Court Passes On Assisted Suicide Issue
Ruling holds that exemption for physicians should be taken up by lawmakers
By DOUGLAS S. MALAN
A long-suffering cancer patient reaches a point where he no longer wants to fight. But he also doesn’t want to go through the painful end-of-life reality that awaits him. Should he be able to turn to his physician for medication that will help him die peacefully?
It’s a controversial subject, and there are no indications that it will be resolved in the state anytime soon.
Hartford Superior Court Judge Julia L. Aurigemma has ruled that the courts are not the appropriate venue for determining whether the state’s laws against assisted suicide apply to physicians who want to help patients avoid painful deaths from terminal illness.
The issue is “one which must be decided by the Connecticut legislature,” Judge Aurigemma wrote in her decision.
But lawmakers are in no hurry to amend the law, and physicians, who have divided opinions about the issue, are not mounting any lobbying efforts in the legislature.
Doctors Gary Blick of Norwalk and Ron Levine of Greenwich filed the lawsuit and wanted the court to declare that physicians won’t face criminal charges if they provide medication to mentally competent patients who want to end their lives peacefully.
Under state law that has existed since 1969, a person is guilty of second-degree manslaughter when aiding another person’s suicide. Oregon and Washington are the only states in the country that allow physicians to help their patients die on their own terms.
The plaintiffs argued that they are not talking about assisted suicide, which is what the law specifically mentions.
“There’s quite a recognition in the mental health community that the choice of a dying patient for a peaceful death is fundamentally different from, and ought not be conflated with, suicide,” said Kathryn L. Tucker, a Denver-based attorney with Compassion & Choices who represents the plaintiffs. “That is the case we would put on, if the courthouse doors were opened.”
Compassion & Choices is a non-profit organization that supports aid in dying. Tucker said plaintiffs are considering all options, including appeal, and they must decide on their next step by June 22.
Joan W. Feldman, who is a health law partner at Shipman & Goodwin but is not involved in the case, said Judge Aurigemma’s ruling was a sensible one. Judges, Feldman said, shouldn’t be in the position of defining the appropriate circumstances regarding assisted suicide. “This is really a policy issue because not all physicians agree on this,” she said. “The circumstances need to be defined by the community in connection with the legislative process.”
She added, “It’s a tough issue. I can appreciate how difficult this is for physicians who for compassionate reasons want to assist their patients.”
Judge Aurigemma disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that state law was vague and didn’t apply directly to physicians who want to help their patients die.
“The statute in question, Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-56, and the commentary to and legislative history of the statute make it quite clear that assisting a suicide, even for humanitarian reasons, is a crime,” Aurigemma wrote.
The judge added that the legislature had physicians in mind when it crafted the law and that lawmakers “intended the term ‘suicide’ to include self-killing by those who are suffering from unbearable terminal illness.”
To support her ruling, Judge Aurigemma stated that unsuccessful attempts to amend the statute were proof of this. “If such assistance [in dying] were already permitted, there would be no need to amend the statute,” she wrote.
Legislative History
The legislature has considered measures in the past that would allow doctors to end the life of a terminally ill patient. As recently as 2009, the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee drafted a “Death with Dignity” bill that would allow physicians to prescribe medications that would help end a person’s life.
The bill included protections. The terminally ill person had to sign a waiver witnessed by two other parties, only one of which could be a family member or involved in their medical care. The patient also had to seek counseling first.
“It’s not about euthanasia,” Lawlor reportedly said last year after he and committee co-chair Sen. Andrew McDonald introduced the bill. “It’s not about killing people. It’s about having some oversight” over the end-of-life process. He added that “beneath the radar screen,” physicians are already helping patients die.
The Judiciary Committee eventually voted 37-0 to approve the measure, but it did not go any further in the legislature. Protests soon came from various Catholic groups, including the Knights of Columbus.
Once word came of the Levine and Blick suit, which was filed last October, lawmakers decided to sit back to see what the courts decided before looking at the issue again.
Judge Aurigemma’s decision apparently didn’t change that approach for lawmakers, despite her ruling saying the issue is one for lawmakers to decide.
“I assume this will be appealed and ultimately decided by the Supreme Court,” Lawlor said last week. “I doubt the legislature will look at it seriously until after the courts are through with this case.”
Last year wasn’t the first time the legislature has looked at the assisted suicide issue. It was also debated in 1995 and 1997. The 2009 bill was modeled after Oregon’s assisted suicide law, which was passed in 1997.
Doctors Silent
The Connecticut State Medical Society won’t be pushing for a change in the law anytime soon either, said Audrey Honig Geragosian, the organization’s spokesman. She added that the society also had no official reaction to Judge Aurigemma’s ruling.
The society is the state’s largest physician organization with more than 7,300 physicians and medical students as members. About 200 physicians serve on the society’s House of Delegates, and that group determines every year what type of legislative action the society will pursue during the upcoming session.
Geragosian combed through the society’s records dating back to 1998, and she said “we have never had any kind of proposals” to address laws related to physicians helping patients die.
If any legislative action were to be taken, “it would be as likely to come through us as through any other group,” Geragosian said. “At this point, the Connecticut State Medical Society isn’t pursuing any type of legislation.”
Assisted suicide likely hasn’t been formally discussed before the House of Delegates because it’s such a highly sensitive subject among physicians.
“This is the kind of stuff that’s deeply personal to every physician and they all have their own views,” Geragosian said. “I’m sure the issue comes up between physicians and patients, and when it does it’s powerful, personal and a hard choice.” •
Senior Writer Thomas B. Scheffey and reporter Christian Nolan contributed to this story.
HOME
