Concerning "Georgia high court strikes down assisted suicide law," American Medical News, American Medical Association (AMA), posted February 20, 2012.

To the authors:

A few points you should consider about the editing of your story:

Your first sentence says the Georgia law was "intended to prevent assisted suicide." The focus is on the "intention." I don't see how anybody could say the law was "intended to prevent assisted suicide" when, in fact, it did not prevent assisted suicide except in the rare case of someone who publicly advertised about it. This law was "intended" only to prohibit the advertisement. If the law was "intended" to prevent assistance, it would have done something to prevent assistance.

The second sentence refers to the "reversal" of the law. A law cannot be reversed. Only a lower court decision may be reversed. The law is stricken, declared unconstitutional, or whatever, but a court does not "reverse" a law.

The second paragraph is way wrong. It says, "The wording of the law was too broad, encompassing not just the act of assisting a suicide but also related and constitutionally protected speech acts, the state Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 6." No where does the decision say the "wording of the law was too broad," and nowhere did the decision say the law encompassed "not just the act of assisting in a suicide but also related and constitutionally protected speech." Your sentence is the exact opposite of what the Supreme Court ruled. The court said the law was "wildly underinclusive," which is the opposite of "overbroad." And the phrase "not just the act of assisting suicide" implies that the "act of assisting suicide" was illegal under the law (as in, "NOT JUST"). The point of the court was that suicide was not illegal UNLESS the public statement was made, not that the law prohibited the speech in addition to "the act of assisting in a suicide," as you have described it.

Your third paragraph says that Dr. Egbert "approved Celmer for assisted-suicide services." Final Exit Network's position is that it does not assist in suicides, and this is what we would have shown at trial, and Dr. Egbert would have been found not guilty because FEN does not provide "assisted suicide services," and has never advertised or made any public statement that it would. The website and all of FEN's literature says that FEN will not provide assistance. I realize that you have to quote the State's allegation that FEN does assist in suicides, but you have use some kind of qualifying language that the statement is an allegation of the State, one that the defendants deny. Your story has chosen to word the third paragraph as if it's an acknowledge and undisputed fact that FEN assists in suicides. To be fair, you would have to say that Dr. Egbert "approved Celmer for FEN's services. The prosecution alleges that FEN assists in suicides, which FEN denies," or some such. There are a thousand ways to do it fairly. It would not work to just put "allegedly" in front of "approved" because, without question, FEN acknowledges that its medical director had to approve an application for FEN's support. But your story has failed to acknowledge that FEN denies any assistance.

Later, you refer to whether a patient can "consent to suicide." That's an oxymoron. People perform suicide, or they don't. They don't "consent" to it.

The woman in Phoenix was named van Voorhis, not van Noorhis.

As it is written, your "Case at a Glance" will only diminish a reader's understanding of the court's ruling, not enhance it. Where it says, "Is a state law banning advertising of assisted suicide services constitutional?", in my briefs and at oral argument I said again and again that the case would be different if assistance in a suicide was illegal, and the law also made it illegal to advertise assisted suicide services. That is what your question implies. That is not what the court decided. The court decided that it makes no sense to illegalize advertising assisted services when assisted suicide itself, absent the advertising, is not illegal.

The statement, "Impact: Assisted suicide is now technically legal in Georgia, with no rules or regulations forbidding the practice." Why is the word "technically" in there? The law is what it is; there's nothing "technical" about the fact that assisted suicide is legal in Georgia. And why have you referred to "rules" or "regulations"? This case is about the criminal code, not administrative rules or regulations. I'm sure assisting in a suicide, before or after the court case, was and is "forbidden" to be performed in Georgia under the agencies regulating the standard of care of health care professionals. The court case was only about one statute, one criminal law. The "Impact:" statement would be accurate if you said, "Before the ruling, assisting in a suicide was a crime in Georgia only if it was publicly advertised. After the ruling, assisting in a suicide is not a crime even if it is publicly advertised."

Robert Rivas
Sachs Sax Caplan, P.L.
660 E. Jefferson St., Suite 202
Tallahassee, FL 32301-2547
(850) 412-0306
Certified by the Florida Bar as an expert in appeals.