Foley, Kathleen M., M.D., director, Open Society Institute's Project on Death Baron, Charles H., professor of law, Boston College Law School 250 309 53 Gomez, Carlos F., M.D., assistant professor of medicine, University of Vir- Hendin, Herbert, M.D., executive director, American Suicide Foundation 101 173 Kass, Leon R., M.D., Addie Clark Harding Professor, the College and Commit- 349 Klagsbrun, Samuel C., M.D., executive medical director, Four Winds Hospital Lee, Barbara Coombs, chief petitioner, Oregon's Death with Dignity Act Quill, Timothy E., M.D., professor of medicine/psychiatry, University of Roch- Rosenblum, Victor G., Nathaniel L. Nathanson Professor of Law and Political Science, Northwestern University School of Law, and visiting professor, LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Baron, Charles H., professor of law, Boston College Law School: Prepared Letter dated April 26, 1996, from the White House to Chairman Canady Letters of invitation to testify at the hearing to the White House and Coleman, Diane, J.D., M.B.A., executive director, Progress Center for Inde- pendent Living and Carol Gill, Ph.D., Chicago Institute of Disability Re- Foley, Kathleen M., M.D., director, Open Society Institute's Project on Death 12 Hendin, Herbert, M.D., executive director, American Suicide Foundation: Pre- 103 Page Kasimar, Yale, Clarence Darrow Distinguished University Professor, University of Michigan: Prepared statement 177 Kass, Leon R., M.D., Addie Clark Harding Professor, the College and Commit- 352 100 152 Krauthammer, Charles, M.D.: Prepared statement Lee, Barbara Coombs, chief petitioner, Oregon's Death with Dignity Act Rosenblum, Victor G., Nathaniel L. Nathanson Professor of Law and Political 163 39 279 343 ASSISTED SUICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1996 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Charles T. Canady (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Charles T. Canady, Henry J. Hyde, and Barney Frank. Also present: Keri D. Harrison, assistant counsel; Jacquelene McKee, paralegal; Mark Carroll, staff assistant; and Robert Raben, minority counsel. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CANADY Mr. CANADY. The subcommittee will come to order. Currently 35 States have statutes prohibiting assisted suicide. An additional 8 States recognize assisted suicide as a common law crime. These criminal prohibitions show the value States place on the protection of human life and the serious threat that assisted suicide poses to respect for life in the United States and to the safety of vulnerable persons. Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington and Quill v. Vacco decided by the ninth and second circuit courts of appeal, respectively, held that assisted suicide is a constitutional right for competent, terminally ill persons. On March 6, 1996, in Compassion in Dying, the ninth circuit found a liberty interest in determining the time and manner of one's own death. The court held "that insofar as the Washington statute prohibits physicians from prescribing life-ending medication for use by the terminally ill who wish to hasten their own deaths, it violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment." In other words, the court decided that assisted suicide is a fundamental right. On April 2, 1996, in the Quill case, the second circuit court struck down New York statutes prohibiting assisted suicide as violative of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court found that the New York law did not treat similarly situated persons alike. The court stated that "those in the final stages of terminal illness are allowed to hasten their deaths by the removal of such systems, but those who are similarly situated except for the previous attachment of life-sustaining equipment are not allowed to hasten death by self-administered prescribed drugs." (1) Not only did the court decide the New York statutes were not rationally related to any legitimate State interest, but the court determined that the State had no interest in prolonging a life that was soon to end. The court asked the question: "But what interest can the State possibly have in requiring the prolongation of a life that is all but ended?" The court then answered its own question: "None." Interestingly, unlike the ninth circuit, the majority in the second circuit refused to call assisted suicide a fundamental right. I am disturbed by the decisions of the ninth and second circuit courts of appeals. With no national debate, these courts are attempting to implement a broad public policy that would profoundly affect the way Americans deal with life and death and drastically alter the role of physicians in our society. It is my hope that the Supreme Court will hear these cases and overturn these dangerous decisions. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide or any other practice designed to kill innocent human beings would result in abandoning to death those in our society who are most vulnerable. Cloaking such practices with the protection of the Constitution would be yet another blow against respect for life in our land. Today we will hear from three panels of witnesses. They will testify about the medical, legal, and ethical issues surrounding assisted suicide in the United States. I want to express the subcommittee's appreciation to each of the witnesses testifying today. I must also express my disappointment that the administration has declined our invitation to participate in today's hearing. President Clinton has declared his opposition to legalizing assisted suicide. When asked in 1992 about legislation to allow assisted suicide, he stated, "I certainly would do what I could to oppose it.' The spokeswoman for the President recently reaffirmed his opposition to assisted suicide in the Washington Times. She told the Times, "On the political side, there are a lot of issues on which Mr. Clinton agrees with the Catholic Church," and then cited opposition to assisted suicide as one of those issues. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice and the White House both declined invitations to testify at this hearing. But in a letter from the White House, which I will place in the record, the Director of Legislative Affairs for the White House reiterated that the President opposes assisted suicide. [The letter follows:] THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON April 26, 1996 Dear Mr. Chairman: I appreciate your letter of April 22, 1996 inviting a representative of the President to testify before your Subcommittee during its April 29th hearing on "Assisted Suicide in the United States." I also understand that Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde extended a similar invitation to Attorney General Janet Reno. Generally, because this Administration strongly believes in the value and importance of the Congressional hearing process, we endeavor to accommodate each request for testimony or assistance. There are times, however, when circumstances dictate that Administration testimony be withheld until a more appropriate time. The President has clearly expressed his personal opposition to assisted suicide, and he remains of that view. Nevertheless, after consulting with both the White House Counsel Jack Quinn and Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, I believe this is one of those rare occasions when the Administration must respectfully decline the Committee's invitation. Your staff informs us that two recent assisted suicide cases, Quill v. Vacco and Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, decided by the 2nd and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal, respectively, will be the primary focus of the April 29th hearing. It is anticipated, therefore, that any Administration witness would be expected to, and indeed should be prepared to, comment on those decisions. The Administration has not had occasion to address the constitutional issues that dictated the courts' decisions in those cases and which are of primary interest to your Subcommittee. Additionally, many legal experts believe the U.S. Supreme Court will consider either or both of these cases later this year or early next year. If that is so, any Administration position on the relevant constitutional issues may be developed in connection with a decision by the Solicitor General to file amicus briefs in these cases. |