Share This Article:

“How We Die” in New Mexico: A Judicial Prescription without Relief

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:239KB) PP. 117-124
DOI: 10.4236/blr.2015.62012    3,936 Downloads   4,346 Views  

ABSTRACT

By some accounts, New Mexico Judge Nan Nash fashioned a landmark ruling in a civil dispute pitting two doctors and a cancer patient against the state. At issue, a statute making it unlawful to “deliberately aid[] another in the taking of his own life.” Plaintiffs in Morris v. King (2014) contended that for a “mentally-competent, terminally-ill individual” who sought a peaceful death over a painful life, a doctor prescribing lethal drugs for this purpose could not be prosecuted since physician aid in dying was not assisted suicide. While plaintiffs’ statutory claim was rejected, Judge Nash did hold that the statute as applied to physician aid in dying violated state constitutional guarantees safeguarding inalienable rights to “liberty, safety and happiness.” I argue that the interpretive path Judge Nash designed to justify her ruling is littered at critical junctures with strangely settled issues. For this reason, her judicial prescription legalizing this end-of-life choice wants the persuasive foundation that such a landmark holding deserves.

Cite this paper

Svenson, A. (2015) “How We Die” in New Mexico: A Judicial Prescription without Relief. Beijing Law Review, 6, 117-124. doi: 10.4236/blr.2015.62012.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990). 497 U.S. 261.
[2] Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (2013). Case No. D-202-CV-2012-2909.
[3] Dillon, J. (2013). With Senate Divided, Supporters Struggle to Find Deal on End-of-life. VPR.
[4] Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). 60 U.S. 393.
[5] Higgins, A. (2013). Belgian Senate Votes to Allow Euthanasia for Terminally Ill Children. New York Times.
[6] Hirschfeld, P. (2013). Dramatic Vote in Senate Proves Game-Changer for Death with Dignity. Vermont Press Bureau.
[7] Holy Trinity v. United States (1892). 143 U.S. 457.
[8] International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide et al. (2009). Brief Amicus Curiae for Montana. DA 09-0051.
[9] Lochner v. New York (1905). 198 U.S. 45.
[10] Morris v. King (2014). Case No. D-202-CV 2012-2909.
[11] New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 4.
[12] New Mexico Psychological Association (2013). Brief of Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs. No. CV-2012-2902.
[13] New Mexico Statutes Annotated (1978). Sec. 30-2-4.
[14] Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (2013). Case No. D-202-CV-2012-2902.
[15] Oregon Death with Dignity Act (1997). Or. Rev. Stat. Sections 127.800-127.897.
[16] Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). 163 U.S. 537.
[17] Schultz, T. (2014). Belgian Proposal: Terminally Ill Kids Could Choose Euthanasia. NPR.
[18] Schwartz, B. (1997). A Book of Legal Lists: The Best and Worst in American Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19] Slaughterhouse Cases (1873). 83 U.S. 36.
[20] Transcript of Proceedings, Morris v. King. (2013). Case No. D-202-CV 2012-2909.
[21] Tucker, K. L. (2013). Remarks before Interim Legislative Health and Human Services Committee Informational Hearing on Morris v. NM and Aid in Dying in NM.
[22] Twining v. New Jersey (1908). 211 U.S. 78.
[23] Vermont Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act (2013). No. 39, 18 V.S.A., Chapter 113.
[24] Washington v. Glucksberg (1997). 521 U.S. 702.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.