Don't Ask, Don't Tell is what sprung to mind when I watched the videos of Forsyth County District Attorney Penny Penn and defense attorney Robert Rivas present oral arguments to the Supreme Court of Georgia about the state's current statute regarding assisted death. This hearing is the latest twist in a case that's stretched on for three long years. It sounds like Don't Ask, Don't Tell because Georgia is arguing assisted death is permitted if the participants don't advertise or talk about it publicly.

How the state reached this conclusion is a winding road: After four members of the Final Exit Network were arrested in 2009, they were indicted by Forsyth County grand jury in March, 2010, and charged with tampering with evidence, violating anti-racketeering laws and helping a man kill himself. The defense requested the trial court to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the Georgia statute on assisted death violates their First Amendment right of freedom of speech, and the state Supreme Court agreed to hear this appeal before allowing the grand jury trial to move forward.

Much like the case in Arizona against Final Exit members which was finally resolved earlier this year, the ongoing case in Georgia demonstrates how a vague law regarding assisting a death leaves everyone scratching their heads over what's allowed and what isn't. The specific section in the Georgia law which the defense says is in violation of the defendants' First Amendment rights is 16-5-5(b):

Any person who publicly advertises, offers, or holds himself or herself out as offering that he or she will intentionally and actively assist another person in the commission of suicide and commits any overt act to further that purpose is guilty of a felony.

In an article shared throughout the world-wide right-to-die community, Final Exit Network defense attorney Robert Rivas provided clarification about Attorney General Samuel S. Olens' interpretation of Georgia's statute:

The attorney general of the state now says the law prohibits assisted suicide only in a case where the suspect also "publicly" advertises, offers, or holds out that he will assist in a suicide. So long as a doctor does not make any public statement about his availability to participate in physician-assisted suicide, the doctor has not violated the law of Georgia by writing prescriptions for lethal doses of drugs to enable patients to decide to die at the time of their own choosing.

In arguing that the Georgia statute makes physician-assisted suicide legal so long as a doctor keeps the practice confidential, the attorney general wrote, "The statute leaves room for doctors and patients to make private decisions at the end of life and reflects concerns for doctors and other healthcare professionals involved when patients end their lives."

Penn, representing the prosecution in the Georgia case against Final Exit Network and its volunteers, further explained the attorney general's interpretation in her brief to the Supreme Court of Georgia: "The statute was narrowly drawn to allow any and all discussion of end-of-life decisions, to allow private family and medical decisions to be made regarding end-of life decisions and only to restrict assistance of suicide by a Dr. Kevorkian-type actor."

The state attorney general has interpreted the state's assisted dying statute allows the act as long as it's kept private. Now, it is up to the state Supreme Court to decide whether or not prohibiting the Final Exit Network volunteers from publicly discussing assisted death is a violation of the defendants' First Amendment rights. Stay tuned. The Court should reach its decision in 2-3 months.