Baxter v. Montana

Baxter v. Montana is a landmark legal case in the state of Montana, United States, that addressed the issue of physician-assisted suicide. The case was brought before the Montana Supreme Court in 2009, where the court ruled that under the Montana Constitution, competent terminally ill patients have the right to die with dignity, which includes the right to obtain self-administered medications to hasten death under certain conditions. This decision made Montana the third state in the U.S. to allow some form of legal assistance in dying, following Oregon and Washington.

Background

The case originated when Robert Baxter, a retired truck driver from Billings, Montana, who was suffering from a terminal illness, along with four physicians and the advocacy group Compassion & Choices, filed a lawsuit in the Montana First Judicial District Court. Baxter sought a legal right to die with dignity, arguing that the state's constitution implicitly allowed terminally ill patients to seek physician assistance in dying. The plaintiffs argued that such a right was protected under the Montana Constitution's guarantees of privacy and dignity.

Court Proceedings

The District Court ruled in favor of Baxter in December 2008, stating that the right to assisted suicide for terminally ill patients was protected under the state's constitution. The state of Montana appealed the decision, leading to the case being heard by the Montana Supreme Court.

In its December 31, 2009, decision, the Montana Supreme Court did not explicitly recognize a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. However, it did conclude that nothing in Montana state law prohibited a physician from honoring a terminally ill, mentally competent patient's request for medication to end their life. The court also noted that such a physician could raise the patient's consent as a defense if charged with homicide.

Impact

The ruling in Baxter v. Montana did not result in the establishment of a statewide protocol or guidelines for physician-assisted suicide, unlike the laws in Oregon and Washington, which were enacted through voter referendums. Instead, it left the practice in a legal gray area, where physicians could assist terminally ill patients in dying without explicit legal protections beyond the court's ruling.

The decision has been a subject of both praise and criticism. Advocates for the right to die with dignity hailed it as a significant victory for patient autonomy and compassionate end-of-life care. Critics, including some religious and disability rights groups, argued that it could lead to abuses and pressure on vulnerable patients to end their lives.

See Also

• Right to die
• Physician-assisted suicide
• Compassion & Choices
• Oregon Death with Dignity Act
• Washington Death with Dignity Act