A federal appeals court panel heard a quadriplegic person’s claims that Delaware’s assisted suicide law goes too far legally in allowing the controversial practice, as multiple states across the country have legalized assisted suicide for terminally ill people.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit heard the appeal from Sean Curran, a quadriplegic, and a coalition of disability rights groups, which allege that Delaware’s End of Life Options Act, which went into effect earlier this year, discriminates against disabled people. The law authorizes assisted suicide for people with a terminal diagnosis, but Curran’s lawyer argued the law is broad enough that it requires doctors to inform him of end-of-life options during routine treatment for his disability.
“Under Delaware’s physician-assisted suicide law, the law starts with a statement that physician-assisted suicide is now integrated into the standard of care, and it requires, in Section 2503c, as part of informed consent or informing the patient, that a doctor must include all options in discussing end-of-life care,” Ernest Galvan, a lawyer for Curran told the panel, outlining how assisted suicide must now be offered to patients by healthcare providers under the law.
“For people like Mr. Curran, I mean, being a quadriplegic is not just being a healthy person in a chair, it comes with complications that put you on the edge of being terminal fairly often,” Galvan said.
A federal district court tossed Curran’s lawsuit on both the merits and for a lack of standing. The federal appeals court panel questioned how Curran had standing to bring the lawsuit, asking how his claims were not just a generalized grievance with the Delaware law. Galvan responded that Curran has standing to sue “because of the immediate harm to mr. Curran’s relationship with his doctors.”
The lawyer arguing for Delaware officials in front of the panel attempted to claim that the law did not legalize assisted suicide, an assertion which the panel dismissed immediately.
“The Delaware End of Life Options Act is not suicide. It is not assisted suicide,” the lawyer for Delaware said, which was followed by one of the judges asking, “How is that?”
The state spent most of the hearing Wednesday claiming that Curran does not have standing to sue over the law, and that his lawsuit comes out of fear rather than a violation of his rights.
“The harm is not concrete,” Delaware lawyers argued before the panel. “It is a fear of being directed into an option, and the option is voluntary. It’s not required. It’s among the treatment options. It’s not that a doctor is going to require anyone with a disability or a terminal illness, both, to take this medication. It is merely an option, and it is not required for a disabled person to take this medication. That is where the discrimination is not concrete, not particularized, and Mr. Curran cannot substantiate the standing that he’s alleged.”
The three-judge panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Michael Chagares, an appointee of former President George W. Bush; Paul Matey, an appointee of President Donald Trump; and Emil Bove, also a Trump appointee. The 3rd Circuit panel did not indicate how they would rule or when a ruling would be issued.
MUSLIM DOCTORS SUE ILLINOIS OVER STATE’S ASSISTED SUICIDE LAW
Assisted suicide laws have remained controversial despite several states passing laws legalizing the practice, with various healthcare and religious groups leading the opposition to its legalization.
In Illinois, a recently passed law legalizing assisted suicide for terminally ill patients has spawned concern from doctors and leaders of various religions. Last week, a group of Muslim doctors sued over the law, claiming the opt-out clause still violates their First Amendment rights by having to proactively inform a patient about the option of assisted suicide.