ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, March 7, 1996 TAG: 9603070043
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
NOTE: Lede
For the first time in U.S. history, a federal appeals court Wednesday ruled 8-3 that a mentally competent, terminally ill adult has a constitutional right to use a doctor's assistance in hastening his death.
Stepping boldly into ``a controversy that may touch more people more profoundly than any other issue the courts will face in the foreseeable future,'' the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco held that the Washington state law that makes physician-assisted suicide a felony is a denial of due process of law under the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution.
``There is a constitutionally protected liberty interest in determining the time and manner of one's own death,'' appellate Judge Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles wrote in his majority opinion. ``If broad general state policies can be used to deprive a terminally ill individual of the right to make that choice, it is hard to envision where the exercise of arbitrary and intrusive power by the state can be halted.''
Reinhardt's analysis relies heavily on language drawn from U.S. Supreme Court abortion cases because the issues have ``compelling similarities,'' he wrote.
The decision, which may become the Roe vs. Wade of ``right to die'' jurisprudence, is applicable in nine Western states.
Enhancing its magnitude, Wednesday's ruling states that in addition to doctors, others ``whose services are essential to help the terminally ill patient obtain and take'' medication that will hasten death are covered by the decision and thus are not to be prosecuted.
They include ``the pharmacist who fills the prescription; the health-care worker who facilitates the process; the family member or loved one who opens the bottle, places the pills in the patient's hand, advises him how many pills to take, and provides the necessary tea, water or other liquids; or the persons who help the patient to his death bed and provide the love and comfort so essential to a peaceful death.''
The three judges in the minority wrote separate dissents. The longest was by Robert Beezer of Seattle, who contended that Reinhardt incorrectly extrapolated from prior abortion rulings and predicted that the decision would have negative consequences for society.
Washington state officials said they probably would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision's rationale could provide a strong defense for the pending criminal trial in Michigan of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who has become a lightning rod nationally in the debate over physician-assisted suicide. He has filed a constitutional challenge to California's assisted suicide ban in Los Angeles federal court.
The ruling immediately intensified the controversy over assisted suicide. Praise came from civil libertarians and AIDS organizations and criticism from the American Medical Association and the Catholic Church.
Wednesday's ruling reinstates a 1994 decision by U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein in Seattle. She agreed with the contentions of three terminally ill patients, five physicians who regularly treat such patients and Compassion in Dying, a nonprofit organization that provides support, counseling and assistance to mentally competent, terminally ill adults considering suicide.
The three patients died while the case was pending.
LENGTH: Medium: 67 linesby CNB