That’s my grandfather in the aforementioned article. This arose mostly because it appears that Montana state law interferes with the ability to obtain a reasonable death with little suffering. I can understand the desire to prevent assisted suicide, but when the laws restrict the ability of an individual to die peacefully instead of suffering through the painful stages of a terminal disease, I can see where this would be a problem.
Now mind you, I’m not intimately familiar with the law(s) in Montana regarding assisted suicide, but it must be fairly concerning if my grandfather’s choosing to address it now. He’s doing okay right now with his illness, but it’ll eventually go downhill and just won’t really be treatable/deal-able. I personally wouldn’t want to hear that he’s being forced to suffer with his disease simply because they cannot let him die. I suppose cases like this really would just need to go under more scrutiny prior to a decision. Would it be too much to put a decision about assisted-death in the case of a terminal disease into the hands of a committee at the hospital comprising both in- and out-of-hospital members? That might be too much of a bureaucracy, but it could at least allow these things to happen the laws don’t get repealed.
I’d comment more, but I’m a little distracted and unable to concentrate on a solid thought process at the moment. Woo…*sarcastically* I’m sure this issue has been discussed to death prior to this anyhow.