Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington.

U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Abstract
KIE:
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed a district court decision that had declared
unconstitutional a Washington state statute making it a felony knowingly to cause or aid another
person to attempt suicide. The lower court had invalidated the statute on the basis that it violated
the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment liberty and equal protection rights and had likened the right
to commit suicide to the right to an abortion. The district court also found that no constitutional
distinction could be made between the competent terminally ill who could elect to end their lives
by having life support discontinued and the terminally ill seeking physician assistance to commit
suicide. The Court of Appeals held that the statute did not deprive persons seeking physician-
assisted suicide of constitutionally protected liberty interest and that facial invalidation of the
statute was unwarranted.

IV. CONCLUSION
The court declares RCW 9 A. 36.060 unconstitutional because it places an undue burden on the
exercise of a protected Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest by terminally ill, mentally
competent adults acting knowingly and voluntarily, without undue influence from third parties, who
wish to commit physician-assisted suicide. The court further declares RCW 9 A. 36.060
unconstitutional because it violates the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment
by prohibiting physician-assisted suicide while permitting the refusal or withdrawal of life support
systems for terminally ill individuals.
The motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs Jane Roe, John Doe and James Doe is
accordingly GRANTED, and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment as to those claims
is DENIED. The physician plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED insofar as the
physicians purport to raise claims on behalf of their terminally ill patients. The physician plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to their own claims on the grounds that
the *1468basis for those claims has not been adequately addressed. For the same reason,
plaintiff Compassion in Dying's claim on its own behalf is DENIED at this time.
As for the injunctive relief requested by plaintiffs, the court declines to enter an injunction barring
defendants from enforcing RCW 9 A. 36.060.[13]

Major New Developments In Physician- Assisted Suicide

MARCH 11, 1996 VOLUME 3, NUMBER 37

Although physician-assisted suicide has been much discussed in recent years, few legal
developments have advanced the state of the law since Oregon voters approved an initiative
measure in November, 1994. That changed dramatically this week, with two major developments.
On Wednesday, a Federal Appeals Court ruled that Washington State’s ban on assisting with
suicide is unconstitutional, at least as applied to “physician-aid-in-dying.” Then on Friday, a
Michigan jury found Dr. Jack Kevorkian not guilty in his second criminal trial for allegedly assisting
terminally ill patients to commit suicide.
Although the Kevorkian case is probably better-known, the Federal Court of Appeals decision is
of far more significance, particularly in Arizona. The case, Compassion in Dying v. State of
Washington, was decided by the Court of Appeals responsible for reviewing Arizona, California,
Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho and Montana laws. Since it is based on the U.S.
Constitution, the case stands as precedent for all those states, at least until the U.S. Supreme
Court rules otherwise.
The Compassion in Dying case began after Washington voters turned down an initiative measure
on physician-assisted suicide. In spite of the election results, a group of Washington doctors
formed Compassion in Dying, a non-profit group, to help terminally ill patients effectively and
painlessly end their lives.
Compassion in Dying, its doctor members, and three terminally ill patients sued in Federal Court
to invalidate Washington’s criminal statute on assisting suicide. The patients, all three of whom
have since died, are described in the Court of Appeals decision by pseudonyms:
 Jane Roe, 69, a retired pediatrician. Ms. Roe had suffered from cancer for six years, and
the disease had metastasized throughout her skeleton by the time the lawsuit was filed. She
was in constant pain, and suffered from swollen legs, bedsores, nausea, vomiting, impaired
vision and other effects of her illness.
 John Doe, 44, an artist suffering from AIDS. Mr. Doe had been diagnosed three years
earlier, and had lost 70% of his vision, suffered from pneumonia, skin and sinus infections,
seizures and extreme fatigue.
 James Poe, 69, a retired sales representative suffering from emphysema. Mr. Poe was
connected to an oxygen tank at all times, constantly felt he was being suffocated and took
morphine regularly to calm his panic reaction. Like the others, he was in the terminal phase
of his illness.
The Court, in an eloquent and thoughtful decision, found that the U.S. Constitution permits a
competent terminally ill patient to have aid from a physician in ending his or her life. Washington’s
statute (which is nearly identical to Arizona’s) is therefore invalid as applied to physician-aid-in-
dying.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court assayed the history of suicide in ancient times and modern
opinion. According to the Court, ancient Greeks, Romans and Christians viewed suicide as
acceptable, particularly where the victim was ill and in pain. And public opinion polls show a
dramatic shift on the subject in recent years: while 37% of respondents favored permitting doctors
to assist terminally ill patients to commit suicide in 1947, more than half were in favor in a 1973
poll. By 1983, 63% favored physician-aid-in-dying.
Although there is no guarantee that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the question, an appeal
to that court is expected.