Montana Bill to prohibit assisted suicide fails in the Montana Senate.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Joshua Margolis reported on February 21 for NBC Montana that Bill SB 210, a bill that would prohibit assisted suicide in Montana, passed in the Senate at Second reading by a 26 to 24 vote.

Mara Silvers reported for The Montana Free Press on February 22, that SB 210 was defeated at third reading was defeated by a narrow margin after a few Senators flipped their votes.

Over the past few years Montanans have had a confusing situation concerning assisted suicide.

In 2009, the Baxter court decision declared that Montanans had a right to assisted suicide. The Baxter decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court where it was decided that Montanans do not have a right to assisted suicide but the Court found a defense of consent. Therefore, if a Montana physician assists a suicide the physician must prove that there was consent.

• Article: Physician-Assisted Suicide is not legal in Montana.

Senator Carl Glimm

In 2023, Montana State Senator, Carl Glimm sponsored Bill SB 210 to reverse the Montana Supreme Court decision by clarifying that consent is not a defense for homicide or assisted suicide.

Margolis reported:

Senate Bill 210 would change Montana code to state that a physician “purposefully and knowingly prescribing a lethal dose of medication to a patient” is against public policy. It also states that a patient’s consent cannot be used as a defense if the physician is charged with homicide.

Margolis quoted Senator Carl Glimm, the sponsor of the bill that:

“This needs to be the solution. We need to be consistent in our message and tell the citizens of Montana that suicide is not the answer,”

Margolis also reported that:

The bill had its initial committee hearing on Feb. 1 in the Senate Judiciary and passed its first reading along party lines the following week. A third reading is expected on February 22, and it would then head to the House if approved.

Efforts to pass similar bills in previous legislative sessions have been unsuccessful, but this bill has the vocal support of Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras.

EPC-USA supported SB 210 and thank Senator Glimm for standing up against assisting a suicide.

Massachusetts Court case seeks to legalize assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Masslive published a report by Shira Schoenberg concerning the court case that has been launched to overturn the Massachusetts assisted suicide law. According to Schoenberg, Roger Kligler, who is living with cancer, and Dr. Alan Steinbach launched a lawsuit to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Massachusetts.

This is not the first time similar lawsuits have been filed. There have been several lawsuits that were simply dismissed by the court, while others were heard with the finding that there is no right to assisted suicide.

The Baxter case in Montana didn't legalize assisted suicide but the Montana Supreme Court created a "defense of consent" for Montana physicians and an activist judge in New Mexico found a right to assisted suicide in that state, but her decision was overturned by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Schoenberg reported that Kligler and Steinbach asked the court to overturn the Massachusetts assisted suicide law:

Kligler and Alan Steinbach, a doctor who wants to write lethal prescriptions for terminally ill patients, have sued Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, arguing that criminal prosecution of a doctor for prescribing a lethal dose of medication to a competent, terminally ill patient is illegal under the state constitution. Today, a Massachusetts doctor who prescribes a lethal dose of medication could be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Schoenberg reported that the Massachusetts Attorney General believes that the issue of assisted suicide is properly a legislative decision. The article reported:

Assistant Attorney General Robert Quinan said Healey has not taken a position on whether physician-assisted suicide is good or bad policy. But, he said, it is not for Healey — or the court — to decide. The plaintiffs, he said, want “to resolve through litigation a policy dispute that’s properly reserved for the Legislature.”

Nancy Houghton and John Kelly

Disability rights activists, John Kelly from the disability right group Second Thoughts and Nancy Houghton from the disability rights group ADAPT told Schoenberg in the interview:

“There’s no safeguard in place or possible that could prevent the loss of lives due to misdiagnosis, insurer treatment denial, depression and coercion and other forms of abuse,” said John Kelly, director of Second Thoughts Massachusetts, a group of disability rights advocates who oppose assisted suicide. 

Nancy Houghton, who is on the board of the Massachusetts chapter of the disability rights group ADAPT, said she was told she had three to five years to live when she was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis, a lung disease. That was 15 years ago.

“If I had listened to the doctors back then, I could be dead now,” she said.

There is no right to assisted suicide in the US or Massachusetts. Legalizing assisted suicide gives doctors the right in law to be involved with killing their patients.

