‘Euthanasia pill' proposed as Nevada law after Gov. Lombardo's veto in 2023
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A bill to legalize a euthanasia pill designed to end a patient's life has been introduced at the Nevada Legislature after Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed a similar bill two years ago.
A patient who has been diagnosed with a terminal condition would be allowed to request medication to end their own life under certain conditions:
Patient must be at least 18 years old.
Patient has been diagnosed with a terminal condition by at least two practitioners.
Patient has made an informed and voluntary decision to end his or her own life.
Patient is mentally capable of making such a decision.
Patient is not requesting the medication because of coercion, deception or undue influence.
The proposal passed by a narrow margin in 2023, before it was eventually vetoed. Now, a Republican who voted against the bill is sponsoring the new version, Assembly Bill 346 (AB346). Republican Assem. Danielle Gallant and Democratic Assem. Joe Dalia are the bill's sponsors, along with co-sponsor Democratic Assem. Edgar Flores. All three of the sponsors represent areas in Southern Nevada.
The bill was referred to the Assembly Select Committee on End of Life Care today in Carson City. It has not been scheduled for a hearing yet.
Doctors and others involved in the patient's care are protected from prosecution or professional discipline under language of AB346, and given the right to refuse to prescribe the medication. But if they refuse, they are required to facilitate the transfer of the patent to another health care provider.
Medical professionals would dispense the euthanasia pill, but only the patient would be allowed to administer it.
Other sections of the law are written to ensure the death certificate states that the patient died of their terminal condition. 'A death resulting from the self-administration of a medication that is designed to end the life of a patient is not mercy killing, euthanasia, assisted suicide, suicide or homicide when done in accordance with the provisions of this bill.' It further prohibits insurance companies from refusing to honor insurance benefits based on the use of a euthanasia pill.
AB346 also states that the pill cannot be prescribed solely based on the patient's age or a disability.
Two years ago, Gov. Lombardo said in his veto message for the bill (Senate Bill 239 during the 2023 session):
'SB239 allows for physician assisted suicide in the State of Nevada. End of life decisions are never easy. Individuals and family members must often come together to face many challenges — including deciding what is the best course of medical treatment for a loved one. Fortunately, expansions in palliative care services and continued improvement in advanced pain management make the end-of-life provisions in SB239 unnecessary.'Given recent progress in science and medicine and the fact that only a small number of states and jurisdictions allow for similar end-of-life protocols, I am not comfortable supporting this bill.'
Before Lombardo's veto, that bill barely made it out of a Senate committee on a 3-2 vote, passed narrowly in the full Senate on an 11-10 vote, and passed the full Assembly 23-9.
A national group, Compassion & Choices, said in 2023 that Lombardo was the first governor to veto a medical-aid-in-dying bill.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon will lose fight with Trump, Musk's father tells Russia
Credit: Tsargrad TV Elon Musk will lose his fight with Donald Trump and made a 'mistake' by challenging him, his father has said. Speaking at a political conference in Moscow, Errol Musk claimed his billionaire son was suffering 'PTSD from the White House' and blamed his row with the US president on 'stress'. 'Trump will prevail – he's the president, he was elected as the president. So, you know, Elon made a mistake, I think. But he is tired, he is stressed,' he told Russian media. Last week, Elon Musk and Mr Trump traded insults after the Tesla chief executive denounced the president's sweeping new tax and spending Bill as 'a disgusting abomination'. He also called for the president's impeachment and claimed the Republican was 'in the Epstein files' – US government intelligence documents on Jeffrey Epstein, the late paedophile financier. In response, Mr Trump threatened to cancel US government contracts with Mr Musk's companies, which include SpaceX. Errol Musk told Izvestia, a Russian daily newspaper: 'You know they have been under a lot of stress for five months – you know – give them a break. 'They are very tired and stressed, so you can expect something like this.' Despite the pair's war of words, Mr Musk said he still believed his son's relationship with the president could be mended, describing the row as 'just a small thing' that would 'be over tomorrow'. He made the comments during an appearance at Future Forum 2050, a conference attended by Kremlin heavyweights and led by Alexander Dugin, a Russian ultra-nationalist philosopher often described as Vladimir Putin's 'brain'. Errol Musk was also pictured sitting next to Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister. At one point he praised Putin as a 'very stable and pleasant man' and blamed Western media for projecting 'nonsense' about Russia. It came as Stephen Bannon, Mr Trump's former chief strategist, claimed that in April Elon Musk had a physical altercation with Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, down the corridor from the Oval Office. Mr Bannon said: 'President Trump heard about it and said: 'This is too much,'' according to The Washington Post. A source told the newspaper that concerns were also raised over Mr Musk's alleged drug use. Mr Musk, the world's richest man, helped bankroll Mr Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. He was then hired to head the new Department of Government Efficiency, controversially tasked with downsizing the federal workforce and slashing spending. The tech entrepreneur stepped back from the role late last month, ending a turbulent 130-day stint in the administration. On Saturday, the US president said his relationship with Mr Musk was over, and warned there would be 'serious consequences' if Mr Musk switched his allegiance to the Democrats and funded rival candidates. Credit: Reuters Delighting in the row, Russian MPs have offered political asylum to the South African-born businessman. Last week, Dmitry Novikov, the deputy chairman of the state Duma committee on international affairs, said Moscow would welcome him to the country 'if he needs it'. Senior Putin allies have also mockingly offered to help mediate between the two men. 'We are ready to facilitate the conclusion of a peace deal between D and E for a reasonable fee and to accept Starlink shares as payment. Don't fight, guys!' said Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president, referring to Mr Musk's satellite internet network. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘He knows where to find me,' Gov. Newsom responds to Trump administration arrest threat
California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to threats over the weekend by the Trump administration that he could be arrested if he interferes with ICE arrests of undocumented immigrants. 'He's a tough guy, why doesn't he do that? He knows where to find me,' Newsom said during an interview with MSNBC News on Sunday. The governor also issued some strong statements toward the president and his administration's crackdown on immigration. 'But, you know what? Lay your hands off 4-year-old girls that are trying to get educated. Lay your hands off these poor people that are just trying to live their lives, man. Trying to live their lives, paying their taxes … been here 10 years,' Newsom said. The governor's comments come in response to threats by Trump's 'border czar,' Tom Homan, to arrest anyone who obstructs the immigration enforcement effort, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, NBC News reported. 'I'll say about anybody,' Homan told the television network. 'You cross that line, it's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement doing their job.' For her part, Bass said Homan's comments were unnecessary. 'I spoke to him last night. He understands that I am the mayor of the city; the last thing in the world I'm going to do is get into a brawl with the federal government. So that just made no sense. There was no reason for that comment,' she told NBC News. Newsom and other Democratic leaders have criticized Trump's use of the National Guard in trying to quell anti-ICE immigration protests that turned violent in Los Angeles over the weekend, saying the escalation in force will only lead to further trouble. Newsom also announced plans to sue the Trump administration over the deployment. Meanwhile, Trump has indicated he would be willing to bring in the U.S. Marines if he felt the situation called for it. Trump also backed up Homan's warning to officials, saying they will 'face judges' if they stand in the way. 'Who the hell is this guy? Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with, tough guy,' Newsom responded. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
