Trusts and Estates Planning Implications of Recent Developments in Medical Aid in Dying Legislation
A new medical aid in dying bill will be introduced after the state legislature goes into its 2023 session. While the new bill's passage is uncertain, recent legal developments in other states, including Oregon, Vermont and New Jersey, all of which permit MAiD, could make MAiD for terminally-ill New York residents accessible outside of New York.
January 27, 2023 at 02:20 PM
8 minute read
The New York legislature has previously considered medical aid in dying (MAiD) legislation that would allow terminally ill patients to obtain medical assistance in order to hasten their death; however, such legislation has not been successful to date. A new MAiD bill will be introduced after the state legislature goes into its 2023 session. While the new bill's passage is uncertain, recent legal developments in other states, including Oregon, Vermont and New Jersey, all of which permit MAiD, could make MAiD for terminally-ill New York residents accessible outside of New York. These developments give rise to a number of implications for New York trusts and estates practitioners in counseling their clients regarding their end of life decision-making. As a threshold matter, practitioners should inform and educate their clients about their end-of-life options, including the option of traveling to other states and/or establishing residency elsewhere in order to obtain MAiD if they become terminally ill, as well as the obstacles that may need to be overcome and the risks involved. In addition, practitioners with clients who wish to pursue MAiD may be able to take advantage of the rare opportunity of knowing, with a high degree of certainty, the exact date and time of their client's planned death, and work closely with their clients to ensure that their estate planning is optimized and fully implemented prior to their client's death.
Availability of MAiD for Terminally Ill New Yorkers
MAiD legislation and court decisions provide protection for prescribing physicians from legal charges arising from the death of their patients. MAiD is currently lawful in 11 jurisdictions within the United States, including California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, DC, and Washington.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllMAPTs Are Alive and Well in the Elder Law Practitioner’s Toolbox
Long Island Midsize Firm and Managing Partner Sued for Sexual Harassment, Discrimination
6 minute readBar Leader Promotes Intergenerational Links, But Elder Lawyers Should Know When 'It's Time to Stop'
Trending Stories
- 1Which Legal Tech Jobs Are on the Rise, and Which Aren't, with Jared Coseglia
- 2Absent Explicit Agreement, Court Rejects Unilateral Responsiveness Redaction of Text Messages
- 3SEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration
- 4Sidley Hires Paul Hastings Energy Finance Partner in Houston
- 5Potential Pitfalls in Arbitrating Religious Disputes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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