Montana Bill prohibiting assisted suicide passes in the House

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Great news: Montana House Bill 284 (HB 284) passed in the Judiciary House ensuring that it will be debated and voted in the Montana Senate. The debate on the bill may happen later this week.

It is interesting that the media have been silent on the success of HB 284.

Montanans have faced a confusing situation concerning assisted suicide. In 2009, the Baxter court decision declared that Montana citizens had a right to assisted suicide. The Baxter decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court where it was decided that Montana citizens do not have a right to assisted suicide but even but the Court granted a tightly worded defense of consent, if a physician was prosecuted for assisted suicide.

* Physician-Assisted Suicide is not legal in Montana.

Since the Montana Supreme Court decision, the assisted suicide lobby has claimed that assisted suicide is legal in Montana, while in fact assisted suicide is technically prohibited.

HB 284 reverses the Montana Supreme Court Baxter decision by clarifying that consent is not a defense for homicide or assisted suicide.

The assisted suicide lobby sent out an emergency appeal today calling HB 284 the physician imprisonment act. The assisted suicide lobby is confirming that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana.

Assisted suicide abandons people at their time of greatest human need.

Montana bill (HB 284) would prohibit assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

For the past few years Montanans have faced a confusing situation concerning assisted suicide. In 2009, the Baxter court decision declared that Montana citizens had a right to assisted suicide. The Baxter decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court where it was decided that Montana citizens do not have a right to assisted suicide but even but the Court granted a tightly worded defense of consent, if a physician was prosecuted for assisted suicide.

Physician-Assisted Suicide is not legal in Montana.

Since the Montana Supreme Court decision, the assisted suicide lobby has claimed that assisted suicide is legal in Montana, while in fact assisted suicide is technically prohibited.

This year House Bill 284 was introduced to reverse the effect of the Montana Supreme Court decision by clarifying that consent is ineffective for homicide or assisted suicide. HB 284 states:

Section 1. Section 45-2-211, MCA, is amended to read: "45-2-211. Consent as defense. 

(1) The consent of the victim to conduct charged to constitute an offense or to the result thereof is a defense. 

(2) Consent is ineffective if:
(a) it is given by a person who is legally incompetent to authorize the conduct charged to constitute the offense;
(b) it is given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or disorder, or intoxication is unable to make a reasonable judgment as to the nature or harmfulness of the conduct charged to constitute the offense;
(c) it is induced by force, duress, or deception; or
(d) it is against public policy to permit the conduct or the resulting harm, even though consented to.

(3) (a) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), physician aid in dying is against public policy, and a patient's consent to physician aid in dying is not a defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection (3), "physician aid in dying" means an act by a physician of prescribing a lethal dose of medication to a patient that the patient may self-administer to end the patient's life. The term does not include an act of withholding or withdrawing a life-sustaining treatment or procedure authorized pursuant to Title 50, chapter 9 or 10."

Two years ago, a similar bill lost on a tie vote.

Montana assisted suicide vote defeated in error.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

For the past few years Montana has faced a confusing situation with respect to assisted suicide. In 2009, the Baxter court decision declared that Montana citizens had a right to assisted suicide. The Baxter decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court that decided that Montana citizens do not have a right to assisted suicide but even though the Court did not overturn the statute protecting Montana citizens from assisted suicide the Court did grant a tightly worded defense of consent, if a physician was prosecuted for assisted suicide.

• Physician-Assisted Suicide is not legal in Montana.

Since the Montana Supreme Court decision, the assisted suicide lobby has claimed that assisting a suicide is legal in Montana, but in fact assisted suicide is technically prohibited.

This year Rep Brad Tschida introduced House Bill 365 that stated consent is not a defense in assisting a suicide. HB 365 would have clarified that assisting a suicide is prohibited in Montana.

Last Wednesday, HB 365 failed on the final vote in a 50 to 50 tie vote, and yet HB 365 had the votes to pass. According to the Missoulian Rep Peggy Webb accidentally voted against HB 365 on the final vote.

