Legislation by Country

Table of contents
Definitions 6
Europe 7
Belgium 7
Law 7
Euthanasia 7
Assisted suicide 7
Refusal of treatment 7
Denmark 8
Law 8
France 8
Law 8
Euthanasia 8
Assisted suicide 8
Caselaw 9
Germany 10
Law 10
Euthanasia 10
Assisted suicide 10
Refusal of treatment and palliative care 10
Caselaw 10
Kempten-case (1994) 10
…. (2003) 10
Bundesverwaltungsgericht 3 C 19.15 (02-03-2017) 10
Iceland 10
Ireland 11
Law 11
Caselaw 11
Italy 11
Law 11
Euthanasia 11
Law proposals 12
Luxembourg 13
Law 13
Euthanasia 14
Assisted suicide 14
Palliative care 14
The Netherlands 14
Law 14
Euthanasia and assisted suicide 14
Norway 14
Law 14
Euthanasia 15
Assisted suicide 15
Refusal on treatment 15
Palliative care 15
Law proposals 15
Portugal 15
Law 15
Euthanasia 16
Spain 16
Sweden 16
Law 16
Euthanasia 16
Assisted suicide 16
Palliative care 17
Law proposals 17
Switzerland 17
Law 17
Euthanasia 17
Assisted suicide 18
UK 18
Law 18
Euthanasia 18
Assisted suicide 18
Caselaw 18
Law proposals 18
The Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill (2003) 18
Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL] (2004-2006) 19
The Coroners and Justice Bill (2008–2009) 19
Assisted Dying Bill (2015) 19
Rob Marris Assisted Dying Bill (2015) 19
1
Scotland 19
Law proposals 20
End of Life Assistance Bill (2010) 20
Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill (2015) 20
Northern Ireland 20
Law 21
England & Wales 21
Law 21
USA 21
Federal government 22
Law 22
Euthanasia 22
Assisted suicide 22
Caselaw 22
California 22
Law 22
Caselaw 23
End of life option act challenged (2016-2019) 23
Dick Magney (2016-2019) 24
Connecticut 24
General 25
Attempts to legislation of maid 25
HB 5898, An Act Concerning Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill 25
Hawaii 25
Law 25
Our care, our choice act 25
Law history 25
SB 1129 (2017) 25
HB 2739 (2018) 26
Maine 26
Law 26
Assisted suicide 27
Law proposals 27
First attempts (before 2000) 27
Question 1 (2000) 27
An Act Regarding Patient-directed Care at the End of Life (2013-2015) 27
An act to support death with dignity (2017) 28
2
2018 28
Maryland 29
Montana 29
Baxter vs Montana 29
Attempts to Ban Assisted Dying 29
Relevant links for more information 30
Nevada 30
New Jersey 30
Law proposals 30
Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (2018-2019) 30
Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (2016) 31
Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (2014) 31
New Jersey Death with Dignity Act (2012) 31
New Mexico 31
Law 31
Assisted suicide 31
Palliative sedation 31
Caselaw 32
Morris v Brandenburg (2014-2016) 32
Law proposals 33
Death with Dignity bill (1995 + 2009) 33
End of life options act (2017-2019) 33
Municipal Resolutions 34
North Carolina 34
Law 34
Practice 34
Oregon 34
Law in force 34
Oregon Death with Dignity Act 34
Law proposals 35
Caselaw 35
North America 35
Canada 36
Law 36
Criminal code - Medical Assistance in Dying 36
Euthanasia 37
Assisted suicide 37
Palliative sedation 38
Caselaw 38
3
The Carter case (2012-2015) 38
Law proposals 38
An act to amend the criminal code 38
South-America 38
Colombia 39
Falkland Islands 39
Asia 39
China 39
Newsarticles 39
Hong Kong 39
Newsarticles 39
Israel 39
Proposals 40
Japan 40
Proposals 40
Africa 40
South Africa 41
Australia 41
Federal Australia 41
Proposals 41
South Australia 41
Law 42
Palliative care 42
Proposals 42
Northern Territory 44
Law 44
Victoria 44
Proposals 44
Assisted suicide 44
Other options 45
Human rights 45
Further Oceania 45
New Zealand 45
Attempts at legalisation 46
Death with Dignity Bill (1995) 46
4
Death with dignity bill (2003) 46
End of Life Choices Bill (2012) 46
End of Life Choices Bill (2015) 46
Parliamentary Enquiry 46
Court cases 47
Lecretia Seales (2015) 47
Sean Davison (2011) 47
Lesley Martin (2004) 47
Peaceful pill handbook 48
Landscape 48
5
Definitions
Euthanasia = Administration of lethal drugs at request
Assisted suicide = Provision of lethal drugs causing the death
6
Europe
Belgium
Law
Euthanasia
Euthanasia as such is not mentioned in the Belgian Penal Code, but can be classified as
manslaughter (art. 393) or murder (art. 394), and is therefore a crime. A person who
performs euthanasia could therefore be prosecuted on the basis of the preceding articles.
And perhaps a prosecution can even be based on art. 397: poisoning.1
Belgium has had a euthanasia law (Wet betreffende de euthanasie) since 2002. This law
stipulates that euthanasia is not a crime, provided that it is performed by a doctor and that
certain conditions are met. These so called ‘due care criteria’ are specified in article 3:
unbearable psychological or physical suffering without the chance of recovery or
improvement of quality of life.
A directive is legally valid; this must be renewed every five years. A request for euthanasia
must be submitted in writing and this written request must be kept by two intimates. They
must also be present when the advance directive is drawn up and one of the two must not
benefit in the event of the death of the author. Since 2014, the age limit (subject to parental
consent) for euthanasia has been dropped. Instead, the term "competent" has come.
If a person is not assumed to die within foreseeable time, an extra physician should be
consulted, just as a psychiatrist. (Article 3 paragraph 3)
Assisted suicide
The Belgium Penal Code (1867) does not, like the Netherlands do, forbid assisted suicide or
the provision of lethal drugs as such. Because suicide itself is not a criminal offence in
Belgium law, assisting a suicide is no criminal offence too. However, literature2 learns that it
can be punished, based on the notion that it is a citizen’s duty to help a person in great
danger. This is laid down in articles 422bis and 422ter of the penal code. A person who does
not fulfill this duty can be punished by 8 days to a year imprisonment.
1
Griffiths, Weyers & Adams, Euthanasia and law in Europe, 2008, p. 304
2
Griffiths, Weyers & Adams, Euthanasia and law in Europe, 2008, pp. 304-305
7
With the introduction of the Wet betreffende de euthanasie, the question arose whether
this law also covered assisted suicide, as assisted suicide is not, like it is in the Dutch law,
explicitly mentioned in the Belgium euthanasia law. This question is answered positively by
the Belgian Council of state (Raad van State)3, the order of physicians and the Belgian review
committees4. However, in 2019 judges decided that
Refusal of treatment
Hhhhhhh
3
XXXXXX
4
http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20190426_04354040
8
Denmark
Law
France
Law
Euthanasia
Euthanasia is forbidden by the French penal law.
Assisted suicide
In France, there is an article that forbids the act of provoking the suicide of others, article
223-13, but, just as in Belgium, there is no article that specifically forbids assisted suicide or
the provision of lethal drugs. And just as in Belgium, also in France the article about the
failure to provide assistance, article 223-6 of the Code penal (1994), serves (based on
caselaw / literature?) as instrument to punish people who assist someone by a suicide:
“Anyone who can prevent by its immediate action, without risk to himself or to third parties,
a crime or a crime against the person bodily integrity, who willfully fails to do so is
punishable by five years imprisonment and 75 000 euro fine. The same penalties will anyone
who willfully fails to bring to a person in danger assistance that without risk to himself or to
third parties, he could lend to him by his personal action, or by initiating rescue.”
The French health law, the code de la santé publique (1951), says that every person has the
right to refuse treatment.
Article L1110-2 guarantees the right to dignity to patients. ………………...
This right became stronger in 2005. The then established loi relative aux droits des malades
et à la fin de vie recognizes the right for the concerned person to express his/her views and
wishes for treatment through Advanced Directives and can name a Person of Confidence
(Personne de Confiance) who's opinion must be listened to by the doctor. This law
authorizes Doctors to stop treatments including feeding and all life sustaining support until
death. Imposes a collegial decision on any end of life treatments or decisions and re-states
that the doctor is the ultimate decision maker in all cases.
9
Loi n° 2005-370 du 22 avril 2005 relative aux droits des malades et à la fin de vie (1)
Modification: Recognizes the right for the concerned person to express his/her views and
wishes for treatment through Advanced Directives and can name a Person of Confidence
(Personne de Confiance) who's opinion must be listened to by the doctor. Authorizes
Doctors to stop treatments including feeding and all life sustaining support until death.
Imposes a collegial decision on any end of life treatments or decisions. Re-states that the
doctor is the ultimate decision maker in all cases.
Modification: The principles of this new evolution is that the person can write Advanced
Directives and the doctor must take them in consideration. However the Doctor remains
final decision maker. No means of obligation are in the law for the Doctor to do as the
patient asks.
Presently reviewed and most of it's advances taken out by the Senate, a joint committee of
the Senate and the House is convened to attempt to establish a compromise.
The timing expected is that the compromised version will be voted by the House early next
year and the application decree published in spring. Then the President can argue that he
did all he could to make the law progress as promised during his campaign but that the
country was not ready for this.
In 2016 a new law is created: the Loi créant de nouveaux droits en faveur des malades et
des personnes en fin de vie. The principles of this new evolution is that the person can write
Advanced Directives and the doctor must take them in consideration. However, the doctor
remains final decision maker. No means of obligation are in the law for the doctor to do as
the patient asks.
Presently reviewed and most of it's advances taken out by the Senate, a joint committee of
the Senate and the House is convened to attempt to establish a compromise. The timing
expected is that the compromised version will be voted by the House early 2017 and the
application decree published in spring. The present law being discussed is not expected to
bring any progress, by Right to Die associations. They are against this law with the hope that
it would force the government to reconsider it's approach to such legislation. Should it pass
(most likely) then it is of high chance that it takes another 10 years before any other
legislative attempt would enable progress.
Caselaw
Vincent Lambert
https://www.worldrtd.net/search/node/vincent%20humbert
Christine malevre
10
https://www.worldrtd.net/news/christine-malegravevre-appeals-her-sentence
Germany
Law
Euthanasia
Active euthanasia – the killing of a patient at his request – is not subject to debate in
Germany. It is regarded as manslaughter, based on article 216 of the German Criminal code,
and can lead to up to five years imprisonment.
Assisted suicide
Assisted suicide has never been illegal in Germany, however, physicians are prohibited to do
so, according to their guidelines.
In 2015, a new article was added to the Criminal Code. This article 217 prohibits assisted
suicide when it is done by an organisation that has the intention to organise repeatedly
assisted suicide, as a profession. Individual assistance stays not punishable.
Refusal of treatment and palliative care

