Massachusetts court rules against medically assisted death
The highest court in Massachusetts has ruled that allowing doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to mentally competent patients with terminal illnesses is not protected by the state constitution
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The highest court in Massachusetts said in a decision Monday that allowing doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to mentally competent patients with terminal illnesses is not protected by the state constitution.
“Although we recognize the paramount importance and profound significance of all end-of-life decisions, after careful consideration, we conclude that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does not reach so far as to protect physician-assisted suicide,” the Supreme Judicial Court wrote in its decision. “We conclude as well that the law of manslaughter may prohibit physician-assisted suicide, and does so, without offending constitutional protections.”
The high court, while noting the sensitive nature of the case, said the ultimate decision on physician assisted suicide — also known as medical aid in dying — lies with the state Legislature.
The court said “every one of us is free to vote and encourage our legislators to enact laws, and to craft appropriate procedural safeguards, with respect to one of the only human experiences that will affect us all.”
The suit was originally filed in 2016 by Dr. Roger Kligler, a retired physician with stage 4 prostate cancer, and another doctor who feared prosecution on manslaughter charges if he prescribed end-of-life medications to terminally ill patients.
“People are going to die suffering because of this decision," Kligler, 70, said in a telephone interview from his Cape Cod home.
Kligler, who said he is “not doing well” and in “chronic pain” pledged to continue fighting as long as he is able.
“I will continue urging lawmakers to respect the bodily autonomy of dying Massachusetts residents by passing the End of Life Options Act,” he said. Legislative measures to legalize medically assisted suicide have failed in recent years.
The office of state Attorney General Maura Healey, which argued the case on behalf of the state, also said the Legislature is the best place to address the issue.
“Our office understands the complexities of end of life care," attorney general's spokesperson Jillian Fennimore said in a statement. “We are pleased that the Court has affirmed our position that the Legislature is the most appropriate place to have a discussion about this important public policy issue. AG Healey has said she supports legislative action to allow medical aid in dying, provided it includes sufficient safeguards for both patients and providers.”
Medical aid in dying is allowed in 10 states and Washington D.C., according to the advocacy group Compassion and Choices.