“It was a mistake,” said Rep. Peggy Webb, R-Billings, who changed from a vote for the bill Tuesday to a vote against Wednesday. “I hit yes and then thought, ‘No, I don’t want assisted suicide,’ and changed the vote. It was too late to change it back.” Her vote went from yes to no. 

Votes can’t be changed if they would alter the outcome of the vote, which was the case with Webb's vote. House Bill 365 was carried by Rep. Brad Tschida, R-Missoula.

Considering the fact that the media is constantly brainwashing the public with the message that Americans want assisted suicide, it is a sad reality that HB 365 died on a failed vote.

Thank you to the Montanans Against Assisted Suicide for all of their work.

Great News: Montana House passes bill to prohibit assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Montana has taken a big step forward in passing a bill that would protect Montanan's from assisted suicide.

Today the Montana House passed bill HB 477, by a 51 to 48 vote. HB 477 would include physician-assisted suicide within the current state law that prohibits "aiding or soliciting suicide."

On Friday, HB 477 had a tie vote (50 to 50). On Saturday, the bill was brought back for reconsideration and today it passed.

HB 477 will now go to the Montana Senate.

For the last few years Montana has had confusion with respect to assisted suicide. In 2009, the Baxter lower court decision stated that Montana citizens had a right to assisted suicide. Baxter was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court that decided Montana citizens do not have a right to assisted suicide. The court did not overturn the assisted suicide statute, but the court did grant a tightly worded potential defense of consent, if a physician was prosecuted for assisted suicide.

Therefore physician-assisted suicide remained illegal in Montana, since prosecution for assisted suicide remained possible.

Senate Bill 202, a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide in Montana failed to pass in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Montana House debates bill to stop assisted suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Montana House

Montana came one step closer to closing the door on assisted suicide. on Thursday March 12, when the Montana House passed House Bill 477, by a vote of 51 to 49. HB 477 would include physician-assisted suicide within the current state law that prohibits "aiding or soliciting suicide."

(Update: The vote to send the bill to the senate was tied 50 to 50  on Friday March 13. The bill may be dead.)

For the past few years Montana has faced a confusing situation with respect to assisted suicide. In 2009, the Baxter court decision declared that Montana citizens had a right to assisted suicide. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court in Montana that decided that Montana citizens do not have a right to assisted suicide. The Court did not overturn the statute protecting Montana citizens from assisted suicide, but the Court did grant a tightly worded defense of consent, if a physician was prosecuted for assisted suicide.

Therefore physician-assisted suicide remains illegal in Montana, if prosecuted, a physician could use a defense of consent.

According to the Revalli Republic news Rep. Jerry Bennett, the sponsor of the bill, stated that the bill faces a final vote on Friday before it can advance to the Montana Senate. Bennett stated:

Montana already has a high suicide rate, and that in Oregon, which allows assisted suicide, the suicide rate is much higher than the national average.

Senate Bill 202, a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide in Montana was defeated last month at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Convicted Montana rapist charged with aiding or soliciting suicide.

By Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Montana Billings Gazette reported on September 18 that a convicted rapist from Roundup Montana was charged with aiding or soliciting suicide. This is an important story since the assisted suicide lobby claims that assisted suicide is legal in Montana.

This is a very disturbing story.

The Billings Gazette reported:

A Roundup man in Montana State Prison for having sex with an underage girl is facing a new charge alleging he pressured the girl to kill herself during a live video chat in September 2013. 

Last week, the Musselshell County Attorney’s Office charged Michael John Morlan, 21, with aiding or soliciting suicide, and two other felonies — intimidation and tampering with witnesses and informants. 

...Charging documents say Morlan contacted the girl, who is now 16 years old, via Skype, an online video-chatting service, on Sept. 1, 2013, and told her to kill herself while he watched.

To summarize the story, Morlan, who was convicted of rape, contacted the underage girl he raped from the Montana State Prison, by Skype, to pressure and encourage her to kill herself.

The creep allegedly aided, encouraged and counseled the girl to commit suicide.

Montana Judge dismisses appeal but addresses the Baxter assisted suicide decision

Link to the media release on the Choice is an Illusion website.

Montana - 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: Baxter case analysis.

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 likely appeal.

For information about problems with assisted suicide and how it puts people at risk, see: Quick facts about assisted suicide.

