One issue that will certainly be at center of public controversy in next few years is whether physicians should be authorized to participate actively in ending their patients' lives. While issue has arisen sporadically before, events in May underscore its central position. first and most widely noted--but ultimately least interesting or significant--was Dr. Jack Kevorkian's acquittal on 2 May of assisting Thomas W. Hyde, Jr., to commit suicide in doctor's battered 1968 Volkswagen bus. Kevorkian, who has helped twenty people die since June 1990, was charged under a statute enacted in 1992 specifically to stop his activities. At trial, for first time, Kevorkian argued prosecution was in error because Hyde's death had occurred while VW van was still in Oakland County and not--as indictment charged--on Belle Isle, a Detroit island park in Wayne County where he disclosed death to police. trial judge instructed jury that unless it found beyond a reasonable doubt that death had occurred in Wayne County, it would have to acquit. In comments after trial, jurors stated they could reach agreement on this point. meaning of not guilty verdict was further clouded because Kevorkian argued that his actions came within exclusion in statute for administration of medications with intent of relieving pain, even if treatment does hasten Rather than stand on what was obvious--that he had provided carbon monoxide, which has no known analgesic value, solely as a means of causing death--Kevorkian claimed that he did it to ease Hyde's pain. An indication of importance of this argument can be seen from one juror's comment, I believe he did this to relieve this man's pain and suffering, even though it was wrong to help someone commit As University of Michigan law professor Yale Kamisar commented, The jury was obviously badly confused.[1] Compassion in Dying In muddying waters, Kevorkian's attorney won his client an acquittal but removed any precedential value from Hyde case. In contrast, an opinion handed down next day by Chief United States District Judge for Western District of Washington faced issue of physician assistance in suicide head on.[2] case was brought by three terminally ill patients, five physicians who treat terminally ill patients, and Compassion in Dying, an organization which provides support, counseling and assistance to mentally competent, terminally ill adults considering plaintiffs challenged Washington State statute that makes it a felony knowingly to aid another person in committing suicide, but only insofar as it bans physician-assisted suicide by mentally competent, terminally ill adults who knowingly and voluntarily choose to hasten their death. On cross motions for summary judgment, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein declared law unconstitutional because it violated two Fourteenth Amendment rights of this group of patients in two ways. First, it placed an undue burden on exercise of a protected liberty, and second, it violated light to equal protection by treating this group differently from patients who are permitted to die by refusing life-sustaining treatments. Judge Rothstein's decision holds great national significance because forty-four states now have statutes or common law making it a crime to aid suicide. But this is to say that it is a good decision. Quite contrary, it represents faulty constitutional analysis, inappropriate lawmaking process, and unwise policy. In concluding that Washington statute violates due process clause, court relies primarily on Supreme Court's decisions involving reproductive liberty. From these it derives two points. Analogizing to 1992 abortion decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Rothstein argues that the decision of a terminally ill person to end his or her life |involv[es] most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime' and constitutes a choice central to personal dignity and autonomy. …