New Haven Register (New Haven, CT)
TEACHER HONORED
Connecticut is taking up the question of physician assisted dying, but perhaps with more support than ever before.
The Legislature’s Public Health Committee is again considering a bill to allow physicians to prescribe life-ending medication to terminally ill patients who ask for it.
The committee heard hours of testimony Friday for and against enabling legislation on House Bill No. 6425, “An Act Concerning Aid in Dying for Terminally Ill Patients,” also known as medical aid in dying, death with dignity, or physician assisted dying.
“I am confident that this will be the year (to advance the bill),” Public Health Committee co-chairman State Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, said before the hearing. “Our prospects are as good as they have ever been.”
The bills have never made it out of committee before, Steinberg said.
This bill, which has been introduced in some iteration eight times since 2013, would allow for people with a terminal illness diagnosis to seek the assistance of a physician to self-administer life-ending medication.
The person needs to be an adult of sound mind with a prognosis of six or fewer months to live and receive approval from a primary physician and consulting physician.
Nearby states including New Jersey, Vermont and Maine are three of the nine states that have all passed death with dignity legislation.
Oregon has the most longstanding statute on the books, having passed the death with dignity act in 1994. There, of people who availed themselves of the option nearly 90 percent were living in hospice settings and three quarters of the people were older than 75.
Before the hearing, advocates of the legislation held a Zoom press conference to share their support.
In the Zoom conference, several people shared personal testimony of how the death with dignity law in Connecticut could impact their lives, or could have helped their loved ones.
Avon resident Christopher Rossetti recently learned he has a rare eye cancer for which there is no effective treatment or cure.
He said this disease usually ends in a slow death by liver failure and wants medical aid in dying available to him and others who might have to suffer similar situations.
“I see nothing glorious or redemptive in a prolonged period of suffering antecedent to my death,” he said during the virtual event. “Please pass this bill and thereby allow me, and so many others with incurable late-stage diseases, to die with the assistance of medical science in peace in the place we call our home.”
Orange resident Jennifer Mizzone said her husband Mike supported the bill in 2018 as he suffered from ALS. Because of his illness, he struggled to breath and eventually died of asphyxia in 2019, she said.
“He suffered unnecessarily, as the reasonable option of aid in dying was not afforded him, as it is in nine states and Washington, DC, including neighboring New Jersey,” Mizzone said. “So I ask the committee why does someone with ALS in Orange, N.J., have more options at the end of life than in Orange, Conn.?”
Critics of the bill testified Friday that the legislation is equivalent to legalizing a certain type of suicide, a crisis in the U.S. and Connecticut, particularly for older adults.
Additionally, disability rights advocates expressed concern over the bill because of the challenges people living with disabilities frequently experience in health care situations.
Other criteria in the legislation include that patients would be required to make three total requests to their physician — two verbal and one written — with at least 15 days between them and with multiple witnesses.
Patients could rescind their request at any time, but if they chose to move forward and receive approval through all steps of the process, the individual would then be allowed to receive medication that would end their life.
Although the bill would only be useful to a small subset of people because of its specific parameters, proponents said that’s exactly why this gap in assistance needs to be addressed.
Catherine Ludlum, a co-founder and leader of the grassroots disability group Second Thoughts Connecticut, said allowing this option puts people living with critical disabilities at risk, as there’s potential for doctors or family members who don’t see the value in the disabled person’s life, to push or coerce them to go this route.
Since living with disabilities can be costly to health care providers or require significant support, Ludlum said she fears that doctors will look at medical aid in dying as the easier treatment for people with debilitating illnesses rather than trying to provide proper longterm care.
“Please understand, the last thing my colleagues and I want is to interfere with anyone’s choice,” Ludlum said. “But when exercising their choice becomes a direct threat to us and to others in our network, we must emphatically say no.”