Lawsuit would keep assisted suicide illegal in Montana.

The following letter was written by Bradley Williams, the president of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide and published in the Missoulian on September 6, 2013

I am the president of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide. Robert Minto’s (Aug. 29) letter regarding our lawsuit against the Board of Medical Examiners was ill-informed. First, assisted suicide is not legal in Montana. Second, the goal of our lawsuit is to keep it that way.

Our reasons for opposing legalization include: it will encourage people with years to live to throw away their lives; it will create new paths of elder abuse; and it will empower government health plans and other insurers to offer suicide as a “treatment” in lieu of desired traditional treatments (to cure, to improve the quality of life and/or to extend life). See: http://bit.ly/14ZUJfz.

Minto’s letter implies that assisted suicide is legal under the Baxter decision. That decision, however, merely gives a potential defense to a homicide charge.

Bills to legalize assisted suicide have been defeated in the past two legislative sessions. In 2013, a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide, Senate Bill 220, did not even get out of committee. In 2011, a similar bill, SB167, also died in committee.

During a hearing on SB167, the sponsor Sen. Anders Blewett made statements on the record conceding that assisted suicide was not legal then, and with the failure of the above bills, it’s not legal now. For example, he said: “under the current law ... there’s nothing to protect the doctor from prosecution.” Dr. Stephen Speckart, a plaintiff in Baxter, made a similar statement, as follows: “most physicians feel significant dis-ease with the limited safeguards and possible risk of criminal prosecution after the Baxter decision.”

To view transcript excerpts, please go to http://bit.ly/15EOppu.

With our lawsuit to prevent legalization, we are incurring attorneys fees and other expenses. 

To donate, please go here: www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/p/donate.html.

Bradley D. Williams, president, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide, Hamilton

The Montanans Against Assisted Suicide organize conference on June 29, 2013 in Great Falls Montana.

The Montanans Against Assisted Suicide have organized an interesting and provocative afternoon conference on Saturday June 29, 2013; (1 pm - 4 pm) Registration begins at noon  at the Hilton Garden Inn - 2520 14th St SW, Great Falls Montana. 


Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International will be the keynote speaker at the conference. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is a barrier to the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia world-wide. Alex Schadenberg is a recognized international expert on assisted suicide and euthanasia. He is a warm, friendly and engaging speaker.

Other speakers include:
Margaret Dore: President - Choice is an Illusion, Washington State Attorney; 
Phil Tummarello: Ret. Police Sergeant Inspector, Stevensville Montana; 
Bradley Williams: President - Montanans Against Assisted Suicide; 

Margaret Dore

Carol Mungas, Great Falls Montana.

Topics:
Margaret Dore: "A Legal Perspective - Is the Baxter decision wrong?"
Phil Tummarello: "A Law Enforcement Perspectives"
Alex Schadenberg: "Assisted Suicide - A Threat to Public Safety"
Carol Mungas and other Voices.

For more information contact Bradley Williams at: 406-531-0937 or bradley@montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org 

Link to the conference poster.

Margaret Dore: Vermont (S-77) assisted suicide bill lacks oversight, is not safe.

By Margaret Dore

Margaret Dore

Margaret Dore is an elder law/appellate attorney in Washington state who has been licensed to practice law since 1986.  Dore is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and a former Chair of the Elder Law Committee of the American Bar Association Family Law Section. Dore is the President of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide. See www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org

I. OVERVIEW
I am an attorney in Washington State where physician-assisted suicide is legal.  Our law is similar to S.77, which seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide.  Moreover, it’s well known that financial reasons are “an all too common motivation for killing someone.” 

S.77 allows an heir, or another person who will benefit financially from a patient’s death, to help the patient sign up for the lethal dose.  S.77 also allows an heir, or someone else who will benefit financially from the death, to pick up the lethal dose at the pharmacy.  Once the lethal dose is in the house, there is no oversight.  

S.77 is sold as promoting patient choice and control.  The bill is instead a recipe for elder abuse.  Don’t make Washington’s mistake.

II. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
A. Physician-assisted Suicide
The American Medical Association (AMA) defines physician-assisted suicide as occurring “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.”  An example would be a doctor’s prescription of a lethal dose to facilitate a patient’s suicide.  The AMA rejects this practice, stating:

Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

B. Most States Reject Assisted Suicide
Oregon and Washington are the only states where physician-assisted suicide is legal.  Oregon’s law was enacted by a ballot initiative in 1997.  Washington's law was enacted by another initiative in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.  No such law has made it through the scrutiny of a legislature despite more than 100 attempts.  In a third state, Montana, there is a court decision that gives doctors who assist a suicide a defense to prosecution for homicide.  The meaning of this decision is subject to ongoing litigation. 

In the last two years, three states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide.  These states are: Idaho; Georgia; and Louisiana.

III. THE BILL  
A. Patients are Not Necessarily Dying; They May Have Years to Live

S.77 applies to patients with a “terminal condition,” defined as having a medical prediction of less than six months to live.  Such patients are not necessarily dying and may have years to live.  This is because doctor predictions of life expectancy can be wrong and because the requirement of six months to live is based on the patient’s not being treated.  Consider Oregon resident, Jeanette Hall, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2000 and wanted to do assisted suicide.  Her doctor convinced her to be treated instead.  In a 2012 affidavit, she states:

This July, it was 12 years since my diagnosis.  If [my doctor] had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead.

B. How S.77 Works
S.77 has an application process to obtain a lethal dose, which includes a written request with two required witnesses.  

Once the lethal dose is picked up at the pharmacy, there is no oversight.  The death is not required to be witnessed.  No one, not even a doctor, is required to be present.

IV. ARGUMENT
A. Patient “Control” is an Illusion
1. No witnesses at the death
As noted above, S.77 does not require witnesses at the death. Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for the patient’s heir, or for another person who will benefit financially from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his consent. Even if the patient struggled, who would know?

Without disinterested witnesses, the patient’s choice and control over his death is not guaranteed.

2. Someone else is allowed to talk for the patient

Under S.77, patients obtaining the lethal dose are required to be “capable.”  This is, however, a relaxed standard in which someone else is allowed to talk for the patient.  S.77 states:

“Capable” means that a patient has the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to a physician, including communication through persons familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating . . .”  (Emphasis added).

The person talking for the patient is not required to be a trusted person designated by the patient, for example, an agent under an advanced directive.  The person talking for the patient is allowed to be an heir.  With this circumstance, the patient is not necessarily in control of his fate.

3. An heir is allowed to procure the patient’s request for the lethal dose

S.77 prohibits an heir from acting as a witness on the written request for the lethal dose.  S.77 does not, however, prohibit an heir from procuring that request.  An example of procuring would be: providing the written request to the patient; recruiting the witnesses; and supervising the signing.  S.77, which allows an heir to procure the request, does not promote patient choice and control.  It invites coercion. 

4. An heir is allowed to pick up the lethal dose at the pharmacy

S.77 allows the lethal dose to be picked up at the pharmacy by “an expressly identified agent of the patient.”  S.77 does not prohibit an heir, or another person who will benefit financially from the death, from being this agent.

B. Legalization will Create New Paths of Elder Abuse
In Vermont, there are an estimated 3,750 cases of violence and abuse against elders each year.  Nationwide, elder financial abuse is a crime growing in intensity, with perpetrators often family members.  There are also victims reported murdered for their funds. 

Elder abuse is often difficult to detect.  This is largely due to the unwillingness of victims to report. “Shame, dependence on the abuser, fear of retribution, and isolation from the community are significant obstacles that discourage elders from reporting these crimes.”

In Vermont, preventing abuse of vulnerable adults, which includes the elderly, is official state policy.  If assisted suicide is legalized via S.77, new paths of abuse will be created against the elderly, which is contrary to that policy.  Alex Schadenberg, chair for 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?”

C. Any Study Claiming that Oregon’s Law is Safe, is Invalid

During Montana’s 2011 legislative session, the lack of oversight over administration in Oregon’s law prompted Senator Jeff Essmann to make the following observation: The Oregon studies are invalid.  Senator Essmann, who is now President of the Senate, stated:

[All] the protections 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.

D. My Cases

In my law practice, I have had two clients whose parents signed up for the lethal dose.

In one case, one side of the family wanted the parent to take the lethal dose while the other did not.  The parent spent the last months of his life struggling over the decision of whether or not to kill himself.  My client, who was fearful that the other side of the family would use the lethal dose to kill the parent, who was no longer competent, was also torn and traumatized.  The parent did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death.

In the other case, the parent reportedly refused to take the lethal dose at his first suicide party (“I’m going to bed.  You’re not killing me”) and was high on alcohol the next night when he took the dose at his second party.  The person who told this to my client subsequently recanted.  My client did not want to pursue the matter further.  As a lawyer who has worked on divorce cases, I couldn’t help but notice that if the parent's much younger wife had divorced him, he would have got the house.  This way, she got everything.

V. CONCLUSION
If S.77 is enacted, patients affected by its passage will not necessarily be dying and may have years to live.  S.77's assurance of patient choice and control is also untrue. The bill is instead a recipe for elder abuse.  

The most obvious problem is a complete lack of oversight over administration of the lethal dose.  No doctor, not even a lay witness is required.  Even if the patient struggled, who would know?  

Don’t make Washington’s mistake.  Reject S.77.

Respectfully submitted May 10, 2013

Margaret Dore, Attorney at Law 
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
www.margaretdore.com 
www.choiceillusion.org 
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor Seattle, WA 98154
206 389 1754 main reception line

Contact Margaret Dore at: margaretdore@margaretdore.com for the original article with all references.

Montana: Fight over assisted suicide moves back to court.

The legislative session this year in Montana witnessed the defeat of a bill to legalize assisted suicide and the defeat of a bill to protect Montana citizens from assisted suicide. The issue of assisted suicide in Montana is a little confusing, but now a court case may finally clarify the status of assisted suicide in Montana. 

The issue of assisted suicide took a turn toward confusion in 2009 when a judge decided that there is a right to assisted suicide in Montana. That decision was overturned by the Montana Supreme Court but the Supreme Court stated that if prosecuted a physician could use a defence of consent.

Today the Associated Press published the following article concerning the legal challenge that has been filed by the Montanans Against Assisted Suicide. This what the Associated Press reported:

Fight over assisted suicide moves back to court

Associated Press - May 8, 2013

HELENA — The fight over physician-assisted suicide in Montana is moving back to the courtroom after the Legislature failed this session to clarify that the practice is specifically legal or illegal.

Montanans Against Assisted Suicide is trying to strike the state Board of Medical Examiners' policy that guides doctors in the matter.

A Helena judge has scheduled oral arguments for next month in the case. The lawsuit was filed in December.

Since then, the Montana Legislature failed in efforts to either clarify that the practice is specifically legal or illegal. It was the second straight session where lawmakers couldn't agree on which direction to take the state.

Supporters of the procedure argue that Montanans should be allowed to decide themselves how to die when facing terminal illness. Opponents argue physician-assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse and the government has a responsibility to protect the vulnerable older population.

The procedure has been surrounded by various interpretations since the Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that nothing in state law prohibits physician-assisted suicide - but it did not rule on whether the practice is a constitutionally protected right. The decision said nothing in state law, or precedent, makes the procedure illegal.

A Board of Medical Examiners rule adopted last year says it would consider, on an individual basis, any complaints filed against a doctor for providing "aid-in-dying." Without formal laws guiding the procedure, there are no other state reporting or other requirements and it is unknown how common the practice is.

Montanans Against Assisted Suicide argues in its court case that it believes the Supreme Court never legalized the procedure with its 2009 decision, which it argues is much narrower than others are interpreting it. The group also argues that the board implemented its new rule without sufficient public notice.

The group argues that the board's position on the matter attempts to convince more doctors they will be protected if they assist a patient with suicide, which can be done with a prescription of drugs.

The lawsuit calls the rule "a significant toe in the door to the attempted backdoor legalization of assisted suicide."

The Montana Board of Medical Examiners has said that it wrote its position paper based on a request from a member. The board said its position does not pass judgment on the procedure one way or another.

The board said at the time it put the rule into place that the position paper was neither an administrative rule or a law, but merely informative guidance to its regulated members.

