My Sister-in-Law Died by Assisted Suicide: Connecticut Braces for Aid-in-Dying Bill
Connecticut legislators will discuss an aid-in-dying bill this year, as proponent and opponents draw battle lines, and brace for litigation.
February 19, 2020 at 10:37 AM
4 minute read
Attorneys are watching as Connecticut weighs becoming the ninth state in the country to adopt an "aid-in-dying" law.
But ethics expert Audrey Chapman is looking on with special interest.
For Chapman, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Connecticut Health Center, the issue is not just an ethical or legal matter—it's personal.
Chapman, who favors Connecticut's proposed assisted-suicide bill, said her sister-in-law decided how to end her life about a year ago in Colorado, where assisted suicide is legal. Her relative had just weeks to live, and was in a lot of pain.
"For people who are often in that situation, it's not about a matter of trying to prolong their life," Chapman said. "Rather, it prolongs their death and suffering."
But lawyers expect challenges, as the state Legislature plans to hold public hearings by March on the 2020 version of the bill, which came out of the Public Health Committee late Friday.
Day Pitney partner Brad Gallant, who has worked on trusts and estates for more than 30 years, said the ethical concerns vary—leaving attorneys bracing for uncertainty. For instance: What happens if a third party wants to assist in taking someone's life for financial gain?
Gallant supports the right to assisted suicide, calling it "an issue of fundamental individual liberty."
Expect pushback
Longtime Connecticut attorney Audrey Blondin, who opposes the proposed law, expects a legal battle, if the measure passes.
"If this becomes law, I foresee a time where a group would get together and challenge the legality of the right to assisted suicide in court. I absolutely see that," Blondin said. "It would probably go to Superior Court and move its way up the ladder to the state Supreme Court, just as happened with the death penalty."
In the same way, the fight could jump from the state to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ruled the death penalty constitutional.
Chapman also sees red flags for the legal and medical professions.
"Another important ethical concern is what kind of care a patient has, and whether or not there have been competent efforts to have a physician reduce the pain," Chapman said. "One would not want a patient to make a decision because they can't get appropriate medical care."
The Connecticut bill, which passed through the state's Public Health Committee 12-9, is fashioned after legislation in states that have aid-in-dying laws in place, according to Mary Abrams, co-chairwoman of the committee. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia all have such laws. But a similar bill has failed in Connecticut numerous times in recent years.
The next step is a public hearing and vote, no later than March 27. The bill would then need the support of the majority of the legislators, and Gov. Ned Lamont would need to sign off on it for it to become law.
Under the current iteration, Abrams said the Connecticut legislation contains language that only people who have six months or less to live would qualify for assisted suicides. Plus, the patient would have to provide written and verbal consent, must be in extreme pain, and must have two doctors sign off on the decision. The death would then proceed via a liquid drug, Abrams said.
But opposition will be strong and fierce, Chapman believes.
"I see pushback across the board, not only from the Roman Catholic community, but from many others," Chapman said. "The law in most states is in favor of trying to maintain life. Obviously, this law would contradict that. There will be a lot of opposition for both religious and ethical reasons."
Blondin agrees.
"I can respect the argument of a person's right to self-determination but, again, I do not believe that outweighs the duty to take someone's life," she said. "I think you will see an immediate mobilization of the Catholic Church and many other religious lobbies to oppose this, much the same way groups mobilized against legalizing marijuana."
But Abrams, who supports the legislation, doesn't anticipate its broad application.
"The people who will avail themselves of this option if this becomes law would be quite small," she said. "It gives people peace of mind, and control over their own situation. It also gives them comfort to know that they ultimately have that control."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPike Fuels Agrees to Pay $2 Million Settlement to Resolve Alleged New Haven Environmental Violations
2 minute readHigh-Flying Genetics Testing Firm GeneDx Hires Ex-Zoetis GC as Legal Chief
2 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250