Terminating treatment for incurable patients, with the focus on suppressing pain and not
ending the life is allowed in Germany.
Caselaw
Kempten-case (1994)
In the so-called Kempten-case, the
…. (2003)
Bundesverwaltungsgericht 3 C 19.15 (02-03-2017)

In 2017, the Federal Administrative Court of Germany decided that article 2.1 (the general
right to personality), combined with article 2.2 (the right to life) and in connection with
article 1.1 (protection of human dignity) of the Constitution of Germany comprises the right
of a severe and incurably ill patient to decide how and at what time his or her life shall end,
provided that he or she is in a position to make up his or her own mind in that respect and
act accordingly. The Court found, even though it was generally not possible to allow
purchasing a narcotic substance for the purpose of suicide, there had to be exceptions. If a
severe and incurably ill patient, due to his or her unbearable suffering, freely and seriously
11
decides to wish an end to his or her life, and if there was no reasonable alternative available
– such as to end treatment accompanied by palliative care, such a patient should not be
barred from accessing prescribe narcotics for a dignified and painless suicide. (Read more
here.)
Iceland
In Iceland,
Ireland
Law
Euthanasia is forbidden. Suicide was defined a crime, but this changed in 1993 by the
so-called Criminal Law (Suicide) Act. However, assisted suicide is still forbidden (article 2-2 of
this act).
Medical council - Guide to professional conduct and ethics for registered medical
practitioners (2009) The Medical Council recognises the right of every competent adult
patient to consent to or refuse medical treatment. The objective of applying this principle to
advance directives is to ensure that doctors continue to provide medical treatment to
patients in accordance with their wishes and values. Where a competent adult patient
makes a specific and informed decision to refuse future medical treatment in the event of
his/her incapacity, this decision must be respected…. Patients should be encouraged to
nominate a trusted person to interpret their wishes in the event of any ambiguity.
Caselaw
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22338524
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/94FF4EFE25BA9B4280257B5C003EEA73
Italy
Law
Euthanasia
In Italy, euthanasia is punishable as a ‘specialis’ of murder. Murder itself is sanctioned in
article 575 of the Italian penal code (1930) - it prescribes a minimum imprisonment of 21
years. Article 579 of this penal code determines that for ‘murder at request’, a punishment
of 6 to 15 years in prison can be given. According to the same article 579, this ‘euthanasia’
12
must be considered murder if the victim, when giving his/her consent, was under the age of
18, intoxicated, mentally disabled, or if the consent was obtained through violence, menace,
or deception. The principle behind it is the contrast with the principle of the unavailability of
life.
No therapy can be compelled to a person against her/his will. The respect of the human
person is above any other consideration. The Republic safeguards health as a fundamental
right of the individual and as a collective interest, and guarantees free medical care to the
indigent. No one may be obliged to undergo any health treatment except under the
provisions of the law. The law may not under any circumstances violate the limits imposed
by respect for the human person. Acts of disposition of one's body are prohibited when they
cause a permanent diminution of physical integrity or are otherwise contrary to law, public
policy or morality (1418).
Law proposals
Luca Coscioni Association presented a law proposal of popular initiative which have been
lying in Parliament without being discussed for two years: http://eutanasialegale.it/
The law proposal collected 67,000 subscriptions during the collection of signatures
campaign and more than 100,000 online, on the website of the campaign:
eutanasialegale.it. In september 2015 we have been able to create a parliamentary
intergroup to discuss about the legalization of euthanasia, to which more than 160
parliamentarians adhered. In march 2016 it is treated in parliament.
In addition to the popular initiative’s draft law, they also presented a draft law endorsed by
the Senator Luigi Manconi:
http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00737630.pdf
And another one signed by the Senator Francesco Palermo:

