Board Denies Hearing on Legal Issues; Legal Challenge Anticipated

On May 7, 2012, the Montana Board of Medical Examiners voted to postpone consideration of whether Position Statement No. 20 should be vacated.[1]  Position Statement No. 20 concerns "aid in dying," a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia.[2]  The reasons given for the delay included "to allow additional time for public input."[3]


On July 6, 2012, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide filed additional "public input" including a letter and a legal memorandum titled:  "Summary of Legal Arguments Requiring Position Statement No. 20 to be Vacated as a Matter of Law."[4]  The letter requested twenty minutes oral argument.[5]


On July 20, 2012, the Board held the postponed hearing.  The Board acknowledged that it had received the above documents and also acknowledged the presence of Cory Swanson, attorney for Montanans Against Assisted Suicide.  The Board did not allow Mr. Swanson to speak.


The Board did, however, allow a presentation by a DLI staff attorney on position papers generally.  The Board asked him a few questions and voted to have their staff thank people in writing for their input. The exact text will be posted once we get it.  


Montanans Against Assisted Suicide anticipates a further legal challenge.

* * *

[1]  See Board of Medical Examiner Minutes for May 7, 2012, Item #5. 
[2]  See “Model Aid-in-Dying Act,” published in the Iowa Law Review at   http://www.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/euthan.html  Note the letters “euthan” in the link.
[3]  See note 1 at Item #4 (Comments by Craig Charlton and Anne O'Leary; the quote is from Ms. O'Leary).
[4]  To see letter, click here.  To see legal memorandum, click here. 
[5]  See letter in note 5.

"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? 

Suicide Predator Conviction Upheld

Appeals Court upholds nurse's aiding suicide conviction

by Amy Forliti, Associated Press, July 17, 2012

[To for more information, charging document click here]

[To link to Nadia's Light, click here]

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/07/17/news/melchert-dinkel-aiding-suicide-conviction/

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday affirmed the convictions of a former nurse who scanned online chat rooms for suicidal people then, feigning compassion, gave a British man and a young woman in Canada instructions on how to kill themselves. 

William Melchert-Dinkel, 49, of Faribault, acknowledged that what he did was morally wrong but argued he had merely exercised his right to free speech and that the Minnesota law used to convict him in 2011 of aiding suicide was unconstitutional. 

The appeals court disagreed, saying the First Amendment does not bar the state from prosecuting someone for "instructing (suicidal people on) how to kill themselves and coaxing them to do so." 

Position Statement No. 20 Must be Vacated as a Matter of Law

On July 6, 2012, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide (MAAS) filed documents with the Montana Medical Examiner Board for the purpose of vacating Position Statement No. 20, titled "Physician Aid in Dying."  The documents filed included: "Summary of Legal Arguments Requiring Position Statement No. 20 to be Vacated as a Matter of Law," which states: 


"Position Statement No. 20 puts physicians and/or the public at risk by encouraging them to engage in illegal and tortious conduct that could result in their being charged with a crime and/or sued.  Statement No. 20 also puts vulnerable people at risk of being killed or steered to suicide by their heirs or  predators.  With these circumstances, the Board’s enactment of Statement No. 20 violates its duty to protect the public (and puts the Board itself at risk of liability)."


To view the above document in its entirety, read the text below or click here to read the hard copy filed with the Board.  Other documents filed with the Board included a cover letter and a proposed order. 


The Text: 


1.  On March 16, 2012, the Board adopted a revised version of  Position Statement No. 20, which refers to “aid in dying” as a “medical procedure or intervention.”[1]


2.  The term, “aid in dying,” means assisted suicide and euthanasia.[2]


3.  On December 31, 2009, the Montana Supreme Court issued Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234 (2009), which addressed a narrow form of “aid in dying.”  Baxter did not legalize “aid in dying,” although that fact is disputed by some proponents.[2]


4.  Position Statement No. 20 implies that “aid in dying” is confined to “end-of-life” matters.[4]  In Baxter, however, the plaintiffs sought to legalize assisted suicide for people who were not necessarily at the “end of life,” for example, an 18 year old who is insulin dependent.[5] 


5.  In the last [2011] legislative session, a bill seeking to legalize aid in dying, SB 167, was defeated.[6]


6.  The Medical Examiner Board derives its power from the Administrative Procedure Act, §§ 2-4-101 to 2-4-711, MCA, and other statutes such as § 37-1-307, MCA, which defines the authority of Boards in general.[7]  These statutes do not grant the Medical Examiner Board authority to interpret the meaning of a court decision such as Baxter.[8]  These statutes do not grant the Board the power to enact new legislation, for example, to legalize “aid in dying” as a medical procedure or intervention.


