Montana physicians, terminally-ill patients and Compassion & Choices have hailed the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling that terminally ill Montanans have the right to choose aid in dying under state law. The court ruled that public policy of Montana does not criminalize, and much in current public policy affirmatively supports, aid in dying. The court did not reach the question of whether the Montana constitution specifically protects aid in dying.

There is no further appeal from this decision, as the Montana Supreme Courtis the highest court available to decide State issues.

In a detailed review of Montana law on the "Rights of the Terminally Ill," the Court concluded that the legislature specifically defers to a patient's own decisions and affords patients the right to control their own bodies at the end of life. The decision to self-administer life-ending medication receives the same treatment as a decision to discontinue life sustaining therapies such as mechanical ventilation.

The court said in a ringing rejection of arguments by the state: "The State asserts that it has compelling interests in preserving life and protecting vulnerable groups from potential abuses. This broad assertion, however, is entirely inadequate to sustain the State’s position in opposition to physician aid in dying. We are dealing here with persons who are mentally competent, who are incurably ill, and who expect death within a relatively short period of time. The State has failed to explain what interest the government has in forcing a competent, incurably ill person who is going through prolonged suffering and slow, excruciating physical deterioration to hang on to the last possible moment."

This is a landmark victory!

While courts have addressed constitutional questions connected with aid in dying, no court has directly considered whether a mentally competent, terminally ill patient’s desire to bring about a peaceful death should be considered “suicide.”

Connecticut physicians Gary Blick and Ron Levine are asking a Connecticut court to rule that the state assisted suicide statute does not reach their conduct in providing aid in dying. Aid in dying is defined as providing a prescription for life ending medicines to a mentally competent, dying patient at the patient's request which the patient could choose to take. Dr. Blick is the Medical and Research Director of CIRCLE Medical, LLC in Norwalk, Ct. His specialty is in infectious disease and treatment of HIV/AIDS. Dr. Blick was a Resident at Yale University School of Medicine and Greenwich Hospital in Greenwich, CT. He was both an attending and consulting physician at Greenwich Hospital and was the Founder and Chairman of the Greenwich Hospital AIDS Task Force.

Dr. Levine is a primary care internist in Greenwich. He served internship and residency at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center in New York. Dr Levine is both an Attending Physician and a Clinical Instructor at Greenwich Hospital in Connecticut. He is also a Clinical Instructor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center in New York.

The physician plaintiffs are represented by Compassion & Choices Legal Director Kathryn Tucker, Connecticut appellate specialist Dan Krisch and noted Connecticut civil-rights attorney Jamie L. Mills.