Assisted-Suicide Ban Illegal, Judge Rules

Following the lead of a federal appeals court in San Francisco, a Los Angeles judge has ruled that California’s law making physician-assisted suicide a felony is unconstitutional.

In a case involving a 36-year-old Los Angeles County man dying of AIDS, U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall held that the California law violates the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In March, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a landmark decision that a mentally competent, terminally ill adult has a constitutional right to utilize a doctor’s assistance in hastening his death. That ruling struck down Washington state’s ban on physician-assisted suicide and by implication similar laws in several other Western states under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, including California.

Marshall’s ruling, released Thursday, explicitly strikes down the California statute, utilizing the same reasoning as the 9th Circuit decision. But the decision will have no immediate impact, said Mark E. Field, the Long Beach lawyer representing the AIDS patient who challenged the law.

Field said that Marshall has to issue a separate order implementing her ruling for a physician to be protected from prosecution. Field said he is not sure when Marshall will issue the companion order. He said it is possible the judge may delay issuing such an order because of pending litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Washington officials obtained a stay of the 9th Circuit decision, while the U.S. Supreme Court considers their request for a review of the ruling. The Supreme Court is expected to announce in early October whether it will take the case.

*

In the meantime, Field said that his client has no immediate plans to take his life. However, Field added, “he wants to be able to take advantage of the right [to physician-assisted suicide] when he reaches the stage in his illness where he is ready to die with dignity.”

In his suit, the plaintiff, described as “John Doe” to protect his privacy, said he has “seen his peers die without dignity and in horrible pain, and he does not want that fate to befall him.”

Field said that if Marshall does not issue an implementing order soon, he probably will ask her to issue the order.

State Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, whose office defended the California statute, issued a statement saying he was disappointed with Marshall’s ruling. “I expect to appeal this case immediately and strongly believe that our criminal law will be upheld by the nation’s highest court.”

Lungren said, however, that he was pleased with two related rulings that Marshall made. The judge rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the statute violated his right to privacy under the California Constitution. Additionally, she dismissed a separate constitutional challenge to the California law by Michigan doctor Jack Kevorkian, saying he had no standing to challenge the law because he is not a licensed physician in California.