.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/26910049-46/kit-police-suicide-fbi-springfield.html.csp

3.  Here is a link to my opinion letter with Richard Wonderly MD  analyzing Compassion & Choices' definition of "terminally ill adult patient." http://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/schrempp_wonderly_opn_ltr1.pdf

Recipe for Elder Abuse

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/assisted-suicide-recipe-for-elder-abuse/article_261d7ce0-3e1f-11e2-8f87-001a4bcf887a.html

December 04, 2012 7:45 am

Brad Williams (letter, Nov. 28) is correct, assisted suicide is not legal in Montana (Associated Press, Nov. 16). The Montana Supreme Court decision, Baxter v. State, merely gives doctors a potential defense to prosecution for homicide.

In the 2011 legislative session, Sen. Anders Blewett and I introduced competing bills in response to Baxter, neither of which passed. His bill sought to legalize assisted suicide; mine sought to eliminate the defense.

During the hearing on Blewett's bill, he conceded that assisted suicide was not legal under Baxter. He said: "under the current law ... there's nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution."

Similar statements were made by others. For example, Dr. Stephen Speckart testified: "most physicians feel significant disease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision."

To view a transcript, see:  http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf

Legal assisted suicide is, regardless, a recipe for elder abuse in which heirs are empowered to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives.

Assisted suicide is not legal in Montana. The potential defense to prosecution is, however, a "toe in the door," which could lead to legalization in the future. Tell your legislators that you support reversing the defense to keep assisted suicide out of Montana.

Sen. Greg Hinkle, Thompson Falls

Senator Jim Shockley: Assisted suicide not legal

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_155276c2-3c08-11e2-a232-001a4bcf887a.html

Brad Williams is correct that assisted-suicide is not legal in Montana. (Legalization could lead to abuse). The Montana Supreme Court's assisted-suicide case, Baxter v. State, limited its holding to giving doctors who assist a suicide a potential defense if those doctors are charged with homicide for the death of their patients. There are several steps that the doctor must demonstrate to perfect the defense.

Baxter did not invalidate our homicide statutes. Baxter did not overrule our case law allowing family members to sue an attending physician for negligence, malpractice, or wrongful death.

As an attorney in private practice, I did my share of wills, probates and estates. I observed that some heirs did not care as much for the elderly as they did for the elderly person's assets.

With the legalization of assisted-suicide, heirs would be encouraged to suggest, cajole or coerce older people to kill themselves, i.e., before such persons are able to change their wills, give their money to charity or simply spend it. Legal assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse.

Jim Shockley
Senate District 45

Assisted Suicide is not legal

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012311260039&nclick_check=1


In the Nov. 16 Tribune article, Brad Williams is correct; assisted-suicide is not legal in Montana. The Montana Supreme Court decision, Baxter v. State, merely gives doctors a potential defense to prosecution for homicide. In the 2011 legislative session, Sen. Anders Blewett and I introduced competing bills in response to Baxter, neither of which passed. His bill sought to legalize assisted-suicide; mine sought to eliminate the defense.

During the hearing on Blewett's bill, he conceded that assisted-suicide was not legal under Baxter. He said, "Under the current law ... there's nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution." Similar statements were made by others. For example, Dr. Stephen Speckart testified, "Most physicians feel significant 'dis-ease,' with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision." To view a transcript, see: http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf

Legal assisted-suicide is, regardless, a recipe for elder abuse in which heirs are empowered to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives. Assisted-suicide is not legal in Montana. The potential defense to prosecution is, however, a "toe in the door," which could lead to legalization in the future. Tell your legislators that you support reversing the defense to keep assisted-suicide out of Montana.

 
Sen. Greg Hinkle,
Thompson Falls

Assisted Suicide is Not Legal in Montana

This letter, by attorney Craig Charlton, responds to a prior letter claiming that assisted suicide is legal.  Mr. Charlton, attorney for Montanans Against Assisted Suicide, states:

Dear Physician . . . 

You may have received a letter from Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, dated June 5, 2012. The letter claims that assisted suicide, referred to as "aid in dying," is legal under the Baxter decision issued by the Montana Supreme Court on December 31, 2009. This is untrue. I urge you to read the materials below or contact your own counsel for advice regarding the court's decision in Baxter.

