Quill v. Koppell
| Decision Date | 15 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94 Civ. 5321 (TPG).,94 Civ. 5321 (TPG). |
| Citation | 870 F. Supp. 78 |
| Parties | Timothy E. QUILL, M.D.; Samuel C. Klagsbrun, M.D.; and Howard A. Grossman, M.D., Plaintiffs, v. G. Oliver KOPPELL, Attorney General of the State of New York; Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York; and Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Perkins Coie, Seattle, WA, (Kathryn L. Tucker, David J. Burman, Thomas L. Boeder, of counsel) and Hughes Hubbard & Reed, New York City (Carla A. Kerr and Tracy E. Poole, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
G. Oliver Koppell, Atty. Gen. of the State of NY, Michael S. Popkin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City (Mark Dwyer and James M. McGuire, Asst. Dist. Attys., of counsel), for defendants.
New York State Catholic Conference, Albany, NY (Michael L. Costello, Richard E. Barnes, Clarke D. Forsythe, and Paul Benjamin Linton, of counsel), amicus curiae.
Legal Center for the Defense of Life, New York City (Michael P. Tierney, John M. McSherry, and Walter T. Clark, of counsel), amicus curiae.
New York law makes it a crime to aid a person in committing suicide, or in attempting to commit suicide. Plaintiffs urge that these provisions violate the United States Constitution, to the extent that they apply to situations where a physician aids the commission of suicide by a mentally competent, terminally ill adult wishing to avoid continued severe suffering, by prescribing a death-producing drug which the patient takes. Plaintiffs claim that a person has a constitutional right to terminate his life under these circumstances, and that a physician has a corresponding constitutional right not to be prosecuted for aiding a patient in the exercise of the patient's right.
Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the relevant statutes, §§ 125.15(3) and 120.30 of the New York Penal Law, to the extent they apply to physicians who give the kind of assistance described above. Defendants oppose plaintiffs' motion and cross-move for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the action.
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is denied. Defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the action is granted. The motion to dismiss will be treated as one for summary judgment since the court has considered matters outside the pleadings — i.e., declarations filed on the motion for preliminary injunction. There is no dispute on the essential facts and the issues presented are ones of law.
The action was commenced on July 20, 1994. The original complaint named three physician plaintiffs, Timothy E. Quill, Samuel C. Klagsbrun, and Howard A. Grossman. There were also three patient plaintiffs who asserted that they were terminally ill and wished to have the assistance of physicians in committing suicide. All three of the patient plaintiffs have now died, leaving only the three physician plaintiffs.
The original complaint named only the Attorney General of the State of New York as a defendant. However, it was argued that the Attorney General was not the proper defendant because he was not responsible for prosecutions under the criminal laws of the State. The complaint has now been amended to add as defendants Governor Mario M. Cuomo and New York County District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau. There is no longer any question about the fact that there are sufficient defendants present to allow the issues in the case to be litigated.
Amicus curiae briefs in opposition to plaintiffs' position have been filed by the New York State Catholic Conference and the Legal Center for the Defense of Life.
The original complaint of July 20, 1994 contained, among other things, allegations that the three patient plaintiffs were mentally competent adults; that they were in the terminal stages of fatal illnesses; that they faced progressive loss of bodily function and integrity as well as increasing suffering; and that they desired medical assistance in the form of medications prescribed by physicians to be self-administered for the purpose of hastening death.
As to the three physician plaintiffs, the complaint alleged that, in the regular course of their medical practice, they treated terminally ill patients who requested assistance in the voluntary self-termination of life; that under certain circumstances it would be consistent with the standards of these physicians to prescribe medications to such patients which would cause death, since without such medical assistance these patients could not hasten their deaths in a certain and humane manner.
The original complaint alleged that the patient plaintiffs have a constitutional right under these circumstances to terminate their lives with this type of medical assistance; and that since the New York Penal Law makes it a crime to render such assistance, these provisions violate the constitutional rights of both the patient plaintiffs and the physician plaintiffs, specifically rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
An amended complaint was filed on October 14, 1994. By this time, two of the three patient plaintiffs had died. The allegations about the remaining patient plaintiff were carried over into the amended complaint, as were the claims of the physician plaintiffs.
The second amended complaint was filed October 20, 1994. It was essentially the same as the previous complaint except for naming New York County District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau as a defendant.
Subsequently, the third patient plaintiff died, thus leaving the three physicians as the only plaintiffs.
An answer was filed in August 1994 to the original complaint denying that plaintiffs have any valid claim. No amended answers were filed responding to the amended complaints, but the court deems the original answer to be a sufficient denial of plaintiffs' claims.
The motion for preliminary injunction was filed on September 16, 1994. In support of the motion, each of the three patient plaintiffs submitted declarations which confirmed the allegations in the complaint and added details about their diseased conditions and suffering.
