Many polls have been taken. However, the results vary according to the precise question asked. Recent results show support for euthanasia choice at:

57% in favor, 35% opposed in the US (CNN/USA Today poll of 1997-JUN) (7)

An earlier Gallup Poll taken in 1966-MAY showed 75% support.

• 74% in Canada
• 80% in Britain
• 81% in Australia

Ballot measures have been proposed in three states of the United States. They showed support at:

• 46% in Washington (1991)
• 46% in California (1992)
• 51% in Oregon (1994)

Current Legal Status of Euthanasia in the US

Citizens in the state of Oregon approved Ballot Measure 16 in the 1994-NOV elections which would legalize euthanasia under limited conditions. (10) The National Right to Life Committee obtained a court injunction to delay implementation of the measure. It became stuck in the appeals process. The Oregon Medical Association originally took no stand on the matter but has recently come out against it because of what it considers legal flaws. Conservatives within the Oregon government forced approval in early 1997-JUN of a second referendum, to be held in 1997-NOV. The second referendum is supported by about 61% of adults in Oregon. Both sides in the debate are planning to invest 10 million dollars in advertising prior to the referendum. An unidentified lawyer said: "It's becoming the abortion issue of the next century and just as nasty...Yet it is even more important because how we die concerns absolutely everyone."

One concern in Oregon relates to the methods of assisting suicides that the measure would allow. Death by injection would not be permitted. Medication intended to cause death would only be given orally. This is considered by many to be a fatal flaw in the bill. Oral medication is sometimes not effective because some patients vomit up the pills before they can take full effect. The result may be a coma or a lingering death. At the same time, many physicians find it difficult to abandon the use of pills and directly inject a poisonous substance. Derek Humphry, co-founder of the Hemlock Society wrote that the Oregon law "could be disastrous" because it did not permit lethal injections. He referred to a study in the Netherlands that showed that pills often failed. "The only two 100 percent ways of accelerated dying are the lethal injection of barbiturates and curare or donning a plastic bag." (8)

The Assisted Suicide Battle in Washington State - 1996

On 1996-MAR-7, The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional a state of Washington law that criminalized physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. The court ruled by an 8 to 3 majority that the law violates the right to liberty and equal protection guaranteed by the 14 Amendment to the US constitution:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens"

30 states have specific laws which specifically criminalize assisted suicide. This ruling only affects Western states and territories: Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, N. Mariana Islands, Oregon and Washington.

The court said "when patients are no longer able to pursue liberty or happiness and do not wish to pursue life, the state's interest in forcing them to remain alive is less compelling....A mentally competent, terminally ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane death rather than being reduced to a child-like state of helplessness, diapered, sedated, incompetent ". The decision was condemned by the American Medical Association, the Roman Catholic Church and the pro-life lobby. It was greeted with enthusiasm by AIDS activists.

Assisted Suicide in New York State - 1996

On 1996-APR-3, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional a state of New York law that criminalized physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. A panel of 3 judges found that the law violates the equal protection guaranteed by the 14 Amendment to the US constitution. This ruling only affects 3 states: Connecticut, New York and Vermont. On 1996-APR-18, the Attorney General of the state of New York asked that the ruling be suspended for a short time, while the State appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court.

US Supreme Court 1997-JUN

The Supreme Court rendered its decision on the New York and Washington cases on 1997-JUN-26. They found that the average American has no constitutional right to a physician assisted suicide. The vote was 9 to 0, an unusual, unanimous decision. Thus, the New York and Washington laws which ban such suicides are constitutional. On the other hand, the court implied that there is no constitutional bar that would prevent a state from passing a law which permits physician assisted suicide. Oregon has done exactly this. So, the battle must be fought on a state by state basis. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:

"Throughout the nation, Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality and practicality of physician-assisted suicide. Our holding permits this debate to continue, as it should in an democratic society"

This is a disadvantage to the "pro-life" camp who are working to make certain that choice in assisted suicide remains unavailable to all Americans. The ruling means that they will have to prevent all 50 states from passing permissive laws. If even one state passes such a law, then at least wealthy patients will be able to relocate to that state, satisfy the resident requirements, and obtain help in dying.

The Supreme Court decision was very narrow in scope. It only ruled on whether the public had a general right to assisted suicide. The case was originally brought by six terminally ill individuals in intractable pain who wanted access to assisted suicide. But by the time that the court heard legal arguments, all six had died. Thus, the court was unable to rule on whether terminally ill individuals should have a right to assisted suicide. Instead, they made a decision on whether citizens generally had that right.

Many of the justices indicated that certain groups within society might have a constitutional right to access to suicide (e.g., an individual who is terminally ill and in intractable pain). If a case were brought by such a person, then the court might find in their favor. The trick will be to find a person who can survive a terminal illness long enough for their case to wander through the judicial system and reach the Supreme Court. If even one of the original six patients had been able to survive, the court's decision might have been very different. They might have ruled that people generally had no legal right to obtain assistance in dying, but that terminally ill patients in pain did have.

Some justices discussed the dual effect theory. This is a situation in which a physician prescribes an adequate level of morphine or other drugs to control pain, even while knowing that it will shorten the patient's life. They found that this was acceptable behavior. Some of the justices expressed concern about any laws which permitted assisted suicide; they were worried that such laws might be abused, and that they might be the first of a series of laws which might generate a "slippery slope" towards a society that has wide-open assisted suicide, without effective controls.

Assisted Suicide in Florida 1997-JUL

Section 782.08 of the Florida Statutes prohibits assisted suicide. Charles E. Hall had acquired AIDS from a blood transfusion, and wanted to ask his doctor, Cecil McIver, M.D., to assist in his suicide at some date in the future when his medical condition degraded to the point where he no longer wanted to live. He asked the Florida court to place an injunction against the State Attorney from prosecuting Dr. McIver in the event that he helped Mr. Hall commit suicide. The court found that Mr. Hall was mentally competent, suffering from deteriorating health and was terminally ill. The court granted the injunction; it based its decision on Florida's privacy provision and the federal Equal Protection Clause. The privacy law states in part: "[e]very natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life." The court required that "the lethal medication must be self administered only after consultation and determination by both physician and patient that Mr. Hall is (1) competent, (2) imminently dying, and (3) prepared to die."

The State Attorney appealed the ruling of the Trial Court. The Supreme Court overturned the earlier decision, rendering its ruling on 1997-JUL-17. Their reasoning was that Florida's privacy provision did not extend to this case, that the state has an interest in preventing suicide, that the integrity of the medical profession must be preserved. They stated that: (9)

"We do not hold that a carefully crafted statute authorizing assisted suicide would be unconstitutional. Nor do we discount the sincerity and strength of the respondents' convictions. However, we have concluded that this case should not be decided on the basis of this Court's own assessment of the weight of the competing moral arguments. By broadly construing the privacy amendment to include the right to assisted suicide, we would run the risk of arrogating to ourselves those powers to make social policy that as a constitutional matter belong only to the legislature."