Skip to main content

Montana back in the news with an interesting "States' Rights" issue: Physician-assisted suicide

At the end of April I covered Montana's 10th Amendment challenge to the Federal government over firearms produced within the State.

Now Montana comes into national focus again, as the oral arguments have today been made in Baxter v. Montana, first introduced to me by Thaddeus Pope's Medical Futility and summarized here at Compassion and Choices:

Robert Baxter was by all accounts a tough man. Even in the end, last year, as lymphocytic leukemia was killing him, Mr. Baxter, a 76 year-old retired truck driver from Billings, Mont., fought on. But by then he was struggling not for life, but for the right to die with help from his doctor.

Now, in death, Mr. Baxter is at the center of a right-to-die debate that could make Montana the first state in the country to declare that medical aid in dying is a protected right under a state constitution.

The state’s highest court on Wednesday will take up Mr. Baxter’s claim that a doctor’s refusal to help him die violated his rights under Montana’s Constitution — and lawyers on both sides say the chances are good that he will prevail.


Here is a brief but very interesting 2.5 snippet of the oral arguments by Baxter's attorney:



How does this become a potential States' Rights issue? If we assume that there is a good chance that the Montana Supremes uphold the original Baxter decision, this will potentially put the State on a collison course with a 1997 decision by the US Supreme Court that terminally ill patients do not have a constitutional right to suicide. Under the Bush administration I would have expected to see the Department of Justice filing against Montana within hours of such a decision.

I don't think the Obama administration, however, will move that fast if at all against a pro-assisted-suicide decision, leaving the onus on an individual or hospital to bring the case forward into the Federal court system. It is--after all--a difficult position for the Obama DOJ, because the evidence suggests that the President himself might well support that kind of decision. But to argue in favor of it, the DOJ would have to argue that one State could, by granting more rights to its citizens than does the US Constitution, tie the hands of Federal authorities.

Conceivably, it is something of the ultimate issue of state v federal power, even though I doubt it will go that far.

Meanwhile, there is the issue in the case: physician-assisted suicide. What I do not like about Baxter's arguments is that they seem to interpret the patients' right to die as equaling the right to force their physician into assisting with the suicide.

As a Libertarian and a believer in the idea that your body is your own property I have no trouble with your right to die, but I do have a serious problem if your right is morphed into a power to compel a physician to assist you. If he or she is willing to assist you, fine. But the physician whose allegiance to the Hippocratic Oath or even religious principles should not be forced to assist in a suicide, which is what the Baxter decision could portend.

After all, as the LP Platform says, The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever.

[With apoligies to folks who have a small enough understanding of libertarianism to believe that this sentence was written to promote state-sponsored discrimination; just because you don't get it is no reason for the rest of us to stop using it.]

Comments

Anonymous said…
Don't apologize. If you don't want to serve Jews in your hunting supply store (and who would?), you should have the right to refuse them.
Delaware Watch said…
"As a Libertarian and a believer in the idea that your body is your own property I have no trouble with your right to die, but I do have a serious problem if your right is morphed into a power to compel a physician to assist you. If he or she is willing to assist you, fine."

Gee, I must be a Libertarian because I agree. :)
Either that, Dana, or I am a progressive.
Carla said…
FYI:

Baxter v Montana is a case being decided under the Montana State Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.

There will be no "collision course" here in terms of state's rights as the federal government will not be in play at all with this decision.

If you're interested in learning more about Baxter v Montana, the Compassion & Choices website has a comprehensive webpage:

http://www.compassionandchoices.org/act/legal_work/baxter

Thanks for covering this story.

Carla Axtman
Online Community Builder
Compassion & Choices

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba