On December 8, 2008 District Court Judge Dorothy McCarter’s issued the decision that it is legal for a physician to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to a competent, terminally ill Montanan who requests it. Two days later, the state attorney general’s office asked the judge to freeze her decision until the Montana Supreme Court could rule on the case. Judge McCarter’s response on January 8, 2009 was an unequivocal, “No!” She reasoned it could take months or years before the case is heard by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the constitutional rights of dying Montanans would be violated.

Montanans owe a great deal of gratitude to this courageous judge. It would have been easy for her to retreat at this critical juncture. Instead, as I see it, she reaffirmed that our right to make choices at the very nexus of life and death is of critical importance to an individual’s dignity. In essence she said that dying Montanans are worthwhile, fully functioning humans who deserve every consideration and whose constitutional rights are worth protecting even in their last moments.

There is a propensity to think that humans who are near death are too weak or too fragile to make decisions for themselves. This is augmented by a subtle feeling among the healthy that the rights of the dying are not as important as their own; “it really doesn’t matter much, after all, they will soon be gone.” Judge McCarter understands that the dying are vital human beings who are least able among us to wait for or fight for their rights. By denying to put a hold on her decision she affirmed that the most vulnerable Montanans are protected under the state constitution; that the rights of those of us whose deaths are imminent will not be ignored and that Montanans who find themselves in this situation before the appeal is heard deserve to have their rights protected as much as anyone.

What this means to all of us is that our rights to dignity and privacy are of great consequence no matter what phase of life we are in; that our rights must be protected every moment of our lives. Of course this is as it should be, but it is remarkable to think about none the less. It is also reassuring.

The American Public Health Association has published its adopted policy supporting Oregon-style aid-in-dying laws.

Submitted by Kathryn Tucker , Legal Affairs Director for Compassion & Choices, the policy was adopted on October 28, 2008, after two years of extended consideration, debate, discussion and some strong opposition. After fully and carefully considered all the arguments APHA voted in favor of the policy by a 58 percent margin.

The APHA carefully reviewed Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, and the evidence that it has caused no harm to patients, including those considered to be in vulnerable populations. The group also reviewed evidence that the Death with Dignity Act has significantly improved end-of-life care in Oregon and prevents covert, back-alley practices.

The organization becomes the fourth national major medical association – and the largest – to examine Oregon’s Death with Dignity experience and adopt policy supporting it.

Tucker applauded the public health leaders for supporting patient choice at the end of life. "The adoption of policy supporting aid in dying by the APHA reflects a growing trend of support among mainstream medical and health policy organizations, recognizing the importance of this compassionate option,” she said. “APHA’s support for aid in dying should be influential as other states consider making this option legal."

In its published policy the APHA "Supports allowing a mentally competent, terminally ill adult to obtain a prescription for medication that the person could self-administer to control the time, place, and manner of his or her impending death, where safeguards equivalent to those in the Oregon DDA are in place."