Although the case has only attracted nominal attention, lawyers with the Christian Legal Service have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the pending case because of what it would mean to doctors within the state, as well as the precedent it would set.

CLS is concerned that doctors' ethics and religious beliefs, not to mention the Hippocratic oath, will be violated by a demand that they prescribe deadly chemicals or in some other way assist in a person's death.

In an interview with WND, M. Casey Mattox, a lawyer with the CLS said that states allowing a "right to die" across the country – Oregon and Washington – include an opt-out provision for physicians with ethical or religious opposition to participating in killing a patient.

In Montana’s case, however, there is no provision for a doctor to refuse such "treatment" for a patient.

Yesterday, the CLS and the Christian Medical Association filed briefs asking the state Supreme Court to protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals.

Together, the two groups, representing more than 18,000 Christian medical and legal professions, are urging the court to reverse the district court's decision and recognize a right not to participate in assisted suicide.

"The trial court's decision to create a constitutional right to 'obtain assistance from a medical care provider in the form of obtaining a prescription for lethal drugs' threatens the rights of healthcare professionals and institutions that hold sincere ethical, moral, and religious objections to participating in the intentional killing of their patients," Mattox said.

"Medical professionals should not be coerced to violate the Hippocratic Oath in order to practice in Montana," he said.

The brief also argues that if a "right to die" is to be recognized, it should come from the people through the legislative process, not imposed on the people by a single judge.

The groups also point out that the district decision would seriously undermine doctor-patient relationships. Patients could be uncomfortable knowing their doctor had provided a lethal dose to another patient, and doctors would have concerns about such demands from patients.

Mattox told WND that the effort is clearly part of a nationwide agenda to impose and mandate ethical standards on Americans. In a similar fashion, the Obama administration is suggesting that that pharmacists may not have the right to refuse to dispense abortion-inducing medications, and doctors may not have a conscience right to refuse to do abortions, he said.

"I don't know where it's coming from, but there is certainly a push from government to tell people to set aside religious or ethical qualms and to abide by whatever the government tells you is appropriate," he said.

Mattox said the state still has several weeks to file its briefs in the Montana case, and then there will be further arguments on behalf of requiring doctors to provide terminal treatment.

"A mentally competent, terminally ill Montanan should have the right to choose a peaceful death, when confronted by death," Kathryn Tucker, Compassion & Choices director of legal affairs, told KTVQ-TV, Billings.

But Montana Assistant Attorney General Anthony Johnston disagrees.
Johnston told the television station, "The laws governing the medical profession say the medical profession is to heal, not to kill."

---

Users' Comments (0)

Add your comment