7.  Interpreting court decisions and enacting legislation are the province of the Judiciary and the Legislature, not the Board.  With these circumstances, the Board had no authority to adopt Position Statement No. 20, which effectively interpreted Baxter and/or effectively enacted new legislation to legalize “aid in dying.”  Position Statement 20 is null and void.

8.  The Board’s lack of authority is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and requires Position Statement No. 20 to be vacated to the extent that it purports to legalize “aid in dying” and/or refers to “aid in dying” as an “end-of-life” matter.


9.  Position Statement No. 20 is also invalid and/or void in its entirety because it is a “rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act, which was adopted without attempting to comply with rulemaking procedures.[9]


10.  Position Statement No. 20 is also invalid and/or void in its entirety because there was no oral argument scheduled for members of the public to speak prior to its enactment.  § 2-4-302(4), MCA  states: “If the proposed rulemaking involves matters of significant interest to the public, the agency shall schedule an oral hearing.”  (Emphasis added).  A matter is of “significant interest to the public” if the agency knows it “to be of widespread citizen interest.”  In the case at hand, the record is overflowing with citizen input including more than 3000 signatures opposed to assisted suicide.[11]  The Board knew of “widespread citizen interest” as a matter of law.  The Board adopted Position Statement No. 20 without previously scheduling oral argument for the public.  For this reason also, the statement is null and void.  


11. Position Statement No. 20 is also null and void because it purports to expand a physician’s scope of practice to include “aid in dying.”  This is the function of the Legislature, not the Board.  Board of Optometry v. Florida Medical Association, 463 So.2d 1213, 1215 (1985).


12.  Position Statement No. 20 puts physicians and/or the public at risk by encouraging them to engage in illegal and tortious conduct that could result in their being charged with a crime and/or sued.  Statement No. 20 also puts vulnerable people at risk of being killed or steered to suicide by their heirs or  predators.  With these circumstances, the Board’s enactment of Statement No. 20 violates its duty to protect the public (and puts the Board itself at risk of liability).


13.  For the above reasons, Position Statement No. 20 is null and void as a matter of law.  It must be vacated and removed from the Board’s website." 

* * *

[1]  The revised statement [titled Physician Aid in Dying] says: "The Montana Board of Medical Examiners has been asked if it will discipline physicians for participating in  aid-in-dying.  This statement reflects the Board’s position on this controversial question. [paragraph break] The Board recognizes that its mission is to protect the citizens of Montana against the unprofessional, improper, unauthorized and unqualified practice of medicine by ensuring that its licensees are competent professionals.  37-3-101, MCA.  In all matters of medical practice, including end-of-life matters, physicians are held to professional standards.  If the Board receives a complaint related to physician aid-in-dying, it will evaluate the complaint on its individual merits and will consider, as it would any other medical procedure or intervention, whether the physician engaged in unprofessional conduct as defined by the Board’s laws and rules pertinent to the Board."  [To view the statement of the Board's website, click here.] 
[2]  Model Aid-in-Dying Act, § 1-102(3), at www.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/euthan.html  Note the letters “euthan” in the link. 
[3]  See Greg Jackson Esq. and Matt Bowman Esq., “Analysis of Implications of the Baxter Case on Potential Criminal Liability,” Spring 2010 (“the Court's narrow decision didn't even "legalize" assisted suicide”), available at http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html; statement by Dr. Stephen Speckart conceding that assisted suicide is not legal under Baxter (“[M]ost physicians feel significant dis-ease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision"), at [the following link with a similar statement by Senator Anders Blewett] http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf; statement by Senator Anders Blewett conceding that a doctor who assisted a suicide could be prosecuted under the Baxter decision (“under current law, ... there’s nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution”), at http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf; and The Montana Lawyer, November 2011 (featuring pro-con articles by Senator Blewett and Senator Jim Shockley), available at http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/November%202011%20mt%20lawyer.pdf.
[4]  Id.
[5]  See opinion letter from attorney Theresa Schrempp and Dr. Richard Wonderly to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, October 22, 2009 (attaching the plaintiffs’ interrogatory answers with a definition of “terminally ill adult patient” broad enough to include “an 18 year old who is insulin dependent”).  (Attached hereto at B-1 to B-3). [To view, click here]
[6] See Detailed bill information page, attached hereto at B-4. [To view, click here]
[7]  For more information about the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes, see Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, pp. 1-2, pp. 8-10.  A copy of the Act and other statutes are attached thereto at A-1 through A-28
[8]  Id.
[9]  See Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, pp. 8-10. [To view citation, use link at note 7, above]
[10]  § 2-4-102(12)(a). 
[11]  Memorandum dated May 2, 2012, p. 3; attachments at A-37 to A-45.  [To view citations, use links at note 7, above]

