In June, the British Parliament passed a law to permit medical aid in dying, which still needs further action before going into effect.
The Guardian looks at the harrowing situations facing some proponents of MAID:
Here's the backstory:
"MPs have voted to accept the assisted dying bill, with 314 votes in favour to 291 against, a majority of 23.
The bill will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny".
Yesterday the NY State Senate took the next step in making medical aid in dying legal in NY. Now the bill goes to the governor...
The NYT has the story:
"Eleven states and the District of Columbia have passed laws permitting so-called medical aid in dying. The practice is also available in several European countries and in Canada, which recently broadened its criteria to extend the option to people with incurable chronic illnesses and disabilities.
The bill in New York is written more narrowly and would apply only to people who have an incurable and irreversible illness, with six months or less to live. Proponents say that distinction is key.
“It isn’t about ending a person’s life, but shortening their death,” said State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat and one of the sponsors of the bill. It passed on Monday night by a vote of 35 to 27, mostly along partisan lines.
...
"The bill was first introduced a decade ago by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, a Westchester Democrat who leads the body’s Health Committee, at a time when few states were considering such measures.
...
"The bill has earned the support of a range of powerful interest and advocacy groups, including the New York State Bar Association, the New York State Psychiatric Association, the Medical Society of the State of New York and the New York Civil Liberties Union.
"While it was also backed by some religious groups, including Congregation B’nai Yisrael, a Westchester synagogue, and Catholics Vote Common Good, it was staunchly opposed by the New York State Catholic Conference."
A bill to legalize Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) in New York state has passed the Assembly and been referred to the Senate (after which it would go to the Governor for signature). It's controversial, so I don't have a good sense of whether it will become law.
Here's the text of the bill itself, on the NY State Assembley page: "Medical Aid in Dying Act"
Here's a well written article summarizing the controversy, and ultimately opposing the bill in its present form.
Will New York Soon Make It Too Easy to Die? By Madeleine Kearns
"In April, New York’s “Medical Aid in Dying Act” passed the state assembly by a vote of 81 to 67. It has until the end of the legislative session—June 12—to face a vote in the Senate. On Thursday, June 5, Senate majority leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said she believed there were enough votes for the legislation to pass and “it is likely that it will come to the floor.” Perhaps as soon as Monday, June 9.
If the legislation passes, New York would join the 11 other states that have legalized assisted dying in various forms. (It is also legal in the District of Columbia.) For those who have seen difficult deaths or are daunted by the prospect, the kind of death Nancy describes—peaceful and pain-free—is what they are hoping the law will all but guarantee.
But those opposed to assisted suicide—their preferred term—warn that such laws endanger the vulnerable by reshaping social norms so that, for some, the right to die becomes a duty to die. Moreover, New York’s legislation, they argue, is on the “outer edge” of liberalization, eliminating safeguards that exist in other states where medical aid in dying (MAID) is legal."
Read it and weep for our country:
"7. Defendants’ actions are unlawful. The First Amendment does not permit the Government to “interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance,” Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707, 741 (2024), nor may the Government “rely[] on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech,” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024) (citation omitted). The Government’s attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards these fundamental First Amendment principles, which safeguard Harvard’s “academic freedom.” Asociacion de Educacion Privada de P.R., Inc. v. Garcia-Padilla, 490 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2007). A threat such as this to a university’s academic freedom strikes an equal blow to the research conducted and resulting advancements made on its campus.
8. The Government’s actions flout not just the First Amendment, but also federal laws
and regulations. The Government has expressly invoked the protections against discrimination
contained in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a basis for its actions. Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus. But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and Title VI compliance. Moreover, Congress in Title VI set forth detailed procedures that the Government “shall” satisfy before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. Those procedures effectuate Congress’s desire that “termination of or refusal to grant or to continue” federal financial assistance be a remedy of last resort. Id. The Government made no effort to follow those procedures—nor the procedures provided for in Defendants’ own agency regulations—before freezing Harvard’s federal funding.
9. These fatal procedural shortcomings are compounded by the arbitrary and
capricious nature of Defendants’ abrupt and indiscriminate decision..."
Posts
All Comments
