Massachusetts Court Rules There’s No Right to Assisted Suicide

Life News ^ | 12/19/22 | Massachusetts Citizens for Life

[marshmallow]

There is no right to physician-assisted suicide in the Massachusetts Constitution, according to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), which ruled in a case today that spanned the last six years.

Cape Cod doctor Roger Kligler, who suffers from advanced prostate cancer, and Dr. Alan Steinbach, who treats terminally ill patients, appealed a superior court decision that denied their claims that medically assisted suicide (also known as physician-assisted suicide) was outside the criminal laws for murder and manslaughter, and thus, insolated physicians and patients from risks of prosecution. The two doctors argued that the right to assisted suicide was guaranteed as a fundamental right in the Massachusetts Constitution.

Today, however, the Massachusetts SJC disagreed with the men and preserved the well-established distinction between “withdrawing or refusing life-sustaining medical treatment” and “attempting suicide.”

The Court explained in its decision that, “Although we recognize the paramount importance and profound significance of all end-of-life decisions, after careful consideration, we conclude that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does not reach so far as to protect physician-assisted suicide. We conclude as well that the law of manslaughter may prohibit physician-assisted suicide, and does so, without offending constitutional protections.”

Massachusetts Citizens for Life President Myrna Maloney Flynn praised the ruling. “In a monumental victory for the pro-life movement, the SJC upheld Massachusetts’ common law rule that prohibits physician-assisted suicide. This common sense decision upholds protections from premature death for the terminally ill and most vulnerable members of our society, who deserve truly compassionate care, not killing.”

[packagingguy]

Simple question If you want to die so badly why not get a revolver, place bullets in the holes, put it to your head and pull the trigger? Why drag everyone else into it?

[Equine1952]

Damn right. Do it yourself you lazy SOB. Finally an entitlement they shoot down who’d a thunk it.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

It’s Massachusetts. You can’t GET a revolver there.

[DoodleBob]

Slightly off-topic, a friend's father was recently hospitalized with a heart attack and hooked up to machines. The attending doctor didn't think the old man would make it. My friend, respecting Dad's wishes to not be on machines, signed a paper approving the de-machining and putting the Dad on "comfort care" which (IN GENERAL) is basically no curative care. That was ok - that was the Dad's wishes.

The old man pulled through, but the hospital refused to put Dad back on fluids or nutrition because - you guessed it - "comfort care" IN THAT HOSPITAL and for THAT DOCTOR is effectively Terri Schaivo-style starvation and dehydration.

They said, food and water was a medical treatment and thus "curative" and AGAINST the rules of "comfort care."

My friend was stunned. And the attending and her team wouldn't budge. For the next few days, my friend and siblings heard from scores of nurses etc that withholding fluids was effectively "the right thing to do"....very Terri Schaivo-like.

It took a virtual miracle whereby a different doctor intervened, said the father clearly wasn't terminal, and put the old man back on nutrition and fluids. While my friend's Dad passed away peacefully in his sleep a few weeks later, it was on his terms.

Euthanasia is, technically, illegal. And I know many people would be OK if fluids were withheld when it is THEIR time to go. Fair enough.

But euthanasia can be made legal if you're not careful with Fine Print or vetting the "mercy killing" mindset of the attending.

[escapefromboston]

People are so lazy nowadays they can’t even kill themselves without government assistance.

[Mears]

Bttt

[TexasGator]

“They said, food and water was a medical treatment and thus “curative” and AGAINST the rules of “comfort care.””

Something is missing from this story. You said he recovered.

Besides food and water are allowed even in comfort care.

[escapefromboston]

True but its easy enough to OD if you wanted.

[Gay State Conservative]

I’m stunned to see this come from the Massachusetts State Supreme Court. One thing’s for sure...the incoming filthy bull dyke Maoist Governor will make sure to fill open seats with pigs who’d rule in favor of all kinds of suicide...including those of the involuntary variety.

[Gay State Conservative]

Not entirely true. State law says that the police chief of the applicant’s town of residence gets the final say regarding a license to carry application. In many cities and towns the chief has open contempt for the 2nd Amendment. In others that’s not the case. My guess is that in Boston,Cambridge,Newton,Brookline and Belmont (all part of “Greater Boston” and *very* “progressive”) you can’t get one.Other towns might be different.

[JJBookman]

Massachusetts ruled that? OMG!

[OrangeHoof]

I doubt the ones who died from it are particularly concerned.

[Clutch Martin]

“Simple question If you want to die so badly why not get a revolver, place bullets in the holes, put it to your head and pull the trigger? Why drag everyone else into it?”

Oh no...That would be way to messy...

[Varda]

DNRs are death sentences. I've been through this with elderly relatives in PA, OH and GA. All the hospitals had standardized DNRs. They withhold food and water and often ordinary treatments. My FIL was denied simple antibiotics but I convinced the family to refuse to sign and he was treated ( lived two more years).
I read one research paper where a woman was overdosed (by the hospital) on opioid pain relievers and the hospital refused to give her treatment due to a DNR.
I read everything completely when asked to sign and would never sign one. I'm convinced the idea of being hooked up to machines is a propaganda tool to get people to agree to die.