"The Board's reckless action puts ordinary Montanans at risk, especially the elderly and the disabled"

Dear Board of Medical Examiners:

The new Position 20 is worse than the old position 20. First, we are talking about physician assisted suicide. I don't find "aid in dying" a helpful term to explain what's really going on -- suicide. But the so-called "aid in dying" without definition could include direct euthanasia! (See Charlton letter, memo and attachments, click here and here) The Board's reckless action puts ordinary Montanans at risk, especially the elderly and the disabled.


Also, the Board has no jurisdiction. It is not above the law. As a citizen who believes in the integrity of government, I request that Position Statement No. 20 be vacated due for the reasons set forth in Mr. Charlton's letter and memo. 


Cort Freeman
Butte, Montana

"It wasn't the father saying that he wanted to die"

Dear Montana Board of Medical Examiners:
   
My wife and I operate two adult family homes in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  I am writing to urge you to not make Washington's mistake.

Our assisted suicide law was passed via a ballot initiative in November 2008.  During the election, that law was promoted as a right of individual people to make their own choices.  That has not been our experience.  We have also noticed a shift in the attitudes of doctors and nurses towards our typically elderly clients, to eliminate their choices.

Four days after the election, an adult child of one of our clients asked about getting the pills (to kill the father).  It wasn't the father saying that he wanted to die.

False & Misleading "Aid in Dying" Letter

To view a copy of Mr. Charlton's letter, dated June 20 2012, as sent, click here.


Dear Physician:

I represent Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.  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 [under Baxter] 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:

"He made the mistake of asking for information about assisted suicide"

Dear Board of Medical Examiners: 

We are disturbed to hear that the Board has been asked to legalize assisted suicide in Montana.  We are writing to express our extreme objection to this development.

Our brother, Wes Olfert, recently died in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  When he was first admitted to the hospital, he made the mistake of asking for information about assisted suicide.  We say a mistake, because this set off a chain of events that interfered with his care and caused him unnecessary stress in what turned out to be the last months of his life.

By asking the question, he was given a "palliative care" consult by a doctor who heavily and continually pressured him to give up on treatment before he was ready to do so.  It got so bad that Wes actually became fearful of this doctor and asked us and a friend to not leave him alone with her.

Justified or not, Wes was afraid that the doctor would do something to him or have him sign something if she would find him alone.  In fact, even though he was on heavy doses of narcotic pain medications and not in a clear state of mind to sign documents without someone to advocate for him, this palliative care MD actually did try to get him to sign a DNR or “Do Not Resuscitate” form without his Durable POA or any family member present.  Fortunately, his close friend / POA arrived at that moment in time to stop this from happening.

Some of the other doctors and staff members seemed to also write Wes off once they learned that he had asked about assisted suicide. 

We object to any move by this Board to legalize assisted suicide in Montana.

We also question whether this Board would have the authority to do so. Thank you.

Ron Olfert
Marlene Deakins, RN 
Sanders County, MT  

Revised Board Statement is Null & Void

On May 2, 2012, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity filed a request with the Montana Board of Medical Examiners to vacate Position Statement No. 20, titled "Physician Aid in Dying."  This request is brought for the sake of public safety.  The cover letter by attorney Craig D. Charlton states:

"[T]he record shows that the Board acted without proper public notice.  Representative Dick Barrett and Senator Anders Blewitt, in a March 20, 2012 letter to the Board, echoed a similar concern.  

As also detailed in the memorandum, the Board's actions exceeded its statutory authority and therefore its jurisdiction.  Additionally, the Board infringed on the role of the Legislature, the Board's actions have put doctors and the public at risk."

To view the cover letter and memorandum by attorney Craig D. Charlton, click here.  To view the attachments to that memorandum, click here.

Request to Retract Solicitation Letter

On April 6, 2012, attorney Craig Charlton wrote Dr. George Risi and Dr. Stephen Speckart requesting a retraction of their solicitation letter encouraging other doctors to engage in assisted suicide contrary to state law.

The letter was sent via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and Regular U.S. Mail.  To date, neither Dr. Risi nor Dr. Speckart have responded.  A web version of the letter is set forth below.  For the original print version, click here. 