Doctor responds to Dr. Kress's involvement with assisted suicide in Montana

The following letter was published in the online edition of the Ravalli Republic newspaper in Montana. This letter is a response to the article by Dr. Kress describing the three suicide deaths that he assisted.

I am a general medical practitioner with 30 years’ experience. I work in emergency medicine, with nursing home residents and with incarcerated persons. I have two issues with Dr. Eric Kress's (April 7) opinion describing his assistance of three suicides. 

First, since when did assisted suicide become legal? 

Second, I have concerns about the cases he describes.

Kress claims that his patients were not depressed. His description of one of those patients, however, suggests otherwise. Someone who is "often … found weeping and bemoaning the miserable fated that had befallen him" sounds depressed and unrecognized and untreated. And, someone who is "experiencing increasing pain in his chest…" may have needed different medications. There is essentially no pain that cannot be treated, though a secondary effect may be to hasten death. I do not know the medical facts of these cases; I do know that there were other options than committing suicide, whether or not they were explored.

Doctors’ diagnoses can also be wrong. I have seen patients in my own practice live longer than expected. With this situation, patients participating in medical suicides can be throwing away their lives. I have also seen suicidal people get better, and rebuild lives that looked pretty grim. I do not agree that doctors or anyone else should be assisting other people to commit suicide.

Carley C. Robertson, MD,
Havre

Montana Bill HB 505 - Fact Sheet (Preventing “Purposely” Assisting Suicide)

The following was published by the Montanans Against Assisted Suicide on April 10.

By Margaret Dore, Esq,
For a print version, click here

1. What is HB 505?HB 505 is a short two page bill that will end the confusion over whether physician-assisted suicide is legal in Montana. The bill does this by clearly stating that physician-assisted suicide is not legal.

2. What is Assisted Suicide? Assisted suicide means that someone provides the means and/or information for another person to commit suicide. When a physician provides the means and/or the information, the term is physician-assisted suicide.  Other involved persons can include family members who assist the suicide, for example, by taking the patient to the doctor. Such persons do not always have the best interest of the patient at heart.

3. Who Supports HB 505?HB 505 is supported by 112 Montana physicians who joined together to run supporting ads throughout the state. HB 505 is also supported by Montanans Against Assisted Suicide, which has submitted 4000 plus signatures against assisted suicide into the Senate Judiciary Committee. See.

4. Why is Legalizing Assisted Suicide a Bad Idea?In the two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal (Oregon and Washington), problems have emerged including elder abuse and steerage to suicide by the state health plan. See.

5.  What does HB 505 do?(a) HB 505 clarifies Montana’s existing prohibition against “aiding or soliciting suicide” in 45-5-105, to clearly state that physician-assisted suicide is not legal in Montana. The bill states: "A person who purposely aids or solicits another person to commit suicide,including physician-assisted suicide, commits the offense of aiding or soliciting suicide."  (HB 505, Section 1, lines 13-15). To view a copy of the bill, go here:

(b) HB 505 gives doctors a clear safe harbor by expressly providing that the term, “physician-assisted suicide,” does not include palliative care to a dying person or any act to withhold or withdraw treatment authorized under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. (Title 50, Chapters 9). (HB 505, Section 4) In other words, the law regarding palliative care and the withholding or withdrawing of treatment remains unchanged.

(c) HB 505 only applies when a defendant “purposely” aids or solicits another person to commit suicide. (HB 505, Section 1, line 13; and Section 4(b), lines 23 and 24). A doctor will not somehow get into trouble for merely discussing “end of life” options.

(d) HB 505 gives prosecutors an optional charging mechanism with lower penalties than current law in which assisted suicide is charged as a homicide. The 10 year maximum penalty in HB 505 is commensurate with the 10 year maximum penalty in the new elder abuse bill, SB 134.

(e) HB 505 expressly provides that consent of the victim is not a defense. (HB 505, Section 2, lines 16 to 17). This is consistent with the 1973 Law Commission Comments that accompany 45-5-105, which state:  

"If the conduct of the offender made him the agent of the death, the offense is criminal homicide, notwithstanding the consent or even the solicitations of the victim." (Emphasis added).

