Morris v. Brandenburg - 2016-NMSC-027, 376 P.3d 836

Rule:

The United States Supreme Court acknowledged that many rights and liberties protected by the Due Process Clause sound in personal autonomy, but emphasized that this does not mean that every important, intimate, and personal decision is so protected. The Court concluded that the right to commit suicide with another's assistance is not a fundamental liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause because the history of the law has banned and continues to ban assisted suicides. Although the asserted right was not a fundamental liberty interest, state law prohibiting assisted suicides still has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Facts:

Dr. Katherine Morris, a surgical oncologist at the University of New Mexico, and Dr. Aroop Mangalik, clinical director at the UNM Cancer and Research Treatment Center, want to provide the option of aid in dying for their terminally ill patients in New Mexico. The doctors wanted to provide aid in dying by prescribing a lethal dose of barbiturates for the patient's use as a means to end his or her own life. The doctors sought declaratory and injunctive relief to the effect that either (a) Section 30-2-4, New Mexico’s criminal statute prohibiting assisted suicide, did not apply to physician aid in dying; or, even if the statute did apply to physician aid in dying, such an application would be unconstitutional under various provisions of the New Mexico Constitution. The district court found that Section 30-2-4 applied to physician aid in dying, but agreed that any prosecution of that conduct would violate the patient’s fundamental right to choose aid in dying pursuant to the New Mexico Constitution’s guarantee to protect life, liberty, and seeking and obtaining happiness, N.M. Const., art. II, § 4, and its substantive due process protections, N.M. Const., art. II, § 18. Accordingly, the district court examined the application of Section 30-2-4 to physician aid in dying under strict scrutiny and held that the State had not proved that applying the statute in this manner furthered a compelling state interest. The Court of Appeals determined that a patient’s access to aid in dying did not implicate a fundamental liberty interest under Article II, Section 4 of the New Mexico Constitution and therefore reversed the district court’s conclusion that strict scrutiny should apply.

Issue:

Was the right to commit suicide with another’s assistance a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

When providing aid in dying, a doctor’s conduct in prescribing a lethal dose of barbiturates for the patient’s use as a means to end his or her own life was clearly encompassed by the plain language of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-2-4 (1963). The Court held that the asserted right to have a willing physician aid in dying was not protected by the federal Due Process Clause based on controlling federal case law. Moreover, the Supreme Court declined to diverge from the federal precedent as it agreed with its analysis concerning legitimate government interests, there were no distinctive state characteristics with respect to N.M. Const. art. II, § 18, that justified departing from federal precedent, physician aid in dying was not a fundamental or important right under N.M. Const. art. II, § 4, and there was a rational basis for the § 30-2-4 prohibition.