In June, a bill was introduced in the Wisconsin State Senate called the “Compassionate Choices” bill. The bill proposes to create a new chapter 156 in the state statutes that would, essentially, allow for physician assisted suicide under certain conditions. The bill is modeled after laws in Oregon, Washington and Vermont (and similar bills have been passed or proposed in 23 other states, plus Washington D.C.). Advocates for these bills feel that people who are suffering should be able to choose for themselves whether they live or die. Opponents feel life is precious and should be preserved at all costs.
The bill creates a statutory form called: “Request for Medication Authorization to End My Life In a Dignified Manner”, which people use to make the request for their physician to prescribe them medication to end their life. The bill requires the patient to follow several steps in order to have the medication administered. 1) the patient must be of sound mind, be 18 or older, and have a terminal disease (defined as incurable and will cause death within 6 months); 2) the individual must orally ask their doctor; 3) Within 15 days of the oral request, must make a request in writing (by filling out a form similar to the statutory form mentioned above), however it cannot be done until a consulting doctor (someone other than the attending physician) examines the patient to confirm that the patient has a terminal disease, is not incapacitated and is making a voluntary and informed decision; 4) After the written request, the patient must again orally request the medication. The request can be revoked at any time.
The bill defines the responsibilities and immunities for physicians when a patient makes this request. The doctor must 1) determine if there is a terminal disease, the patient is not incapacitated and is making the request voluntarily; 2) inform the patient of the diagnosis, risks/results of taking the medication, and alternatives; 3) refer the patient to counseling if the doctor believes the patient may be suffering from a psychiatric/psychological disorder including depression; 4) Ask that the patient notify his or her next of kin (it is not required that the patient do it, but the doctor must ask them to); 5) Inform the patient that the request can be revoked; 6) prior to filling the prescription must ensure the patient followed the steps required by the patient, that more than 48 hours have passed since the 2nd oral request, and that the decision is an informed one; 7) The physician must document the requests, the determinations made in (1), the determinations of the consulting physician, certify that the patient was informed the request could be revoked and a certification that all steps were properly taken; 8) The doctor may refuse to fulfill the request but must make a good faith attempt to transfer the patient to another physician to fulfill the request.
A doctor cannot be charged with criminal, civil or unprofessional conduct for: 1) failing to fulfill a request (except it is unprofessional to not refer the patients care), 2) filling a request, 3) failing to act on a revocation unless they have actual knowledge.
Finally, the bill states that requesting the medication does not constitute attempted suicide and taking the medication does not constitute suicide.
This is a truly fascinating piece of proposed legislation, and one that I presume will either die quietly without a vote, or be subjected to a great amount of protest and scrutiny. Any time someone’s life or death is involved, politics becomes emotionally (and often religiously) charged, even though the reasons for outrage aren’t always clear cut. In addition, the bill was proposed by democratic senators in a republican controlled legislature, with a conservative governor. The likelihood of success seems small.
Aside from the politics, the bill creates many hoops that someone would need to jump through (which makes sense), and creates several potential timing issues that would limit a patient from doing everything correctly in order to be prescribed the medication. Other problems I see with the bill being utilized is the requirement that the patient be competent. I’m not a medical professional, but in the vast majority of cases where someone has a terminal illness, the person is not competent, which would automatically remove the ability to do this. Obviously, an incompetent person should not be making important decisions, but I do think an extension to this bill would involve added terminology to Health Care Powers of Attorney or Declaration to Physicians that would invoke this right. I would also think that most people in this situation, even if competent, would be suffering from some form of depression, which would apparently prevent their wishes from being granted. Due to the nature of the bill, I do think the writers did a pretty good job of trying to cover all of their bases. The decision to take one’s life is not something that should necessarily be easily or quickly done. Whether the bill accomplishes what it seeks to, or if it becomes law, is something we will have to wait to see.