Beijing Law Review

Volume 6, Issue 2 (June 2015)

ISSN Print: 2159-4627   ISSN Online: 2159-4635

Google-based Impact Factor: 0.4  Citations  h5-index & Ranking

“How We Die” in New Mexico: A Judicial Prescription without Relief

HTML  XML Download Download as PDF (Size: 239KB)  PP. 117-124  
DOI: 10.4236/blr.2015.62012    4,218 Downloads   4,829 Views  


By some accounts, New Mexico Judge Nan Nash fashioned a landmark ruling in a civil dispute pitting two doctors and a cancer patient against the state. At issue, a statute making it unlawful to “deliberately aid[] another in the taking of his own life.” Plaintiffs in Morris v. King (2014) contended that for a “mentally-competent, terminally-ill individual” who sought a peaceful death over a painful life, a doctor prescribing lethal drugs for this purpose could not be prosecuted since physician aid in dying was not assisted suicide. While plaintiffs’ statutory claim was rejected, Judge Nash did hold that the statute as applied to physician aid in dying violated state constitutional guarantees safeguarding inalienable rights to “liberty, safety and happiness.” I argue that the interpretive path Judge Nash designed to justify her ruling is littered at critical junctures with strangely settled issues. For this reason, her judicial prescription legalizing this end-of-life choice wants the persuasive foundation that such a landmark holding deserves.

Share and Cite:

Svenson, A. (2015) “How We Die” in New Mexico: A Judicial Prescription without Relief. Beijing Law Review, 6, 117-124. doi: 10.4236/blr.2015.62012.

Cited by

No relevant information.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.