CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Aid In Dying Or Assisted Suicide?

by | Oct 7, 2009 1:48pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Courts, Legal, State Capitol

Christine Stuart photo

Two Connecticut physicians are asking the court to clarify a 1969 law that they believe is vague about whether its proper for a physician to help a terminally ill patient end their life.

“I’ve seen many patients in agony,” Dr. Gary Blick, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said at a Capitol press conference Wednesday.

The only choice these patients currently have is prolonged anguish, Blick said.

Blick said there are medications that will help ease the pain of dying, but it renders a patient unconscious in the days or weeks prior to their death. He said he would like to be able to prescribe medication that a patient can take on their own to end their life with dignity.

Under the current interpretation of the law, if Blick did prescribe medication to aid in the dying process, then he could be charged with manslaughter.

Christine Stuart photo

In 2004, Huntington Williams of Cornwall was charged with manslaughter for supporting his friend John Welles in ending his life.

Welles was living alone and dying from advanced prostate cancer. Williams said his friend made it known that he wanted to end his life. So one day Williams made sure the .38 caliber revolver was operable and handed it back to Welles.

“John loaded the gun and walked, with the aid of a walker, out into his garden. He lay down and I suggested where to aim the gun,” Williams said. “I walked 100 yards up the driveway and called out ‘God Bless…’, but before I got to the ‘you’ out I heard the gun fire.”

He then went back to determine if Welles had been successful and called 911. Six months later he was charged with manslaughter. He was later convicted on the charge, but was given accelerated rehabilitation instead of prison time.

“It’s time for the courts to make it clear that John Welles deserved better, that I deserved better, and that terminal patients and their families in our great state of Connecticut deserve better,” Williams said.

Christine Stuart photo

Sheldon Smith, 86, said he hopes for a favorable outcome from the lawsuit because he is concerned about how the end of his life will unfold.

Smith, who has fourth-stage abdominal cancer, said he knows the type of pain his cancer can cause and would like a physician to be able to prescribe medication to help bring about a peaceful death, if the dying process becomes unbearable.

“I’ve still got a pulse so I’m here,” Smith announced as he got to the podium.

He said he wants to keep living as long as he can, but if the pain is too much to bear, “I want to leave this world with the same dignity with which I’ve lived my life.”

Christine Stuart photo

Kathryn Tucker, the lead attorney in the case said that this is the first time the Connecticut court will be asked to look at this law.

Tucker said the goal of the lawsuit is to get some clarity on the existing law.

“What is the reach of that statute?” is the question the court will have to answer, Tucker said.

Oregon and Washington are the only two states that allow terminally ill patients to end their lives by taking medications prescribed by a physician. Oregon’s law was enacted in 1997 and Washington’s was approved by voters last fall. In Oregon and Washington the law sent by the legislature to be approved by the voters. No such, ballot initiative exists in Connecticut.

“I certainly think that the legislature can address this issue. I think it has not yet done so in Connecticut,” Tucker said.

There was a bill introduced last year to address this issue, but it was promptly dismissed by the Judiciary Committee, following the dismissal of another controversial bill dealing with the Catholic Church.

Michael Culhane, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, said the church opposes the initiation of this lawsuit and is considering intervening, however, no decision has been made yet about whether it would get involved.

“Life is sacred from conception to natural death,” Culhane said. “This lawsuit and any legislative efforts that would be forthcoming as a result of the lawsuit is something we would oppose.”

Kim Grzybala contributed to this report.

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(5) Archived Comments

posted by: Tom Koch | October 8, 2009  9:51am

The move to permit physician-assisted suicide seems to be driven by two separate concerns. First is a concern for untreated pain at the end of life. Second is the loss of control attending upon advanced disease.
In more than 90 percent of all cases pain can be controlled with contemporary medical procedures. Too often, it is not. The answer there, however, is to push for better medicine, not medically assisted, early death of patients.
The second concern is the fear of a loss of control. This is common. But many in non-dying states fear this, too. Were we to permit the euthanasia of all who have lost control (and how much?) we would be killing legions.
The better answer is to recognize that control is not a reason for death but for rehabilitation and assistance for the interim.
Our goal as a society should be maximizing life in its complexity, not limiting it.

Tom Koch, PhD bioethicist.

posted by: geoff sugerman | October 8, 2009  12:28pm

Oregon’s law was a citizens initiative approved by voters the first time in 1994. In 1997, the Legislature asked voters if they wanted to repeal the law and voters resouding approved the Oregon Death With Dignity Act again. Washington’s law was also a citizens intiative. Neither were “legislative” referrals as this articel indicates.

posted by: Bill | October 8, 2009  2:08pm

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” from the Hippocratic oath.

posted by: leavemybodyalone | October 8, 2009  3:20pm

I’m not sure what fantasy land Mr. Koch is living in; I guess the one where people have tons of money and great insurance and friends, so that they don’t end up rotting in a “nursing home”?  Also, who gives a s**t what the Catholic church has to say about anything?  I’m not Catholic, so their opinions mean absolutely nothing to me.

posted by: Been there | October 9, 2009  10:29am

As an Icu nurse for many years I can say I have seen it all. The prolonged agony of those deemed termially ill is often at the hands of selfish family members who would rather see their “loved one” live as long as possible, no matter what has to be done to do it at the expense of the patient’s own wishes to die.I have seen living corpses literally kept alive by machines even as their flesh is rotting on their bodies while the family threatens to sue if we don’t continue to do everything in our power to keep the person alive.
If someone is competent to make their own decision in the health care setting they are seen as depressed and therefore unable to make a rational decision on their own part. A psych consult is then called and antidepressants are added.Of course they are depressed-they are dying! I truely believe a person who knows they are terminally ill should be able to determine when it is time for them to go. Usually this is when the quality of life has deteriorated to the point of being ready to let go.The agony of living just to exist in pain and dependency is worse than the peace that death brings. I don’t consider this suicide. I consider this a personal decision and often a rational and well thought out one. This country is so caught up in the “sanctity” of life that we have lost our compassion have forgotten what it means to die with dignity.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages