New York legislature passes medical aid in dying bill
Jun. 10—ALBANY — The New York state legislature has passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide, a program supporters are calling "medical aid in dying."
On Monday evening, with just a few days left for voting for the scheduled legislative session, the state Senate voted to pass its copy of the legislation. The state Assembly passed it earlier this year, and the bill now awaits Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul's decision to sign, veto or amend the legislation.
Under the terms of the bill, people with a terminal illness who have an estimated six months or less before their disease will kill them can ask their physician for a prescription for life-ending drugs, which they can take home and consume on their own.
The legislation has some protections, requiring a physician to evaluate the patient's ability to make decisions and refer them for psychiatric evaluation if there are questions over capacity. Patients have to make an oral and written request for the life-ending drugs, and the request be witnessed by two adults who are not closely related to the patient or likely to benefit after their death.
It also permits medical professionals to recuse themselves from requests for medically assisted suicide, ordering them to refer requests they refuse to other doctors.
Supporters of the bill say it will give New Yorkers suffering from terminal illnesses a safe, humane way to end their lives. They point to cases where terminally ill people have chosen to stop eating or drinking or chosen to end their lives in other, not legally sanctioned ways.
Opponents of the bill raise concerns over the message it sends to sick people, that they should choose death rather than fight for their health, as well as practical concerns over whether the medication that would be prescribed could be a health hazard if not properly stored. They also expressed concerns over the bill's approach to how the death will be recorded. Under the bill's terms, someone who takes advantage of the program would have their cause of death listed as their terminal illness, not the ingestion of life-ending drugs. They also raised concerns over the lack of post-dispensation tracking for the lethal drugs, raising concerns they could be misused.
The bill has circulated in Albany for nearly a decade, going most years without a floor vote in either chamber. Just last year, it lacked majority support in the Senate, but a successful lobbying effort this year pushed it to approval in the Assembly and now in the Senate. Debate stretched into Monday evening, with detractors in the Senate expressing concern. Sen. Steven D. Rhoads, R-Nassau, questioned why the bill doesn't include a specific requirement that doctors review a patient's medical records before prescribing the medication.
"There is nothing in the bill that requires that," he said during floor debate.
But proponents of the bill said it's a meaningful step towards medical autonomy and the right to choose — Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, D-Manhattan, the Senate sponsor of the bill, said that some identified gaps in the bill will be filled in the regulation-crafting process with the state Department of Health, which will be tasked with overseeing the implementation and authorization necessary to allow New York doctors and pharmacies to dispense these lethal medications.
The lobbying isn't over yet. A major opponent of the bill, the New York State Catholic Conference, took to the halls of the Capitol on Monday in a last-ditch effort to kill the bill's chances in the Senate. Their effort was unsuccessful, but they've continued to push the governor to reject the bill.
Sen. Mark C. Walczyk, R-Sackets Harbor, said in a statement that he was sad to see the bill pass.
"I have tremendous sympathy for those with terminal illnesses and respect families who face end-of-life decisions," Walczyk said in a statement. "This legislation lacks critical protections for the vulnerable, structurally incentivizes suicide, and devalues human life. We need only look at the examples of states and nations that have promoted this policy. Instead of providing an option for individuals to end their lives, we should focus on improving health care for the vulnerable and enhancing hospice and palliative care for the terminally ill to ensure that every New Yorker has access to compassionate support during their most vulnerable moments, rather than offering a misguided solution that encourages despair."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cuts to Medicaid for Ohioans with disabilities could take away home care and job help
(iStock / Getty Images Plus) As the Ohio Senate moves forward with its budget proposal, advocates for Medicaid are hoping changes can be made to avoid significant impacts to low income residents, elderly Ohioans, and people with disabilities. Funding from Medicaid allows 3 million Ohioans access to health care services, including more than 770,000 who receive them through the Medicaid expansion program instituted in 2014. That expansion program allows people who weren't eligible for the traditional Medicaid programs but were still in categories of need to access health care. The existence of that program dropped the uninsured rate in Ohio to historic levels, according to the Health Policy Institute of Ohio. Along with health care, Medicaid dollars help with services that aren't necessarily connected to medical treatment, like home care, employment help, transportation, and a direct care provider who helps with all of those things. 'In many cases, if there wasn't Medicaid dollars behind it, I know of many people whose ability to live outside of a hospital or in the community would be threatened,' said Jules Patalita, a disability rights advocate for Sylvania-based The Ability Center. So advocates were disappointed to see the Ohio Senate maintain a provision from both the Ohio House's and Gov. Mike DeWine's budget proposals that would eliminate the Medicaid expansion group if the federal government reduces their level of support (currently at 90%) by even 1%. 'This would be a substantial loss for many working Ohioans,' said Kathryn Poe, researcher for the think tank Policy Matters Ohio. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Also included in the Senate's budget proposal is the elimination of a Medicaid waiver that 'would have provided continuous coverage for kids up to age 3,' Poe said, and a separate section of the budget that would 'allow the state to pause, eliminate or change other funds related to all other federal grants, should Congress adjust or eliminate funding for that program.' Poe did praise the Senate proposal for removing a House-submitted provision limiting Medicaid reimbursement for doulas to only six Ohio counties. 'This will ensure that Ohio parents continue to have access to culturally appropriate birthing resources and management,' Poe said. Concerns about loss of access don't just extend to physical health concerns or daily home services, but also to behavioral health services, on which 47% of Ohio adults on Medicaid rely, according to Kerstin Sjoberg, president and CEO of Disability Rights Ohio. 'If you don't have access to some sort of insurance like Medicaid, it's going to be almost impossible to get those services,' Sjoberg said. The state-level discussions come as federal budget reconciliation also touches on Medicaid funding as the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress attempt to slash federal spending by $880 billion over the next decade, particularly from public assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid. U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and other leaders have talked about 'abuse' or 'fraud' as sources of revenue loss for the country in public programs, something those who engage with users of programs like Medicaid push back on. 'In reality, Medicaid is one of the most cost-effective and widely used safety nets in the country,' said the advocacy group Innovation Ohio in a call-to-action email over the congressional budget proposals. 'If this bill becomes law, the result will be fewer people with health care, more families pushed into poverty and deeper inequality. Rural hospitals could shut down.' According to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, Ohio could be one of the hardest hit economies if Medicaid cuts at the federal level come to fruition, cuts that could mean 29% more Medicaid spending by states or cuts to other programs, like education, to offset the Medicaid losses. One thing that will have to be addressed whether or not the cuts are realized in the state and federal budgets is the workforce that helps those who use Medicaid for home care and other services. Patalita said the word 'crisis' has been used in talking about the shortage of direct care providers, similar to the shortage of child care workers needed to provide adequate access to that service. 'We've talked to people who have had to wait weeks to be able to receive services in the home, because there just aren't enough providers out there,' Patalita said. The Ability Center did a study after the previous state budget increased the reimbursement rate for direct care providers under the state Medicaid program. That study showed that while reimbursements rates and, for that matter, provider wages should go up, the solution to the shortage problem wouldn't come with just one answer. 'The direct care crisis is too complex of an issue for a single action to remedy,' The Ability Center found. The study identified three 'major elements' of the shortage: high turnover rates, low hourly wages (lower than 'many entry level positions in retail and food service,' according to the study), and a lack of consistency in benefits. 'This failure by agencies to provide benefits adds to the worker shortage and forces those requiring home care to carry the burden of decreased access to care, especially those in rural areas,' the study found. Eliminating Medicaid funding, including the expansion group, will make life harder for those Ohioans who need the services, Sjoberg said, 'but it will also make it necessary that the direct care workforce is supported in other ways.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Illinois Senate President Don Harmon faces potential $9.8 million fine for improperly accepting campaign cash
State election officials have informed Senate President Don Harmon that he will face more than $9.8 million in penalties pending an appeal of a case alleging he broke an Illinois election law designed to rein in big money in political campaigns. The calculation of the potential penalty emerged only days after the Oak Park Democrat attempted to pass legislation designed to wipe away the election board case and the potential penalties, a maneuver stymied amid bipartisan backlash only hours before the spring session adjourned early June 1. The developments take on an added political dimension because of the looming federal sentencing on Friday of former Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan in the bribery-related ComEd scandal. In a letter dated June 5, the Illinois State Board of Elections told Harmon's campaign committee it must pay more than $9.8 million within 30 days unless an appeal is filed. The Harmon campaign has already filed a notification that it plans to appeal, and Harmon has said he 'fully complied with the law.' On Tuesday, Harmon's political spokesman, Tom Bowen, said Harmon has supported every campaign finance reform that has passed the legislature and has 'always prioritized the highest ethical standards.' 'Our committee has filed a response to the Board of Elections that we do not agree with their assessment,' Bowen said in an emailed statement. 'We look forward to our opportunity to resolve this matter.' Following a Tribune inquiry about Harmon's fundraising, election board officials notified Harmon in March that he had accepted more than $4 million in campaign contributions over the amount allowed under campaign finance restrictions he championed years ago that limit the size of political contributions. The board arrived at the $9.8 million figure based on two provisions in the law. The first would require Harmon's political fund to send to the state's operating fund an amount equal to the more than $4 million his campaign fund collected over the limit. The board also computed a nearly $5.8 million fine based on 150% of the amount the board determined Harmon overcollected. The board said it took into account a provision in the law that allowed for a couple of reductions for the first two violations among the dozens of excessive contributions in question. It's still uncertain how precarious this situation is for Harmon and his campaign fund. Politicians frequently challenge the board, and negotiations can result in final fines that are a fraction of the potential fine. If Harmon wins the appeal, he could wind up paying nothing. In a Tribune interview last week, Harmon also defended his eleventh-hour attempt to change state law with a clause that could have eliminated his elections board dispute and potential fine. He said the language he sought to insert in the statute was 'existing law' and his measure was an effort to clarify the issue. But that is Harmon's interpretation of 'existing law,' not that of elections board officials. At the heart of the disagreement between Harmon and election officials is a loophole in state campaign finance law. It allows politicians to collect contributions above state limits if any candidate in the race in which they are running — themselves or an opponent — reports reaching a 'self-funding threshold' in which they have given or loaned their campaign funds more than $250,000 for statewide races and more than $100,000 in races for the state legislature or local offices. In 2023, Harmon gave his state Senate campaign committee more than $100,000 to open the loophole for the 2024 campaign season, even though he was not running for office last year. In campaign paperwork, Harmon indicated he thought the move allowed him to collect unlimited cash through the November 2024 election cycle. But board officials informed him that the loophole would only be open through the March 2024 primary, meaning they viewed the campaign cash Harmon collected above campaign restrictions between March and the end of the year was not allowed.
