A measure of dignity at the end

There is no question that the Legislature needs to follow through on a Supreme Court ruling that effectively allowed physician-assisted suicides in Montana, because that ruling provided no guidance or oversight whatsoever.

It is the prerogative and responsibility of state lawmakers, representing the people, to provide clarity for such a volatile and complicated issue rather than leave it to the courts. The Legislaturse is now considering two directions: an outright ban on assisted suicide or a law that would provide the necessary guidance for physicians and patients.

It’s our view that assisted suicide should be allowed, but only if it comes with strong and clear protections and controls to most importantly, prevent people from being coerced into such a decision.

Senate Bill 167 has provisions requiring two doctors to diagnose a person as being terminally ill, as well as a mental health evaluation to determine if they are mentally competent.

The bill goes on to require that the patient must make both written and oral requests for a lethal prescription, and the requests must be signed by two witnesses, one of whom can have no relation to the patient.

The patient cannot be determined to be depressed, prior to being issued a prescription, and a doctor cannot assist the patient in administering the drugs. All of these provisions represent a good start for legislation that lawmakers need to consider with great care.

Advocates for the bill that would ban assisted suicide are deeply concerned that the elderly cannot be protected from coercion. The concern is appropriate, but surely providing effective safeguards is not impossible.

Remember, assisted suicide applies only to people who are certain to die. There is no shortage of stories involving terminally ill people who could be allowed to choose some measure of dignity to be spared horrible and unnecessary pain at the end of their lives.