Dear Dr. Risi and Dr. Speckart:

I represent Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity.  We are in receipt of the enclosed letter signed by you, which was mailed to doctors in Montana.  I am putting you on notice that the letter exists, that it has been widely distributed, and that the letter has false and misleading information.   

Medical Examiner Board Statement is Null & Void

Today, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide & For Living with Dignity filed a request with the Montana Board of Medical Examiners to vacate its recent position statement, which misstates the Baxter decision and erroneously implies that assisted suicide is legal in Montana.  This request is brought for the sake of public safety.

To view the cover letter by attorney Craig D. Charlton, click here.  To view his legal memorandum, click here.  To view the attachments to that memorandum, click here. 

Senator Jim Shockley Published in the Montana Lawyer

"No, physician-assisted suicide is not legal in Montana:

 It's a recipe for elder abuse and more".[1] 

By State Senator Jim Shockley and Margaret Dore
Published in The Montana Lawyer
The State Bar of Montana

There are two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon and Washington.  These states have statutes that  give doctors and others who participate in a qualified patient’s suicide immunity from criminal and civil liability.  (ORS 127.800-995 and RCW 70.245). 

In Montana, by contrast, the law on assisted suicide is governed by the Montana Supreme Court decision, Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234 (2009).  Baxter gives doctors who assist a patient’s suicide a potential defense to criminal prosecution.  Baxter does not legalize assisted suicide by giving doctors or anyone else immunity from criminal and civil liability.  Under Baxter, a doctor cannot be assured that a suicide will qualify for the defense.  Some assisted suicide proponents nonetheless claim that Baxter has legalized assisted suicide in Montana.

Legalizing assisted suicide in Montana would be a recipe for elder abuse.  The practice has multiple other problems.

What is physician-assisted suicide?

The American Medical Association (AMA) states: “Physician-assisted suicide occurs when 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.”  (Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.211).  For example, a “physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide.”  (Id.)

The Baxter decision

Baxter found that there was no indication in Montana law that physician-assisted suicide, which the Court termed “aid in dying,” is against public policy.  (354 Mont. at 240, ¶¶ 13, 49-50).  Based on this finding, the Court held that a patient’s consent to aid in dying “constitutes a statutory defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician.”  (Id. at 251, ¶ 50).

Baxter, however, overlooked elder abuse.  The Court stated that the only person “who might conceivably be prosecuted for criminal behavior is the physician who prescribes a lethal dose of medication.”  (354 Mont. at 239, ¶ 11).  The Court thereby overlooked criminal behavior by family members and others who benefit from a patient’s death, for example, due to an inheritance.

Baxter also overlooked caselaw imposing civil liability on persons 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, ¶¶ 32-33 (1999).  Baxter is, regardless, a narrow decision in which doctors cannot be assured that a suicide will qualify for the defense.  Attorneys Greg Jackson and Matt Bowman provide this analysis:

If the idea of suicide itself is suggested to the patient first by the doctor or even by the family, instead of being on the patient's sole initiative, the situation exceeds "aid in dying" as conceived by the Court.  If a particular suicide decision process is anything but "private, civil, and compassionate," . . . , the Court's decision wouldn't guarantee a consent defense.  If the patient is less than "conscious," is unable to "vocalize" his decision, or gets help because he is unable to "self-administer," or the drug fails and someone helps complete the killing, Baxter would not apply. . . .

No doctor can prevent these human contingencies from occurring in a given case . . . in order to make sure that he can later use the consent defense if he is charged with murder.

“Analysis of Implications of the Baxter Case on Potential Criminal Liability,” Spring 2010, at  http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/baxter-case-analysis.html


The 2011 Legislative Session

The 2011 legislative session featured two bills in response to Baxter, both of which failed: SB 116, which would have eliminated Baxter’s potential defense; and SB 167, which would have legalized assisted suicide by providing doctors and others with immunity from criminal and civil liability.

During a hearing on SB 167, the bill's sponsor, Senator Anders Blewett, said:  “[U]nder current law, ... there’s nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution.”  ( http://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/blewett_speckhart_trans_001.pdf ).  Dr. Stephen Speckart made a similar statement: "[M]ost physicians feel significant dis-ease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision."  (Id. at p.2)

Legalization would create new paths of abuse

In Montana, there has been a rapid growth of elder abuse.  Elders' vulnerabilities and larger net worth make them a target for financial abuse.  The perpetrators are often family members motivated by an inheritance.  See e.g.  www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-study-broken-trust-elders-family-finances.pdf .