Chicago Tribune
42 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Senate President Harmon's sly legislative maneuver exemplifies the need for campaign finance reform
Even lawmakers who've been around Springfield a long time were taken aback at the audacity of Senate President Don Harmon slipping a provision into a broader elections reform bill that would have gotten his campaign off the hook for a potential penalty well into the millions. The Senate president's problem stems from a March ruling by the Illinois State Board of Elections that his campaign had improperly accepted more than $4 million in donations in 2024 — a finding that stemmed from this newspaper's questions about the campaign's fundraising. If Harmon's appeal of that determination is unsuccessful, his campaign could be subject to a penalty as steep as $6.1 million. Harmon's language in the broader reform bill would have deemed the grounds for his campaign's appeal correct, both going forward . House Democrats concluded the provision would have ended the board's enforcement action, wiping the slate clean for the Harmon campaign. The Senate president's attempted slick move only confirmed what many voters already believe about Springfield — that those in power regularly speak in support of good government and clean campaigns but, when push comes to shove, do what they feel is necessary to preserve their authority. The maneuver deserved the condemnation it received — including from members of Harmon's own party. Thankfully, there was no vote on that elections reform package in the most recent session of the General Assembly. Beyond the unseemly legislative maneuvering, the Harmon story to our minds underscores how Springfield's past efforts at campaign finance have failed so miserably. The issue at the heart of Harmon's woes is a provision in the state's 2009 campaign finance reform law that was meant to neutralize the effect of big money on Illinois politics. Back then, worries about independently wealthy candidates effectively buying elections led state lawmakers to lift donation limits when 'self-funding' got to a certain level so that opponents could compete. Instead, that safeguard mainly has enabled party leaders like Harmon to collect sums well above the law's ordinary caps on individual contributions from politically connected, big-money donors like unions and other special interests. The law says that candidates who contribute their own money above a certain threshold — in the case of state lawmakers, it's $100,000 — no longer must abide by the donation limits (and neither must their opponents). The loophole is so flimsy that it permits those candidates to provide that cash as a loan and get repaid by the sizable sums that flow from the lifting of the caps. In this manner, Harmon uses the so-called millionaire's exemption in election cycle after election cycle, the Tribune reported. He's not alone. House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch has taken advantage of the same loophole, Alisa Kaplan, executive director of campaign watchdog Reform for Illinois, tells us. Republican leaders in the House and Senate have done so in the past as well. Before scandal forced him to retire in 2021, Michael Madigan routinely employed the same strategy as House speaker. Madigan awaits sentencing this coming Friday after being convicted in February of bribery and corruption charges. As broad as the exemption is, there are some limits. Harmon ran afoul of the law when his campaign collected amounts above the caps during a period of time it allegedly couldn't, according to the Board of Elections. Harmon says the board is misinterpreting the statute and has appealed. However the Harmon campaign affair is concluded, the bigger issue here is the loophole itself. It allows legislative leaders to evade campaign limits routinely and enables special interests to amass far too much influence over state policy through exorbitant donations. As Madigan so skillfully proved over his decades in power, caucus leaders exert immense influence over members by doling out funds in their campaign war chests, bankrolled by those special interests. This unholy alliance between the leaders and donors gives those deep-pocketed interests effective veto power over legislation they don't like. Why do so many problems facing the state seem so intractable? Look no further than this dynamic. Potential fixes don't come without tradeoffs. Eliminating the millionaire's exemption altogether would open the door again to uber-wealthy candidates (or super PACs controlled by rich individuals) gaining an unfair advantage. But there are some obvious steps Springfield should take. At the very least, an end should be put to making cap-busting donations in the form of loans. And the amount self-funders should have to front ought to be raised substantially from the $100,000 threshold currently applied to state legislative races. Reform for Illinois set forth other constructive suggestions — . They're no less relevant today. The Harmon campaign controversy will have done the urgent cause of campaign finance reform an unintended favor if it puts the millionaire's exemption on Springfield's agenda.
