X-Message-Number: 5938
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:54:13 -0700 (MST)
From:  (David Brandt-Erichsen)
Subject: Re: Ninth Circuit Court Ruling

>From: Robin Helweg-Larsen <>
>Subject: Re: Ninth Circuit Court Ruling
>Questions: does this cover state residents only?  Or what would residency 
>requirements entail (Oregon, 1 yr?... Nevada, 24 hrs?)  Would it cover 
>non-US residents?

There are no residency requirements associated with the Ninth Circuit Court
ruling.  The problem would be finding a cooperative physician.  In the
current situation, there are no regulations other than the ruling itself
(i.e. the patient must be terminally ill, must be competent, and must be an
adult).  This creates a very uncertain legal environment, and there is no
requirement that doctors need comply with a request for life-ending
medication (in fact, the ruling specifically says that they do not have to
comply if they do not wish to).  As far as non-US residents go, I believe
that any constitutional right (which this is) is extended to anyone within
the United States, but I'm not certain about this.  Again, though, one would
need to find a cooperating physician, and the more uncertain the legality of
the situation, the less likely one would be to find a cooperative physician.

Incidentally, Oregon Measure 16, if it ever goes into effect (which I think
it will eventually), does require that the person be a resident of Oregon.
But "resident" was never defined (residency requirements for voting and for
college tuition are very different, for example), and a decision about what
exactly that meant was postponed while the matter was held up in court, so
has still not been clarified.

 (David Brandt-Erichsen)


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5938