A Review of 'Myers v. Schneiderman'

New York has a 189-year-old history of prohibiting conduct that assists a person in committing suicide, and the Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Myers v. Schneiderman reinforces that tradition. The court addressed claims brought by three terminally ill individuals, several medical providers, and a non-profit entity seeking a declaration that New York’s “assisted suicide” statutes do not prohibit physicians from prescribing a lethal dose of drugs to terminally ill, mentally competent patients. The court’s per curiam opinion unequivocally rejected such claims and affirmed that a physician who “assists a suicide” by prescribing lethal doses of drugs is subject to criminal prosecution for second degree manslaughter. Interestingly, there are three concurring opinions, authored by Judges Jenny Rivera, Eugene Fahey, and Michael Garcia, that explore additional facets of the case and stake out differing viewpoints for a subgroup of patients who are in the final stage of dying.

The court’s per curiam opinion is joined by Judges Rowan Wilson, Rivera, Fahey, Garcia and Leslie Stein. Chief Judge Janet DFiore and Judge Paul Feinman did not participate in the appeal. The court noted that Penal Law §120.30 provides that a person is guilty of assisting a suicide if he intentionally causes or aids another person to attempt suicide, and that Penal Law §125.15 provides that conduct that intentionally aids another in committing suicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree. Plaintiffs challenged the statutes on the basis that they unconstitutionally deter physicians from providing aid-in-dying to terminally ill, mentally competent persons. Plaintiffs initially named the attorney general and various district attorneys as defendants, later discontinuing the case against the district attorneys upon the district attorneys’ stipulation to be bound be the results. The trial court granted the attorney general’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action or present a justiciable controversy. The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed, finding that the criminal statutes are valid and do not violate the State Constitution. Plaintiffs appealed as of right under CPLR 5601(b) on the basis that the case directly involves an issue of constitutional construction. The Court of Appeals held that the Penal Laws plainly apply to a physician who intentionally prescribes a lethal dosage of a drug because such act constitutes “aid[ing] another person to commit suicide,” giving no safe harbor to physicians who act out of sympathetic concerns to help terminally ill persons through a painful end-of-life experience.