Preventing elder abuse is official Montana state policy.  See e.g., 52-3-801, MCA.  If Montana would legalize physician-assisted suicide, a new path of abuse would be created against the elderly, which would be contrary to that policy.  Alex Schadenberg, Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, International, states:

With assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon, perpetrators can . . . take a 'legal' route, by getting an elder to sign a lethal dose request.  Once the prescription is filled, there is no supervision over the administration. . . . [E]ven if a patient struggled, “who would know?

http://www.isb.idaho.gov/pdf/advocate/issues/adv10oct.pdf, p. 14.

“Terminally Ill” Does Not Mean Dying

Baxter’s potential defense applies when patients are "terminally ill," which Baxter does not define.  In Oregon, “terminal” patients are defined as those having less than six months to live.  Such persons are not necessarily dying.  Doctors can be wrong.  Moreover, treatment can lead to recovery.  Oregon resident, Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer and told that she had six months to a year to live, said:

I wanted to do our [assisted suicide] law and I wanted my doctor to help me.  Instead, he encouraged me to not give up . . .  I had both chemotherapy and radiation. . . .

It is now 10 years later.  If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. 

http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_aeef3982-9a98-11df-8db2-001cc4c002e0.html 

Legal physician-assisted suicide empowered the Oregon Health Plan, not individual patients 

Once a patient is labeled “terminal,” an easy argument can be made that his or her treatment should be denied.  This has happened in Oregon where patients labeled “terminal” have not only been denied coverage for treatment, they have been offered assisted-suicide instead.

The most well known cases involve Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup.  (KATU TV, at http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html , ABC News, at http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=5517492  Ken Stevens, MD, at pp. 16-17, at http://choiceillusionoregon.blogspot.com/p/oregons-mistake-costs-lives.html).  The Oregon Health Plan refused to pay for their desired treatments and offered to pay for their suicides instead.  Neither Wagner nor Stroup saw this as a celebration of their “choice.”  Wagner said: “I’m not ready to die.”  Stroup said: “This is my life they’re playing with.”
            
Stroup and Wagner were steered to suicide and it was the Oregon Health Plan doing the steering.  Oregon’s law empowered the Oregon Health Plan, not individual patients.

Oregon’s studies are invalid

Oregon’s statute does not require a doctor to be present when the lethal dose is administered.  (ORS 127.800-995).  During a hearing on SB 167, Senator Jeff Essmann made a related point, as follows:

[A]ll the protections [in Oregon’s law] end after the prescription is written.  [The proponents] admitted that the provisions in the Oregon law would permit one person to be alone in that room with the patient.  And in that situation, there is no guarantee that that medication is self-administered.

So frankly, any of the studies that come out of the state of Oregon’s experience are invalid because no one who administers that drug . . . to that patient is going to be turning themselves in for the commission of a homicide.

Senate Judiciary Hearing Transcript, February 10, 2011, p.15, at http://www.margaretdore.com/pdf/senator_essmann_sb_167_001.pdf

Public confusion

In Montana, the moving force behind legalizing assisted suicide is Denver-based Compassion & Choices.  On September 15, 2011, that organization’s president published an article on Huffington Post claiming that under Baxter physicians in Montana are “safe from prosecution.”  ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-coombs-lee/aid-in-dying-montana_b_960555.html )  This is clearly not the case and  propaganda.  A physician relying on her advice could be charged with homicide.

Conclusion  

Baxter is a flawed decision that overlooked elder abuse.  Baxter has created confusion in the law, which has put Montana citizens at risk.  Neither the legal profession nor the medical profession has the necessary guidance to know what is lawful. 


Legalizing assisted suicide is bad public policy.  Doctors’ diagnoses can be wrong and legalization is a recipe for abuse.  Legalization would also allow the state government to encourage citizens to kill themselves.  This is an area where the government does not belong.  Montana consistently has one of the highest suicide rates in the nation.   Montana doesn’t need the “Oregon Experience.”


Legislation should be enacted to overrule Baxter and clearly declare that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.  
      

* * *

Senator Jim Shockley, of Victor, is a Republican State Senator, probate lawyer, and an adjunct instructor at the University of Montana School of Law. 

Margaret Dore is an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  She is also President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted-suicide.  (www.choiceillusion.org)  She is a Democrat.  

* * *

[1] To read this article as published in The Montana Lawyer and the opposing article by Senator Anders Blewett, go here:

http://www.montanabar.org/associations/7121/November%202011%20mt%20lawyer.pdf