We have clients who come to us saying that they want the option of taking medication to end their life if they become terminally ill. They do not want extraordinary measures used to keep them alive to the bitter end. Unfortunately, I have to tell them that Connecticut does not allow a physician to assist in taking medication to end a life. They ask “Why do Oregon, Washington, and Vermont allow people to die with dignity but not Connecticut?” They want to retain control over their body and end life when they know they will die soon.
We try to accommodate those individuals by stating in their Living Will that if they are in a terminal condition, they wish to be moved to a state or country that allows terminally ill patients to take medication to end their life, such as Oregon, Washington or Vermont. Those states allow a person with a terminal illness to receive medication for the purpose of ending their life in a humane and dignified manner.
On February 24, 2014, Representative Elizabeth Ritter of Connecticut’s 38th District representing Waterford and Montville introduced House Bill 5326 in the Connecticut General Assembly. Click here to see a copy of the raised bill. The Bill was referred to the Committee on Public Health.
The proposed legislation allows an adult who resides in Connecticut, is competent and has a terminal illness, to voluntarily request medication to end his or her life. A terminal illness is defined as the final stage of an incurable and irreversible medical condition that a physician anticipates will lead to death within 6 months.
HB 5326 contains many safeguards to assure that no one dies without thorough thought by the patient and examination by physicians including:
1. Requiring that the person make a first written request for aid in dying before two witnesses and then at least 15 days later make a second written request for such aid;
2. At least one of the witnesses must be a person who is not (i) a relative by blood or marriage, (ii) who is not entitled to any portion of the person’s estate under any will or by operation of law, (iii) the attending physician, or (iv) an employee of the health care facility in which the person resides;
3. The attending physician must refer the patient to a consulting physician for medical confirmation of the terminal illness and for a determination that the patient is competent and acting voluntarily;
4. If either physician believes the patient may be suffering from depression, or a psychiatric condition causing impaired judgment, the patient must be referred to counselling to determine whether the patient is competent to request aid in dying;
5. The attending physician must tell the patient of the feasible alternatives and health care treatment options including palliative care such as hospice care and comprehensive pain and symptom management; and,
6. The patient must self-administer the medication (no one can help them to take the medication).
The proposed legislation makes it completely voluntary not only for the patient but also health care providers. Each health care provider can individually and affirmatively determine whether to participate in the provision of medication to a patient for aid in dying. A health care facility cannot require a health care provider to participate in the provision of medication to a qualified patient for aid in dying, but it also may prohibit such participation. Thus, religiously-affiliated hospitals are not required to aid a patient in dying.
HB 5326 deserves serious consideration and debate. Most articles discussing such legislation dismiss it without ever analyzing the merits of the legislation. See for example, Assisted Suicide Bill Deserves a Speedy Demise, The Day, 3/2/14 (Editorial by Paul Choiniere). Representative Ritter has considerable courage to open discussion of this important legislation. We hope Committee on Public Health studies the experience in Oregon and Washington to determine if initial fears of their laws were well founded. Given the interest of some of our clients in having this choice at the end of life, the Connecticut General Assembly and the public ought to have a full discussion of the proposed legislation.
