Hundreds testify on assisted-suicide bill

Feb. 27—Terminally ill patients in Connecticut could have the ability to end their own life under a proposal being debated by lawmakers, with proponents saying it would be a merciful way to die and critics arguing it defies the purpose of the medical profession.

The bill was the subject of a lengthy public hearing before the legislature's Public Health Committee on Friday that drew written and oral comments from hundreds of people.

AID IN DYING BILL

WHAT: Terminally-ill patients with six months or fewer to live to be able to request and self-administer life-ending medication.

WHO: Connecticut residents who are at least 18 years old and who have requested from their physician life-ending medication three times, once in writing.

DOCTORS: Can elect not to participate.

Under the measure, medically-induced deaths would be legal for any competent adult who is terminally ill and seeks medication from their physician, which they then could self-administer to end their life.

A patient would have to be a Connecticut resident who have voluntarily asked to end their life by making two oral requests and one written request to their physician.

The second oral request would have to come within 15 days of the first, and the written request would have to be witnessed by at least two people in the presence of the patient.

Witnesses would have to attest in writing that to the best of their knowledge, the patient appears to be of sound mind and is acting voluntarily and not being coerced.

Patients would have to be diagnosed with a terminal illness and have six months or less to live, a timeframe that is tied to Medicaid coverage for hospice care.

Two physicians would have to certify that the patient is competent and voluntarily asking for the medication, and doctors would have the ability to refuse to participate.

Dr. Charles Camosy, a bioethics professor at Fordham University in New York, testified against the proposal, saying it defies the purpose of the medical community.

"If you pass this bill, you will fundamentally change the nature of what it means to practice medicine in the state of Connecticut," he said. "Medicine is not what a customer wants it to be; it is an objective process."

He argued that universal health care that would provide palliative and hospice care to everyone would be a more appropriate approach, noting that there are treatments to make dying patients as comfortable as possible.

"I think we should move more toward palliative sedation and not aiming for death," Camosy said.

Some members of the committee agreed.

"We're all dying, we're just dying at different rates," ranking member Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, said. "We don't get to choose when we're born, and I'm having a really hard time saying we get to choose when we die."

Tim Appleton, a South Windsor resident and field director of Compassion and Choices, argued that not a single additional person would die if the legislation became law, but it would prevent people from having to endure lengthy suffering.

Patients are "not deciding to die; a disease has already taken their life," he said, adding that eight states and Washington, D.C., already have some form of aid in dying. "The law is working as intended for whom it is intended."

In written testimony, the Connecticut State Medical Society noted that there no longer is a uniform opinion among physicians about the ability for terminally ill patients to choose to end their lives.

In 2019, the Connecticut State Medical Society changed is policy from being against voluntary life-ending medication to "engaged neutrality."

"Unanimity within the physician community on the physician's role during the transition from life to death no longer exists," the society wrote. "We have experienced a clear and unmistakable plurality of opinion on this subject both within the medical community and in society, with proponents on each side defending the ethics of their position utilizing the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence."

Comptroller Kevin Lembo also submitted written testimony in which he said that individuals face varying challenges at the end of their lives and should be given a choice.

"Death comes for us in many ways. While the end of our life may be like others with the same terminal diagnosis, the nuance of our death; the peace or rage we experience is as unique as we are as individuals," he wrote. "I am writing in support of this legislation because I want this choice for myself. Whether or not I exercise my choice would be decided among me, my family, and my physician."

While some members of the medical profession speculate that they could be faced with lawsuits, Joseph Pankowski, a law partner at Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin, and Kuransky in Stamford, said, "This legislation has significant safeguards" that protect against lawsuits.

"This bill is straightforward," he said. "I would take this case in a heartbeat for any doctor."

In written testimony, the Division of Criminal Justice for the state of Connecticut, wrote that while it doesn't take a position on the proposal, some provisions could have "unintended and very unwelcome consequences."

Specifically, one provision states that the person signing the patient's death certificate must list the underlying terminal illness as the cause of death, when the actual cause of death would be the medication taken by the patient.

"This becomes problematic" when considering other provisions of the bill that the division says could lead to unintended criminal charges. "The practical problem for the criminal justice system will be confronting a potential murder prosecution where the cause of death is not accurately reported on the death certificate."

During session, Eric can be found at the Capitol in Hartford, reporting the information that readers want and need to know. For insights and updates on legislation, politicians, committees, and commissions that affect the entire state of Connecticut, follow Eric on Twitter: @BednerEric.