6. Why is HB 505 needed now?

The 2009 Baxter decision has created confusion regarding existing statutes against physician-assisted suicide. A doctor has also admitted to assisting three suicides, claiming that his actions were legal under Baxter. If he is not prosecuted, or if the prosecution fails due to confusion over Baxter, assisted suicides will be encouraged. If, instead, HB 505 is enacted, there will be a clear statement going forward that assisted suicide is not legal in Montana. The negative consequences of legalization will be avoided. This is why HB 505 is needed now.

Montana HB 505, a bill to protect people from assisted suicide continues.

An article written by Brian Wipf and published on April 4 in the Great Falls Tribune examines the politics surrounding Montana bill HB 505, a bill that would clarify and protect people from assisted suicide in Montana.

The article begins explaining the HB 505, which passed in the Montana House, tied in the Senate Judiciary committee by a 6 to 6 vote. The article stated:

The committee voted 6-6 on the bill, which leaves it in limbo in committee for now, a bill ... introduced by Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel.

The article set the stage by interviewing supporters and opposition to HB 505.

Supporters of HB 505 said the decision merely gives physicians a potential defense if they are charged with a felony for aiding in a patient’s dying. Opponents insist the Baxter Decision legalized aid-in-dying, so HB 505 would effectively negate the court’s decision. 

Proponents of what they call physician aid-in-dying say it is a person’s autonomous decision to end his or her life and that doctors providing aid-in-dying to patients can put an end to unnecessary suffering of patients in the throes of a terminal illness. 

Opponents, who prefer the term physician-assisted suicide, say coercion and elder abuse will become even more rampant if providers were allowed to aid in their patients’ deaths. 

Dr. Paul Gorsuch, a Great Falls neurological surgeon, helped spearhead a doctors’ campaign against physician-assisted suicide that included 112 physicians throughout Montana. The group of physicians took out an ad before the March 25 hearing in Montana newspapers, including the Tribune, declaring their support for HB 505. 

Gorsuch said the solidarity of the physicians, whose names were gathered in just five to seven days, was “extraordinary. ... I’ve been in the state since 1989, and I’ve never seen doctors agree (in this way) on a non-pocketbook issue.” 

Even within the medical community, the issue is contentious, however. Physicians testified both in favor of and against HB 505. 

Kerns said the bill could still be “blasted” through the Senate if enough votes can be assured. But he said he doubts that will happen. 

“There was a tremendous amount of public input leading up to the decision,” Kerns said.

Compassion & Choices Montana covered up their disappointment that SB 220, a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide, was defeated in the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee. The article stated:

Emily Bentley, campaign manager for Compassion and Choices Montana, an end-of-life advocacy group, said opponents of HB 505 suspected the bill would be tabled based on the fate of similar bills in the 2011 legislative session. 

Bentley said proponents of physician aid-in-dying do not believe the Baxter Decision needs to be codified in the Legislature. 

“We think (the Baxter Decision) is clear,” she said. 

And while Compassion and Choices supported SB 220, introduced by Sen. Dick Barrett, D-Missoula, Bentley said the group does not consider legislation necessary. 

Bentley pointed out that a Missoula doctor, Dr. Eric Kress, admitted at the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee to providing physician aid-in-dying to his patients. That changes the playing field, she said.

Bradley Williams from the Montanans Against Assisted Suicide told the Great Falls Tribune that they intend to blast HB 505 to the Senate floor. The article stated:

Bradley Williams, president of Montanans Against Assisted Suicide, said he hopes to gain enough support to blast the bill through the Senate. 

“I don’t know we’ll have the support, but I can tell you this, I’m getting Democratic support, and it’s not done yet,” Williams said. 

If HB 505 fails to get enough votes to blast it through the Senate, Kerns said he believes the issue will linger to the next session. 

“What you’re going to see is the pro-euthanasia crowd … continue to advance the theory that it’s legal and they’re not correct,” said Kerns. “But yes, it will be addressed again. It will show up in the next legislative session.”

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition predicts that HB 505 will gain the necessary votes in the blast to go to a vote in the Montana Senate. Congratulations to the Montanans Against Assisted Suicide and their allies in getting HB 505 to the stage of victory, to protect Montana Citizens from Assisted Suicide.