The letter states: "Physicians can provide prescriptions to such patients without fear that doing so could give rise to criminal or disciplinary sanction." This statement is contrary to Baxter, which merely gives doctors a defense to prosecution. Baxter states:

"We therefore hold that under § 45-2-211, MCA, a terminally ill patient's consent to physician aid in dying constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician when no other consent exceptions apply."[1]

You may also be interested in this analysis of Baxter by attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman:

"[T]he Court's narrow decision didn't even ‘legalize’ assisted suicide. . . . After Baxter, assisted suicide continues to carry both criminal and civil liability risks for any doctor, institution, or lay person involved."[2]

Please note that [Compassion & Choices'] "aid in dying" letter omits any discussion of a doctor’s potential civil liability for wrongful death and/or malpractice.  Baxter did not overrule Montana case law imposing civil liability on doctors who cause or fail to prevent a suicide. See Krieg v. Massey, 239 Mont. 469, 472-3 (1989) and Nelson v. Driscoll, 295 Mont. 363, Para 32-33 (1999).  Other cases include  Edwards v. Tardif, 240 Conn. 610, 692 A.2d 1266 (1997)(affirming a civil judgment against a physician who had prescribed an "excessively large dosage" of barbiturates to a suicidal patient who then killed herself with the barbiturates).

For another example, see William Dotinga, "Grim Complaint Against Kaiser Hospital," at http ://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/06/43641.htm  This case is relevant to Baxter given that patient consent is the linchpin to Baxter's defense to prosecution. Moreover, even if a doctor avoids prosecution, there is civil liability. . . .

Letter from Craig Charlton to Montana Physicians, dated June 20, 2012.  To see a print copy of the entire letter, click here.   

* * * 

[1]  Baxter v. Montana, 354 Mont. 234, para. 50, 224 P.3d 1211 (2009).

[2]  To see the entire Jackson/Bowman analysis, go here: http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html

Laws Against Assisted Suicide are Constitutional

Laws prohibiting assisted suicide in Montana are constitutional under both the US Constitution and the Montana State Constitution.  This is true for three reasons. 

1.  The US Supreme Court Upheld Constitutionality

In 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting assisted suicide under the United States Constitution.  In Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 705-6, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 2261 (1997), the Supreme Court stated:

"The question presented . . . is whether Washington's prohibition against 'caus[ing]' or 'aid[ing] a suicide offends the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not."

2.  Montana's Constitution Does Not Include a "Right to Die"

Montana's Constitution was adopted in 1972.  Archived documents show that during the Constitutional Convention, a proposed right to die was considered and rejected.[1]  

With this history, there is no right to die in the Montana Constitution.[2] 

3.  The Montana Supreme Court's Constitutional Ruling

In Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234, 224 P.3d 1211 (2009), the Supreme Court of Montana vacated a district court decision holding that there is a Constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide under the Montana Constitution.[3] The Supreme Court stated:  "The District Court's ruling on the constitutional issues is vacated . . ."[4]

Laws Against Assisted Suicide are Constitutional

By Margaret Dore

This article describes why laws against physician-assisted suicide are constitutional in Montana.  See below.

A.  Physician-Assisted Suicide

The American Medical Association defines "physician-assisted suicide" as follows: "[A] physician facilitates a patient’s death "by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act (e.g., the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide)."[1]

Physician-assisted suicide is also called assisted suicide and "aid in dying," a term which also means euthanasia.[2] 

B. Assisted Suicide is Not Legal in Montana

In Montana, the law on assisted suicide is governed by statutes and case law.[3]  The most recent case law is Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234, 224 P.3d 1211 (2009), which gives doctors who assist a patient's suicide a defense to a homicide charge.  Baxter states:

"We therefore hold that under § 45-2-211, MCA, a terminally ill patient's consent to physician aid in dying constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician when no other consent exceptions apply."[4]

Under Baxter, this defense fails if the patient's consent cannot be shown.[5]  In that case, prosecution for homicide can go forward.[6]

Baxter did not overrule Montana case law imposing civil liability on persons who cause or fail to prevent another person's suicide.  See Krieg v. Massey, 239 Mont. 469, 472-3 (1989) and Nelson v. Driscoll, 295 Mont. 363, ¶¶ 32-33 (1999).  Other relevant case law includes Edwards v. Tardif, 240 Conn. 610, 692 A.2d 1266 (1997) (affirming a civil judgment against a doctor who had prescribed an ”excessively large dosage” of barbiturates to a suicidal patient who then killed herself with the barbiturates).  

Attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman state: "After Baxter, assisted suicide continues to carry both criminal and civil liability risks for any doctor, institution, or lay person involved."[7]  In short, Baxter did not legalize assisted suicide."

