376 P.3d 836
N.M.2016Background
- Petitioners (two physicians and a patient) sought declaratory and injunctive relief declaring New Mexico’s assisted-suicide statute, NMSA 1978 § 30-2-4, inapplicable or unconstitutional as applied to physician-provided prescriptions for a mentally competent, terminally ill patient to self-administer a lethal dose (“physician aid in dying”).
- Petitioners described physician aid in dying as a prescription of lethal barbiturates for a terminally ill, competent patient to self-administer; physicians offered testimony about Oregon-style statutory safeguards and clinical practice.
- The district court held § 30-2-4 applied but ruled that applying it to physician aid in dying violated New Mexico constitutional rights (strict scrutiny), enjoining enforcement as to Petitioners.
- A divided New Mexico Court of Appeals agreed § 30-2-4 applied; the panel split on the level of scrutiny and constitutional protection, producing no majority on that question.
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reviewed whether § 30-2-4 covers physician aid in dying and whether the New Mexico Constitution independently protects a right to such aid; it considered federal precedent (Glucksberg) and New Mexico constitutional provisions (Art. II §§ 4, 18) and statutes (UHCDA, Pain Relief Act).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 30-2-4 (assisting suicide) apply to physician aid in dying? | Morris et al.: medical/clinical distinctions mean aid in dying is not “suicide” and thus outside § 30-2-4. | Brandenburg/State: statute’s plain text proscribes "deliberately aiding another in the taking of his or her own life," which covers prescribing lethal means for self-administration. | Held: § 30-2-4 applies to physician aid in dying. |
| Does the U.S. Constitution (Due Process Clause) protect a fundamental right to physician aid in dying? | Petitioners: Glucksberg is outdated/overly historical; modern evidence and practices support constitutional protection or a narrower, particularized right. | State: Glucksberg controls; assisted‑suicide bans are historically rooted and legitimate interests justify regulation. | Held: Under federal precedent (Glucksberg) no categorical federal fundamental right; possibility for narrow particularized claims remains but not established here. |
| Does New Mexico’s Due Process Clause (Art. II, § 18) or Inherent Rights Clause (Art. II, § 4) independently protect physician aid in dying? | Petitioners: New Mexico’s history (UHCDA, Pain Relief Act, early recognition of patient autonomy) and Article II, § 4 warrant greater protection than federal law. | State: New Mexico statutes expressly disavow assisted suicide; Article II, § 4 has not been interpreted to create an absolute right to aid in dying and remains subject to regulation. | Held: No distinctive state constitutional characteristic justifies departing from Glucksberg; Article II, § 4 does not establish a fundamental/important right to physician aid in dying. |
| If no fundamental right, is § 30-2-4 rationally related to legitimate state interests as applied? | Petitioners: statutory safeguards in other states show safe implementation; state interests do not justify blanket prohibition. | State: Rational bases include preserving life, preventing suicide, protecting medical ethics, protecting vulnerable persons, and preventing euthanasia expansion. | Held: Under New Mexico’s (heightened) rational-basis review, § 30-2-4 is rationally related to legitimate interests; statute constitutional on its face and as applied to Petitioners. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (No federal fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide; upheld assisted‑suicide bans as rationally related to legitimate interests)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (criticized Glucksberg’s narrow historical approach to defining fundamental rights; discussed broader substantive-due-process methodology)
- Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) (recognized competent persons’ right to refuse lifesaving treatment; informed-consent/battery history)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (liberty includes personal autonomy to define one’s concept of existence and meaning)
- Baxter v. State, 224 P.3d 1211 (Mont. 2009) (Montana court held statutory consent defense could bar homicide prosecution for physician aid in dying under Montana law)
- Morris v. Brandenburg, 356 P.3d 564 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (divided NM Court of Appeals decision: § 30-2-4 applies; no majority on level of scrutiny)