The three physician plaintiffs have submitted declarations affirming their belief that proper and humane medical practice should include the ability to prescribe medication which will enable a patient to commit suicide under the circumstances described in this case.
A declaration by Quill also describes the following incident. In 1990 he treated a terminally ill patient, who feared a lingering death and who apprised Quill that she would act on her own to hasten death if he refused to assist her to do so. Quill made barbiturates available to the patient, which she could use to induce sleep, but which she could also take to end her life by an overdose at the point she desired to do so. She agreed to meet with Quill prior to taking any overdose. The patient reached the point where she desired to end her life. She met with Quill "to insure that all alternatives had been explored," after which she took the overdose and died. Quill was not present at the time of death. Subsequently, Quill wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine describing these events. This led to what Quill describes as a "very public criminal investigation" in New York State, and presentation to a grand jury. Quill testified before the grand jury, as did other witnesses. The grand jury did not indict.
The other two physician plaintiffs, Klagsbrun and Grossman, describe in their declarations specific incidents when terminally ill patients wished assistance in hastening death. Each doctor asserts that he refrained from rendering such assistance because of possible prosecution under the New York statutes.
Section 125.15(3) of the New York Penal Law provides in relevant part:
Section 120.30 provides:
A person is guilty of promoting a suicide attempt when he intentionally ... aids another person to attempt suicide.
Violation of either statute is a felony.
Plaintiffs are not seeking to strike down these statutes in their entirety. Plaintiffs claim that the statutes are unconstitutional only insofar as they apply to the type of physician assisted suicide at issue in this case. Both plaintiffs and defendants agree that, if a physician renders the type of assistance described here, he will violate § 125.15(3) where actual death by suicide occurs, and § 120.30 where the patient attempts to commit suicide and fails.
Defendants assert that there is no justiciable case or controversy as required by Article III of the Constitution. According to defendants, plaintiffs show nothing more than a speculative possibility of prosecution, rather than any actual threat of prosecution.
The court does not agree with these assertions. The relevant law is well set forth in Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979). There the Supreme Court dealt with a constitutional challenge to certain Arizona agricultural labor regulations. The case was brought by a union and parties connected with the union. The Court held that certain of the plaintiffs' claims were justiciable and certain were not. The Court stated that when contesting the constitutionality of a criminal statute it is not necessary that the plaintiff first expose himself to actual prosecution. When the plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vacco v. Quill
...the same thing'' as physician-assisted suicide, New York's assisted-suicide ban violates the Equal Protection Clause. Quill v. Koppell, 870 F.Supp. 78, 84-85 (S.D.N.Y.1994). The District Court disagreed: " [I]t is hardly unreasonable or irrational for the State to recognize a difference bet......
-
Compassion in Dying v. State of Wash.
...The same reasoning, regarding jus tertii standing based on the physician-patient relationship, applies in this case. In Quill v. Koppell, 870 F.Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y.1994), 5 a case similar to this one, the district court for the Southern District of New York held that physician plaintiffs do h......
-
Quill v. Vacco
...upon the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Quill v. Koppell, 870 F.Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y.1994). We reverse in part, holding that physicians who are willing to do so may prescribe drugs to be self-administered by mentally comp......
-
Kevorkian v. Arnett, CV-94-6089 CBM (Kx).
...Dying v. State of Washington, 85 F.3d 1440 (1996), cert. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3085 (July 03, 1996) (No. 96-110); see also Quill v. Koppell, 870 F.Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y.1994). Dr. Kevorkian, however, is not licensed to practice in the State of California. Thus, he does not have standing to challen......
-
Physician-assisted Suicide: New Protocol for a Rightful Death
...2258 (1997). 13. 80 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 1996). The Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's opinion. See 870 F. Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The United States Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision. See 117 S. Ct. 2293 (1997). 14. WASH. REV. CODE ANN. ......
-
Assisted suicide and equal protection: in defense of the distinction between killing and letting die.
...defended as a matter of principle are inherently more valuable than those made on pragmatic or prudential grounds. Id at 864-68. (20) 870 F. Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), rev'd in part, 80 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 1996) [hereinafter Quill (21) Id. at 80. The original complaint named three physicians a......
-
Three strikes: is an assisted suicide right out?
...rejected double effect, while the Supreme Court embraced double effect and in Quill rejected moral equivalence). (139) Quill v. Koppell, 870 F. Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y (140) Quill v. Vacco, 80 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 1996). (141) Id. at 729. (142) Id. (143) 117 S. Ct. 2301-02. (144) 80 F.3d at 727. (14......
-
The constitutional case against permitting physician-assisted suicide for competent adults with "terminal conditions."
...2.211 (1994). (47) Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 49 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 1995), reh'g en banc granted. (48) Quill V. Koppell, 870 F. Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), appeal docketed, No. 95-7208 (2d Cir. Jan. 3, 1995). (49) People v. Kevorkian, 527 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 1994); cert. denied sub nom.......