C.  Clarifying Legislation Would be Constitutional

Some assisted suicide proponents, nonetheless, claim that assisted suicide is legal under Baxter.[8]  With this situation, clarifying legislation is needed.  Some proponents, however, counter that any such legislation would be unconstitutional.  This is untrue.  See below.

Senator Hinkle Corrects the New England Journal of Medicine

"Assisted Suicide is Not Legal in Montana"

Dear Editor:

I am a Montana State Senator.  I disagree with your article, "Redefining Physicians' Role in Assisted Dying," claiming that assisted suicide is legal in Montana.  At the very least, Montana law is unclear.

Last year, Senate Bill 167, which would have legalized assisted suicide in Montana, failed.  This leaves assisted suicide governed by a Montana Supreme Court case, Baxter v. Montana.  An analysis by attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman describes Baxter as follows:

"The Montana Supreme Court s assisted-suicide decision . . . didn't even 'legalize' assisted-suicide. . . . After Baxter, assisted-suicide continues to carry both criminal and civil liability risks for any doctor, institution, or lay person involved."[1]

Since then, competing articles have appeared in the official Montana State Bar publication disputing whether Baxter legalized assisted suicide.[2]  The editor's headline states: "Court ruling still leaves the issue open to argument." [3]

Correct reporting would be that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana and/or hotly disputed.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.

"The Board is both misleading physicians and endangering patients"

To the Montana Board of Medical Examiners:

Not Dead Yet is a national disability rights group with members in Montana. This letter is to urge you to rescind the position statement that the Board of Medical Examiners formulated entitled "Physician Aid in Dying" (Position 20).

First, it is incorrect to state that the Baxter decision will "...shield a physician from liability for acting in accordance with a patient's end-of-life wishes if an adult, mentally competent terminally ill patient consents to the physician's aid-in-dying." The Montana Supreme Court merely stated that if the physician can show that he/she acted in accordance with a person's wishes and consent, then such consent can be raised as a defense to a charge of homicide against the physician. Once raised, a judge or jury may or may not find the defense valid after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.

For example, a judge or jury could reasonably expect a doctor who assists in a patient’s suicide to take practical steps to ensure that the patient’s request to die is voluntary and not coerced by others who might benefit from the death financially or by being relieved of care giving responsibilities. The potential for coercion is fraught with risks for physicians.

It is estimated that there are 21,265 cases of elder abuse annually in Montana, reported and unreported. http://www.eadaily.com/15/elder-abuse-statistics/ Statistically, 90% of elder abusers are a family member or trusted other. Similarly, people with disabilities are up to four times more likely to be abused than their same-age nondisabled peers.

A relative who is willing to abuse an elder or disabled person might be equally willing to bring up assisted suicide as an option for an ill relative. An abuser might take their relative to visit the doctor to request assisted suicide. An abuser might pick up the lethal prescription at the pharmacy. Even if the abuser went so far as to administer the drugs without the person’s actual consent at the time of death, who would know?

It is simply naïve to suggest that assisted suicide can be added to the array of medical treatment options, on a par with palliative care, without taking into account the harsh realities of elder abuse and the related potential for coercion. The Montana Supreme Court overlooked the public policy implications of elder abuse in its analysis, but in individual cases this issue is likely to become a factor that physicians could only ignore at their peril.

In stating that physicians have a shield against liability for assisted suicide when either a judge or a jury may view a case very differently, the Board is both misleading physicians and endangering patients.

We urge the Board to reconsider and rescind its position on assisted suicide.

Sincerely,

Diane Coleman, JD, MBA
President/CEO
Not Dead Yet

"Does the Board really want to put itself in the embarrassing position of overstepping its authority by condoning this procedure? "

Dear Members of the Board, 


I am writing again, as a Family Medicine physician in Bozeman since '89, to address the renewed attention given to Position Statement 20. I am having trouble understanding why our Montana Board of Medical Examiners would step out on a limb and seemingly promote, or at least encourage physicians to go along with a procedure, Physician Assisted Suicide for the following reasons: 


1. Compassion and Choices [fna the Hemlock Society], which has brought the original lawsuit, and lobbied for this procedure is an out of state special interest group, looking to expand Physician Assisted Suicide all over the country. How is it that our own Board of Medical Examiners is stepping out on a limb to enable this organization to meet its goals? 


2. The Montana Supreme Court's decision in the Baxter case gives no reassurance that this procedure will not be frowned upon in the court of law when it is tested. Does the Board really want to put itself in the embarrassing position of overstepping its authority by condoning this procedure?