Aid in Dying After The Baxter Decision from Blake Francis on Vimeo.
Mark J. Hanson, Moderator, Bioethicist, Adjunct Professor COT & Lecturer Liberal Studies, UM
Rep. Dick Barrett, Montana State Legislator
Rep. Micheal More, Montana State Legislator
Mark S. Connell, Private Practice Lawyer
Dr. Stehpen Speckart, Physician
Dr. Eric Kress, Hospice Physician
Mary Anne Sladich-Lantz, Vice President of Mission Leadership at St. Patrick Hospital & Health Sciences Center; Member St. Patrick Ethics Committee
On December 31, 2009, the Montana Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in the case of Baxter v. State of Montana, upholding the right of terminally ill Montanans to seek aid in dying from their physicians without the fear that the doctors could be criminally prosecuted for assisting them.Montana thus joined Oregon and Washington as the only states recognizing such a right, but it is the only state that has done so through the judicial process rather than by the ballot.The Supreme Court's decision was based upon Montana public policy as embodied in state statutes and court decisions. It left open the possibility, however, that a future legislature could change that policy, which means that aid in dying will continue to be hotly debated among our citizens and in the halls of government. What the next legislature will do with the issue - and how the courts will respond to whatever the legislature comes up with - is a matter of great interest and importance for all Montanans. ---Mark Connell
1. The Baxter decision currently allows physician-assisted suicide as an option for health care. Should the legislature take steps to overturn this decision, or should it move ahead to craft guidelines for how physician-assisted suicide should be practiced? Defend you position briefly.
2. Potential abuses: One of the major lines of objection to physician-assisted suicide is that policy cannot be so tightly formulated so as to protect against certain abuses or practices harmful to vulnerable populations, such as the disabled, elderly, and marginally competent individuals. What abuses should we be most concerned about, and how can legislation adequately protect against them?
3. Defining the population: For whom should physician-assisted suicide be an option? What arguments do you have for defining the population as you do, including some but not others? What difficulties do you see in defining the appropriate patient population?
4. Values: Looking at the issue from the perspective of community values, which values are enhanced by the Baxter decision and which are threatened? Which professional values in the moral tradition of medicine are enhanced, and which are threatened?
September 2009 Baxter v. Montana Oral Arguements: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y82Qg27bLaw
Responses to the December 2009 Court Decision
Recent Article in the Missoula Independent
Click here for a New York Time's Article on the Baxter v. Montana Case
http://www.aul.org/MT_Baxter_v_State
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82928
Aid in Dying: A Panel Discussion on the Ethical Implications of Baxter v. Montana from Blake Francis on Vimeo.