http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00762188.pdf
And a last one with the signature of the Deputy Titti Di Salvo: their legislative iter has not
started yet.
The power of the legislative initiative is recognized by the Italian Costitution:

- To the Government;
- To the Parliament: both the parliamentary groups and the individual deputy or senator can
develop law proposals;
13
- To the voters (the voters can exercise this kind of initiative by presenting to the Parliament
a proposal subscribed by at least 50,000 citizens, as it explained in Art. 71 of the Italian
Constitution)
- To the regional councils
- To the CNEL (Work and Economic National Council)
The legislative procedure starts with the assignment of the discussion of the legislative
initiative, made by the President of the Parliament’s Chamber to which the draft law arrived
at, to the parliamentary commission which is in charge “ratione materiae” . This commission
can work at the “legislatives stage”, “referring stage”, “drafting stage”. If the draft law is
assigned to the Commission at legislative stage, during the Commission’s work there is
always the possibility to return it to the Parliamentary Assembly. The ordinary legislative
procedure goes on with the assignment of the draft law to one of the Presidents of the
Chambers. The President enables the Assembly to discuss the draft law, to vote every article
of it and, lastly, the final vote on the entire draft law. In case that most of those present
approved the draft law, it is considered approved and can be sent to the other chamber of
the Parliament, which has to discuss it again. If this Chamber as well vote favourably the
draft law without modifying it, the deliberative stage can be considered concluded. On the
other side, if the Chamber modifies the draft law it must return to the Chamber which
approved it first and be considered once again. This complex procedure is called “navette”
and implies the transit from a Chamber of the Parliament to another until both of them
approve the same draft law without modifying it. The law proclamation must take place
within 30 days from the parliamentary consent or in a minor time limit if both the Chambers
with the absolute majority declare the urgency of the approval (Art. 73, Italian Constitution).
The law approval is always up to the President of the Republic; sometimes the President can
decide not to proclaim the law because of some substancial deficiency (being in contrast
with the Constitution) or defects of form, therefore he is entitled to stop it, but this can
happen only twice. If the law proclamation’s decision is negative, the law returns to the
Chambers with a message of the President of Republic (is it called “veto sospensivo”). If the
draft law is approved again by the Chambers, the President is now compelled to proclaim it.
Immediately afterwards the law proclamation, and in any case within 30 days from that, the
law must be published on the Gazzetta Ufficiale after the State seal is applied by the
Ministry of Justice. The law enters into force within 15 days from the publication on the
Gazzetta Ufficiale (vacatio legis), unless it is not foreseen a different time limit.
14
Luxembourg
Law
Euthanasia
In Luxembourg, they have the Loi sur l'euthanasie et l'assistance au suicide (2009). In article
2 the due care criteria for legal euthanasia are mentioned.
Assisted suicide
Also assisted suicide by a doctor is covered by the Loi sur l'euthanasie et l'assistance au
suicide (2009). In article 2 the due care criteria are mentioned.
Palliative care
Loi relative aux soins palliatifs, à la directive anticipée et à l'accompagnement en fin de vie
et modifiant (2009)
The Netherlands
Law
Euthanasia and assisted suicide

In the Netherlands, euthanasia and assisted suicide are both criminal acts according to the
Dutch penal law (article 293 and article 294). When such an act is performed by a physician,
according to the due care criteria of the Law on euthanasia and assisted suicide (2001), the
physician is no longer punishable.
Constitution, articles 10 & 11
Civil code, article 7:450 and further
15
Norway
Law
Euthanasia
Almindelig borgerlig Straffelov (Straffeloven 1902) (EN: The General Civil Penal Code)
This law provides, in article 235, the opportunity to lower punishment when a euthanasia or
assisted suicide is executed, at request of someone who is seriously sick. It is illegal to help
someone to end his/hers life. It is considered as homicide, but if it`s clear that the patient
has asked for help the penalty can be reduced. It is in any way wrong to end or help
someone to end the life. Life is sacred and to end it is against a very long tradition in
Norwegian law and thinking. It is also against the Hippocrates oath and what healt personel
should do.
Assisted suicide
The General Civil Penal Code (1902)
In 2005 there was made some changes in the The General civil penal code. A minority in the
committee suggested a change that would have made assisted suicide legal, but it was
turned down and never voted on in the Parliament.
Refusal on treatment
Pasientrettighetsloven §4-9 (1999)
A dying patient is entitled to object to life-prolonging treatement, before or even during the
treatment. All patients have the right to abstain from artificial and extraordinary treatment if this is
the only way to maintain life function. There are doctors who will make the final decision in
consultation with the patient. If the patient can`t comunicate shall dependents be consulted. One
should always seek to find out what the patient would have wanted. Patients living will shall as far as
possible be respected. Although relatives want life-prolonging treatment, the doctor may override
this if it is obvious that the treatment will only prolong the dying process, be troublesome for the
patient or otherwise purposeless.
The Patients Rights Act (1999) - Section 4-9
Palliative care
If good pain relief is not possible deep sedation can be an option.
Law proposals
In 2005 there was made some changes in the The General civil penal code. A minority in the
commity suggested a change that would have made assisted suicide legal, but it was turned
down and never voted on in the Parliament. We think it is most unlikely to see a new law
16
coming within 5 years, but maybe within 10 years. There has been a new survey in 2015,
and it clearly shows that more than 70% of the population are in favour of legalisation. But
parliament members, the health profession and the Norwegian Church and other religious
groups are against. Young people are more in favour, and we do see a growing interest
among young politicians, so we are waiting for them to come into position.
Portugal
Law
Euthanasia
In 2018, after a landmark debate, lawmakers voted to reject four broadly similar bills
introduced by left-leaning parties. The bill that came closest to succeeding was the work of
the governing Socialist Party, which failed on a 115-110 vote with four abstentions.
(https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2148362/portugals-parliament-vote-bi
lls-legalising-euthanasia)
Spain
In Spain, both termination of life on request and assisted suicide are prohibited by Spanish
criminal law. Assisted suicide is prohibited by article 143 of the Spanish Códego Penal.
Sources:
-
https://inspanje.nl/zorg-welzijn/11559/rechtbank-voor-gendergeweld-behandeld-za
ak-rond-hulp-bij-zelfdoding-in-spanje/
-
Sweden
Law
Euthanasia
Euthanasia is regarded as murder though extenuating circumstances in two judicial
decisions in this field have led to far less severe penalties than what is provided for murder.
There have been no legislative attempts to make a law concerning euthanasia or assisted
suicide in Sweden. The Swedish Right to Die Society has demanded the political parties in
17
the parliament to form a commission of inquiry concerning euthanasia and/or assisted
suicide but to no avail so far. Lately the question of assisted suicide has been much
discussed in the media, and the Swedish Right to Die Society expects/hopes to see a law
coming into force within five years.
Assisted suicide
Assistance to suicide is not regarded as a criminal act, although a doctor who prescribes a
drug knowing that it will be used for suicide will lose his/her license.
Palliative care
If declining medical treatment implies the patient's death within a short time and a
considerable suffering the medical care is supposed to concentrate on relieving pain and
anguish.
Statement by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Link?
A patient can always decline and discontinue lifesaving medical treatment. The condition is
that he or she understands the information provided by the doctor and the consequences of
his or her decision. Doctors should not provide unwanted treatment, and should provide
drugs to put a patient to sleep or morphine to ease the pain before for instance shutting off
a life-sustaining respirator.
Law proposals
There have been no legislative attempts to make a law concerning euthanasia or assisted
suicide in Sweden. The Swedish Right to Die Society has demanded the political parties in
the parliament to form a commission of inquiry concerning euthanasia and/or assisted
suicide but to no avail so far. Lately the question of assisted suicide has been much
discussed in the media, and the Swedish Right to Die Society expects/hopes to see a law
coming into force within five years.
Switzerland
Law
In Switzerland, euthanasia is forbidden by Article 114 of the Swiss Penal Code. This
prohibition is a principle one, based on the Christian values and traditions of the country.
On the contrary, assisted suicide is not forbidden: also this is a principle decision: based on
the liberal values and traditions of the country. Only when a person has selfish motivations
18
Assisted suicide
Swiss Penal Code, Article 115 (1937)
UK
Law
Euthanasia
Euthanasia is not allowed in the UK. It is to be seen as murder.
Assisted suicide
Assisted suicide is not allowed in the UK. The Suicide Act 1961 says in article 1: “Suicide to
cease to be a crime. The rule of law whereby it is a crime for a person to commit suicide is
hereby abrogated.”
Article 2-1: “Criminal liability for complicity in another’s suicide. (1)A person who aids, abets,
counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide,
shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
fourteen years.”
General Medical Council - Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together (2008)
Caselaw
Noel Conway
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/27/assisted-dying-uk-court-rejects-noel-co
nway-challenge
Law proposals
There have been many attempts to legalize assisted suicide:
19
The Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill (2003)
The first attempt at legislation to allow AS was by Lord Joffe in 2003. He presented The
Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill which had its Second Reading in June 2003 but did not proceed
any further.
Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL] (2004-2006)

In 2004 Lord Joffe again attempted to legislate by introducing a bill which aimed to enable a
competent adult who is suffering unbearably as a result of a terminal illness to receive
medical assistance to die at his own considered and persistent request; and to make
provision for a person suffering from such a condition to receive pain relief medication. It
was remitted to a select committee and the final second reading debate was on 12 May
2006. However, on division the Lords voted by 148 to 100 against a Second Reading.
The Coroners and Justice Bill (2008–2009)

During the passage of the Coroners and Justice Bill (now the Coroners and Justice Act 2009),
two amendments that sought to amend the law on assisted suicide were tabled. Neither
was successful and, on a free vote, the amendments were defeated by 194 votes to 141.
Assisted Dying Bill (2015)

In the last months before the 2015 election, the House of Lords considered the Assisted
Dying Bill, a Private Member’s Bill introduced by Lord Falconer of Thornton. The Bill was to
enable competent adults who are terminally ill to be provided at their request with specified
assistance to end their own life. The Government had indicated that it considers this issue to
be a matter of individual conscience.
• There was general consensus among those who spoke in the Second Reading debate –
whether for or against the Bill – that Parliament needed to properly address the issue
following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nicklinson and that the Bill should proceed to
Committee for detailed consideration. The Bill was therefore given its Second Reading
without division and had its committee stage in the Lords before the end of the Parliament.
• Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill ran out of time in the last Parliament and consequently
did not get the chance to pass Third Reading in the House of Lords.
Rob Marris Assisted Dying Bill (2015)

Rob Marris MP tabled a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons on assisted dying in
June 2015 to ensure there is a safeguarded framework to give terminally ill individuals
choice over their end of life care.
• The Assisted Dying Bill was debated by MPs on Friday 11 September, after four hours of
debate the Bill was voted down.
20
• This Bill was essentially the same as the Assisted Dying Bill introduced by Lord Falconer
which made historic progress through the House of Lords last year, but ran out of time
before the 2015 General Election.
Scotland
Law proposals
End of Life Assistance Bill (2010)

In Scotland, the now late Independent MSP Margo MacDonald proposed the End of Life
Assistance Bill in 2010, which aimed to make it legal for someone to seek help to end their
life. This bill would have allowed people whose lives had become intolerable through a
progressive degenerative condition, a trauma or a terminal illness to seek a doctor's help in
dying. MSPs were allowed a rare free vote on the bill, rather than having to vote on party
lines, and it was supported by a number of members from across the Holyrood parties.
However the bill was defeated by 85 votes to 16 with two abstentions.
Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill (2015)

Proposed to allow people with terminal, progressive or life-shortening illnesses to obtain
assistance in ending their own life by suicide. There was a three-stage process to be
followed before assisted suicide would be lawful:
Stage 1: The person must sign a Preliminary Declaration. This can be made by someone who
is in good health.
Stage 2: At least 7 days later, the person must sign a “First Request for Assistance” which
must be endorsed by two medical professionals.
Stage 3: At least 14 days later, the person must sign a “Second Request for Assistance”,
which must also be endorsed by two medical professionals.
At both requests for assistance, the medical professionals must certify that the person is
suffering from a terminal, progressive or life-shortening illness and are capable of making a
decision to make the request, communicating the decision, understanding the decision, and
retaining the memory of the decision.
Only if all of these conditions are passed will a drug or other substance to end the person’s
life be prescribed. A licensed facilitator will be assigned to collect the drug from the
pharmacy, and provide comfort and assistance for the person when they take the drug or
other substance prescribed to help them end their own life by suicide. The bill fell by 82
votes to 35 in May 2015.
21
At present in Scotland and England there is no legislation or attempt at law reform being
made. There is still activity in the courts via the Gordon Ross case.
Northern Ireland
Law
No legal provision for someone else to consent to treatment on behalf of patients without
capacity. Decision-making for patients without capacity is governed by the common law,
which requires that decisions must be made in a patient’s best interests.
England & Wales

Law
Mental Capacity Act (2005)
22
USA5
Federal government
Law
Euthanasia
In all instances, under all circumstances, euthanasia is illegal in the United States. It is
considered murder.
Assisted suicide
Assisted suicide is regulated now in 7 states: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New
Mexico, California and since 2018 also Hawaii.
Refusal of treatment is provided by the 14th amendment of the Constitution and by the
Patient Self Determination Act. The Due Process Clause, as described in amendment 5 and
14, helds that adults, as long as they are competent to understand their decision, have the
right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving medical treatment, though a state may
require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment ended before it
allows termination. A state may restrict family members from terminating treatment for
another, because this right belongs to each individual. The Patient Self Determination Act
(1991)
Caselaw
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that physicians cannot be punished for
prescribing medication for AID under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (Gonzales v
Oregon, 546 US 243 (2006) - Aid in Dying in North Carolina - N C Med J. 2019;80(2):128).
California
Law
On June 9, 2016, the End of life option act took effect.
5
A lot of the information in this chapter comes from https://www.deathwithdignity.org/
23
The End of Life Option Act closely follows the model of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act
with some modifications, most of which are required to comply with the California statute.
Patients may request, and physicians may prescribe, life-ending medications.
In the 2018 legislative session, the California legislature approved and Governor Brown
signed into law AB-282 which amends the California penal code to “prohibit a person whose
actions are compliant with the End of Life Option Act from being prosecuted for deliberately
aiding, advising, or encouraging suicide.” For more information about the history of this law,
click here.
During the first six months of the end-of-life act in California, a total of 111 people used
lethal prescriptions to end their own life. (Read more here.)
Caselaw
End of life option act challenged (2016-2019)
On the day the End of life option act went into effect, a group of anti-choice physicians filed a
lawsuit seeking to halt the Act’s implementation. Their argument was twofold: 1) the law is
unconstitutional because it was passed during a special legislative session dedicated to
healthcare and the law is not related to health care; 2) the law is invalid because it violates
equal protections and puts doctors in harm’s way.
Superior Court (2016-2018)

At first, a request was made for an injunction to stop the new law from taking effect. This
request was denied by Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Ottolia. However,
the Judge allowed a portion of the suit to proceed.
Secondly, the law’s opponents brought a motion, saying the California State Legislature
violated the state constitution by passing the law during a special session limited to
healthcare. On May 15 of 2018, judge Ottolia granted this motion, in a temporary, verbal
ruling. (See also this newsitem.)
Finally, on May 25 of 2018, Judge Ottolia issued a formal, written ruling confirming the law
is void as unconstitutional. Implementation of the law is halted. On May 30, Judge Ottolia
rejects a motion, filed by terminally ill Californians, to reverse his May 25 ruling.
Court of Appeal (2018)
In order to allow the law to remain in effect during the litigation process, on May 21
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra appeals and requests a stay of the May 15 ruling.
Two days later, on May 23, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal denies the AG’s
request to stay the May 15 ruling.
24
On June 15 of 2018, the 4th Court of Appeal stays the lower court ruling which nullified the
law. The End of Life Option Act is reinstated while the Court considers the case further. The
Court also vacates the upcoming trial. (See also this newsitem.)
On July 18, 2018, Death with Dignity National Center files an amicus curiae brief in support
of the California Attorney General.
On August 30, The appellate court issued a tentative ruling overturning the lower court’s
decision against the law based on the plaintiffs’ lack of standing; oral arguments are
scheduled for October 9. The law continues to be in effect.
On November 27, the 4th Court of Appeal overturns the district court decision nullifying the
End of Life Option Act, ruling the physician plaintiffs who had brought the suit forward had
no standing to do so because they are in no way harmed by the Act.
Supreme Court (2019)
In 2019, on January 8, plaintiffs petitioned for the California Supreme Court to review the
Fourth Court of Appeal decision, arguing they have standing (or satisfy an exception to
standing requirements). They also ask the the California Supreme Court consider the
substantive constitutional issues of the law.
- Click here for the status: Supreme Court
Dick Magney (2016-2019)

This case was not about aid in dying, but on respect for the wish not to be treated, in order
to die without prolonging death with medical treatment.
In 2016, the Court of Appeal of the state of California decided in favor of the patiënt.
Articles about this case

- https://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/profoundly-disturbing/Content?oid=
4283093 (January 2017
- https://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2017/02/28/settlement-ne
xt-step-in-magney-end-of-life-care-case (February 2017)
- https://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2017/04/11/claim-seeks-14
4m-from-county-in-right-to-die-case (April 2017)
- https://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/county-settles-magney-case-for-1-m
illion/Content?oid=13561247 (March 2019)
25
Connecticut
General
Even though Connecticut has been debating the issue of MAID for a decade, no
associated bill has never even made it out of the Public Health Committee
to a full debate, let alone a vote, in the House or Senate.
In February 2019, the Connecticut State Medical Society (CSMS) changed its position on
aid-in-dying legislation from opposed to that of ‘engaged neutrality’, which means it’s
leaving it up to its member physicians.
Attempts to legislation of maid
HB 5898, An Act Concerning Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill

On January 23, Housebill 5898 was introduced. (Watch the full history of the bill here.)
On March 18 2019, there was a public committee hearing on this bill. At both March 29 and
April 1 Committee hearings, the bill was held (not put up for a vote), which effectively ended
its progress this session.
Read more about earlier attemps on the website of Death with Dignity.
Hawaii
Law
Our care, our choice act

On January 1st of 2018, the Our Care, Our Choice Act went into effect.
This bill allows for a mentally capable, terminally ill adult with six months or less to live, the
freedom to make his/her own end-of-life decisions.
Law history
SB 1129 (2017)
On March 7 2017, the Hawaii State Senate passed the on 25th January introduced Senate
Bill 1129 with a 22 to 3 vote. The SB 1129 is the Hawaii Death with Dignity Act, allowing
terminally ill residents of Hawaii to make their own end-of-life decision to die with dignity.
26
The bill is modelled after the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Terminally ill, competent adult
patients with less than six months to live could receive a lethal dose of medication. They
would have to take it themselves and two doctors would be involved in the prescription. SB
1129 is one of the five bills related to assisted dying (three in the House and two in the
Senate, all introduced on January 19, 2017) that were pending in the Hawaii state
legislature. (Source: WorldRTD - Hawaii Death with Dignity Bill passed in Senate).
On March, 23, 2017, this bill deferred in the House. To watch the full traject of SB 1129, see
here.
HB 2739 (2018)
On Friday, March 16, 2018, the Hawaii Senate Committee on Commerce, Consumer
Protection and Health passed House Bill 2739 titled “Our Care, Our Choice Act”.
The bill mirrors many of the strict regulatory processes and stringent safeguards contained
within Senate Bill 1129 (see before) which passed the Senate in the 2017 Legislative Session
and was deferred in a House committee. In advancing HB2739, the Senate committee
agreed with the House that it was sound legislation and the right time to allow this option
for qualified patients in Hawai‘i. (Source: Big Island Now - Senate committee passes Our care
our choice act)
Later on, the bill went before the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration:
successfully. On 5 April the last step was taken: Hawaii Governor David Ige signed the Our
Care, Our Choice Act into law. The law has gone into effect on January 1, 2019.
To watch the full traject of HB 2739, see here.
Sources / More to read
- Big Island Now: Senate committee passes Our care our choice act
- Worldrtd: WorldRTD - Hawaii Death with Dignity Bill passed in Senate
Hawaii now 7th state USA with assisted dying statute
- Death with dignity: https://www.deathwithdignity.org/states/hawaii/
- Analysis of the bill by the Patients Rights Council : H.B. 2739 Analysis.
- FAQ about the bill, produced by Compassion & Choices - Care and choice at the
end of life, see: C&C, FAQ about the Our Care, Our Choice Act
27
Maine
Law
Assisted suicide
NO regulation.
Law proposals
First attempts (before 2000)

The first attempts to pass physician-assisted dying legislation in Maine came after Oregon
passed the Death with Dignity Act.
❏ 1994: SP 453
❏ 1995: HP 552
❏ 1996: LD 916
❏ 1997: HP 663
❏ 1999: IB 3
In 1998, 63% of respondents (Maine voters) favored physician-assisted dying (survey).
Question 1 (2000)
In 2000, the predecessor of organisation ‘Death with Dignity’ sponsored Question 1, a ballot
initiative proposal closely modeled after the Oregon law, seeking to legalize
physician-assisted dying. The initiative was narrowly defeated 51 to 49 percent, with only a
6,000 vote difference statewide.
An Act Regarding Patient-directed Care at the End of Life (2013-2015)

In 2013, a physician-assisted dying bill with a much broader scope than the Oregon model,
LD 1065, was considered and rejected in the legislature. The bill would have legalized
euthanasia.
In April 2015 Representatives Bobbi Beavers (D-South Berwick), Richard Campbell

(R-Orrington), Kathleen Dillingham (R-Oxford), Denise Harlow (D-Portland), Brian Hubbell
(D-Bar Harbor), Eric Jorgensen, (D-Portland), Diane Russell (D-Portland), Stephen Wood
(R-Greene), as well as Senators Roger Katz (R-Kennebec/Augusta) and Dawn Hill (D-York)
cross-filed SP 452 / LD 1270, An Act Regarding Patient-directed Care at the End of Life. The
Joint Committee on Health and Human Services recommended that the bill ought not to
pass 7 to 6 at working sessions on May 22 and May 29. On June 15 the Maine House
approved the bill 76-70, while the Senate voted 18-17 against the bill on June 15 and 16.
28
An act to support death with dignity (2017)
On February 2, 2017, Maine State Senator Roger Katz (R-Kennebec/Augusta) introduced SP
113 / LD 347, An Act to Support Death with Dignity.
A month later, on on March 16, 2017, Maine State Representative Jennifer Parker
introduced HP 749 / LD 1066, An Act to Support Life with Dignity, which was nearly identical
to SP 113 / LD 347.
Both bills were heard at a joint hearing of the Committee Health and Human Services
Committee on April 5, 2017. At the hearing, the Maine Medical Association testified
“neither for nor against” the proposed bill and later officially changed its position to neutral.
In the work session on April 19, 2017, the Committee voted 5 to 8 against the bill, with the
recommendation “Ought Not to Pass” (6 of the 8 “ought not to pass votes” were Republican
Representatives and Senators endorsed by the Christian Civic League of Maine).
LD 347 was reported out of the HHS committee on May 11, 2017 with amendments, adding
provisions from LD 1066 that were not included in the bill. The Maine State Senate then
passed the combined bill, LD 347, on May 18, 2017, 16 to 15. On May 23, the Maine House
of Representatives voted 61 to 85 against the bill, which was thus defeated in the session.
A 2017 Public Policy Polling survey we commissioned shows that 73 percent of Mainers
support Death with Dignity legislation. Learn more →
2018
A group of Maine state legislators, led by Representative Patricia Hymanson (D-York) has
announced their intent to introduce a death with dignity bill identical to the proposal put
forward by Maine Death with Dignity.
A petition effort is ongoing to put a citizen’s initiative on the November, 2020 ballot; and
Hymanson and state Sen. Roger Katz, R-Augusta, are also introducing legislation that follows
verbatim the language in the initiative. Modeled on the 1997 law passed in Oregon, the bill
sets up protocols for people who are terminally ill and have less than six months to live. To
make a request for medication prescribed for ending life, the patient has to go through two
waiting periods, make one written and two oral requests for medication and get a second
opinion from a physician.
In addition, the patient has to be determined to be competent, and not suffering from a
psychological disorder or depression. The medication is prescribed by a doctor and filled by
a pharmacy, and is to be taken by the patient at his or her discretion. No physician or
pharmacist is required to participate. And adults do not qualify solely because of age or
disability.
(https://www.seacoastonline.com/news/20181202/death-with-dignity-measures-move-for
ward-in-maine)
29
Read more: https://www.deathwithdignity.org/states/maine/
Maryland
Hhhhhh
hhhh
Montana
Montana does not have a death with dignity statute. However, the end-of-life option is legal
in the state through the state Supreme Court ruling in Baxter v. Montana (2009). Since then,
several attempts are made to ban assisted dying, the most recent one is now going on (see
below).
Baxter vs Montana
In December 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that nothing in the state law
prohibited a physician from honoring a terminally ill, mentally competent patient’s request
by prescribing medication to hasten the patient’s death. The ruling cited the state’s Rights of
the Terminally Ill Act: because there is so little difference as a matter of public policy
between taking a patient off life support and prescribing lethal medication that the patient
can take, the Court determined that existing Montana law permits physician assisted dying
under the circumstances of the Baxter case. Montana’s judicial approach to physician aid in
dying remains unique.
Attempts to Ban Assisted Dying

In response to the Montana Supreme Court ruling, in 2011, a Death with Dignity Act, SB
167, and a bill prohibiting aid in dying, SB 116, were introduced in the state legislature for
the first time. Neither passed; the same result occurred in subsequent legislative sessions, in
2013 (SB 220) and 2015 (SB 202).
In 2017, Montana State Representative Brad Tschida (R-Missoula) sponsored HB 536, which
states that “physician aid in dying is against public policy, and a patient’s consent to
physician aid in dying is not a defense to a charge of homicide against the aiding physician.”
A hearing for this bill criminalizing a physician’s writing of a life-ending prescription took
place on February 24, 2017; on February 28, the bill passed in the Montana State House on a
second reading 52 to 48, only to fail on March 1 on the final vote, a 50-50 tie.
In 2019, Montana State Representative Carl Glimm introduced and sponsors HB 284, the
same bill as HB 536 (2017). On Thursday, February 14, 2019, the House voted yes to this bill
in 1st reading, thereby legislatively overruling the 2009 Baxter decision. See the debate and
the voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTYpqQXXobU See the whole traject here.
30
Relevant links for more information
https://www.deathwithdignity.org/states/montana/
Nevada
On Thursday, February 14, 2019, Senate Bill 165 was introduced in the Senate of Nevada
and referred to the Health and Human Services committee for hearings. The bill is
sponsored by Nevada senator David Parks (Democrats Las Vegas), and 16 other legislators.
David Parks already filed a bill about assisted dying, SB 261, in 2017. Unfotunately, that bill
did not pass.
Like the 2017 bill that Parks sponsored, the new bill would permit physicians to prescribe
life-ending drugs to patients who are state residents at least 18 years old, have been
terminally diagnosed by two doctors, are deemed competent, have made both spoken and
written requests and can self-administer the drugs.
Want to know more?

Click here for information about the history of the bill and the further traject.
See more about Nevada on the website of Death with Dignity.
New Jersey
Since 2019, New Jersey is the 8th US jurisdiction with a Death with Dignity statute: the Aid in
Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.
Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (2018-2019)

On Friday, April 12, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed the Aid in Dying for the
Terminally Ill Act into law. Less than a month ago, this bill passed the Assembly and Senate.
New Jersey is now the seventh state and eight jurisdiction (including Washington DC) that
has a death with dignity statute. The law goes into effect on August 1, 2019.
Read here the governor's statement upon signing.
History
31
On March 25, 2019, a floor vote on bill S 1072 and A 1504, creating an 'Aid in Dying for the
Terminally Ill Act', took place in the Assembly and the Senate. The bill passed both
chambers. The bill passed the Assembly with 41 votes to 33, and the Senate with 21 votes to
16.
Then, the bill only needed the signature of Governor Phil Murphy, who already said that he
would sign the bill. "Allowing terminally ill and dying residents the dignity to make
end-of-life decisions according to their own consciences is the right thing to do," said
Murphy.
Content of the law

The Act allows adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live to get a prescription for
life-ending medication. The Act requires a second opinion on the diagnosis, and either a
psychiatrist or psychologist must determine that the patient has the mental capacity to
make the decision. The prescription is a series of self-administered pills that can be taken at
home.
Earlier law proposals
Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (2016)

On February 4, 2016, bill A 2451 was introduced in the Assembly. Later that year, in
October, the full Assembly passed the bill on a 41 to 28 vote, with 5 abstentions. The
companion physician-assisted dying bill in the New Jersey Senate was S2474.
Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (2014)

- A 2270 (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act)
- S 382
New Jersey Death with Dignity Act (2012)

- SB 2259 (New Jersey Death with Dignity Act)
- A 3328
32
New Mexico
Law
Assisted suicide
Assisted suicide is a statutory felony. The New Mexico Statutes decide in Section 30-2-4:
“Assisting suicide consists of deliberately aiding another in the taking of his own life.
Whoever commits assisting suicide is guilty of a fourth degree felony.”
Palliative sedation
Palliative sedation is accepted under Section 24–2D–3 of the New Mexico Statutes: “A
health care provider who prescribes, dispenses or administers medical treatment for the
purpose of relieving pain and who can demonstrate by reference to an accepted guideline
that the provider's practice substantially complies with that guideline and with the
standards of practice identified in Section 24-2D-4 shall not be disciplined pursuant to board
action or criminal prosecution, unless the showing of substantial compliance with an
accepted guideline by the health care provider is rebutted by clinical expert testimony.” It is
recognized and accepted that palliative sedation hastens the inevitable death of the
terminally ill patiënt. This legal option for ending life arises only after the patient potentially
endures a period of degeneration.
Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment measures is accepted under Section 24–7A–1 to –18
of the New Mexico Statutes. It is recognized and accepted that the withdrawal of life
sustaining intervention hastens the inevitable death of the terminally ill patiënt. This legal
option for ending life arises only after the patient potentially endures a period of
degeneration.
Caselaw
Morris v Brandenburg (2014-2016)

Facts and process
Dr. Katherine Morris, a surgical oncologist at the University of New Mexico (UNM) and
Aroop Mangalik, a UNM physician, provided medical care to a patient who has been
diagnosed with life-threatening uterine cancer, Aja Riggs. Plaintiff Riggs wants the “peace of
mind” of knowing that aid in dying would be an option available to her if she finds her
suffering in the terminal stage of her cancer unbearable. Aja Riggs does not want to suffer
33
needlessly if her cancer returns and she receives a terminal diagnosis. She seeks a peaceful,
dignified death.
Uncertain about the legality of aid in dying in New Mexico, Drs. Morris and Mangalik filed
suit seeking a declaration that they cannot be prosecuted under section 30–2–4 of the New
Mexico Statutes. They alleged that 1) the statute does not apply to aid in dying, and if it
does, 2) such application offends provisions of the New Mexico state constitution, including
Article II, Section 4's guarantee of inherent rights and Article II, Section 18's Due Process
Clause.
District court (2014)

The district court did not follow the claim that the New Mexico statute does not apply to aid
in dying: “The New Mexico Legislature considered the practice of assisted suicide in the
healthcare context when it adopted the UHCDA in 1997, and in 2006 when it enacted the
Mental HealthCare Decisions Act. (...) This supports the Court’s conclusion that the term
“assisting suicide” in section 30-2-4 includes the practice of physician aid in dying.”
As regards the meaning and the role of the New Mexican Constitution, the district court
embraced the vision of the plaintiffs: “This Court cannot envision a right more fundamental,
more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than
the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying. (...) The Court
therefore declares that the liberty, safety and happiness interest of a competent, terminally
ill patient to choose aid in dying is a fundamental right under our New Mexico Constitution.”
The court continues: “Legislation that affects the exercise of a fundamental right is subject
to strict scrutiny. (...) Under strict scrutiny, the government bears the burden to
demonstrate a compelling state interest supporting the challenged scheme, and to show
that the statute accomplishes its purpose by the least restrictive means. (...) Defendants
failed to prove that NMSA 1978, § 30-2-4 furthers a compelling state interest by
criminalizing physician aid in dying. Therefore, NMSA 1978, §30-2-4 unduly burdens the
exercise of a mentally competent, terminally ill New Mexican patient to choose aid in dying.
NMSA 1978, §30-2-4 therefore violates our State constitution when applied to aid in dying.”
The district court finally ordered to grant Plaintiffs the requested injunctive relief prohibiting
Defendants from prosecuting physicians who provide aid in dying to mentallycompetent,
terminally-ill patients.
- The judgment by Second New Mexico Judicial District Judge Nan Nash (13-01-2014)
Court of Appeals of New Mexico (2015)
The Court of Appeals overturned this ruling:
- Judgment by the Court of Appeals of New Mexico (11-08-2015)
Supreme Court (2016)
34
An appeal was filed to the appeals court and oral arguments took place on October 26,
2015. The State Supreme Court decided the challenge, saying the matter should be resolved
in the executive and legislative branches.
- Judgment by the Supreme Court of New Mexico (30-06-2016)
Law proposals
Death with Dignity bill (1995 + 2009)

In the New Mexico state legislature, Death with Dignity bills were considered in 1995 (SB
446) and 2009 (HB 814).
End of life options act (2017-2019)

On January 20, 2017, New Mexico State Representatives Deborah Armstrong
(D-Albuquerque) and Bill McCamley (D-Las Cruces) introduced HB 171, End of Life Options
Act, a medical aid-in-dying bill. The House Health and Human Services Committee passed
the bill 4 to 3, along party lines, on February 3. The bill was then referred to the House
Judiciary Committee.
A companion bill, SB 252, was filed in the Senate on January 30, 2017 by New Mexico State
Senators Elizabeth Stefanics (D-Bernalillo) and 4 co-sponsors. On March 3 the bill passed in
the Senate Public Affairs Committee 4 to 3. The bill was then narrowly passed in the Senate
Judiciary Committee, and in the full Senate on March 15 it was voted down on a 20 to 22
vote.
On December 19, 2018, New Mexico State Representative Deborah Armstrong
(D-Albuquerque) pre-filed HB 90, Elizabeth Whitfield End of Life Options Act, which she
plans to introduce in January 2019. It is anticipated that New Mexico State Senator Liz
Stefanics will co-sponsor HB 90 and introduce a companion bill in the New Mexico State
Senate.
Municipal Resolutions
On December 17, the Council of Las Cruces has passed a resolution asking New Mexico State
Legislature to support and enact an end of life options act. (See here the video of the council
discussion about this resolution.) Albuquerque and Santa Fe have also passed similar
resolutions.
North Carolina
Law
North Carolina respects the autonomy of patients in medical decision-making. Standard of
care already accepts a variety of other life-ending practices, including withdrawing
35
life-sustaining treatment, provision of palliative sedation, and voluntarily stopping eating
and drinking. (Tucker KL. Aid in Dying in North Carolina. N.C. L. Rev. 2019;97:Addendum 1)
North Carolina is in a somewhat unusual situation, as there is no statutory prohibition of
AID.
Practice
According to a January 2019 law review article by Kathryn Tucker in the North Carolina Law
Review, physicians can provide AID to their mentally competent terminally ill patients who
request it, subject to standard of care, without risk of a viable criminal or disciplinary action
(Tucker KL. Aid in Dying in North Carolina. N.C. L. Rev. 2019;97:Addendum 1). The United
States Supreme Court has ruled that physicians cannot be punished for prescribing
medication for AID under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) [3].
Oklahoma
Law
https://www.deathwithdignity.org/states/oklahoma/
Oregon
Law in force
Oregon Death with Dignity Act

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act has been in effect since October 27, 1997.
It has worked as intended and without flaws or any evidence of abuse or coercion.
The Oregon Health Authority monitors and enforces compliance with the Act and each
February produces an annual report. According to the latest available report, 143 terminally
ill patients used the Oregon law to hasten their own death in 2017.
Law proposals
In 2019, three bills have been introduced in the state legislature. The bills intend to optimize
the already existing Death with Dignity Act. Suggested is to add a definition of
‘self-administer' in the Act (which is not there yet), to expand the definiton of 'terminal
disease' (thereby eliminating the six months term) and to create an exception to the defined
waiting periods, when it comes to patients who have shorter to live.
1) Oregon House Bill 2232

This bill was introduced in the House on January 14, by four Democratic representatives and
three Democratic senators.
The bill prohibits anyone other than patient from administering medication to end patient's
36
life in humane and dignified manner. Defines "self-administer." Expands definition of
"terminal disease." Permits patient to request medication to end patient's life in humane
and dignified manner no earlier than 90 days after receiving terminal diagnosis. Creates
exception to 90-day waiting period for patient with less than six months to live.
2) Oregon House Bill 2217

This bill was introduced in the House on January 15, by five Democratic representatives and
three Democratic senators.
The bill prohibits anyone other than patient from administering medication to end patient's
life in humane and dignified manner. Defines "self-administer" to include ingestion or other
delivery method.
3) Oregon Senate Bill 579

This bill was introduced in the Senate on January 14, by two Democratic senators and one
Democratic representative.
This bill creates an exception under Death with Dignity Act to 15-day waiting period for
patient with less than 15 days to live. Creates exception to two-day waiting period for
patient with less than two days to live.
Caselaw
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that physicians cannot be punished for
prescribing medication for AID under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (Gonzales v
Oregon, 546 US 243 (2006) - Aid in Dying in North Carolina - N C Med J. 2019;80(2):128).
North America
Canada
Law
Criminal code - Medical Assistance in Dying

Since 2016, a whole chapter in the Criminal Code of Canada (section 241.1 to 241.4), has
been dedicated to ‘Medical Assistance in Dying’. This is the result of the Act to amend the
Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts [medical assistance in dying]
(C-14). This long awaited bill was presented in Ottawa in the House of Commons for a first
37
reading on April 14 2016 by prime minister Justin Trudeau, and accepted by parliament on
June 17 2016 (44 votes yes to 28 votes no). See here the whole traject of the bill.
Not even three months after this historical moment, more than 100 people had received
medical aid in dying in five provinces in Canada:
● Ontario: 49
● British Colombia: 46
● Alberta: 15
● Manitoba: 8
● Saskatchewan: less than 5
● Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories
and Nunavut: no
● New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Yukon: did not provide data.
For the period of December 2015 to June 2016, 253 patients requested medical help to die.
Of this number, 166 Quebecers eventually got it, while medical assistance to die was not
given to 87 patients. Among them, 16 people changed their minds. (More info: WorldRTD,
120 Canadians in 5 provinces did receive medical aid in dying)
From 1 november 2018 onwards:

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html
Scope and content of the bill
The bill limits the medical assistance in dying to citizens and residents who are eligible to
participate in the national health care system, an effort to prevent a surge in medical
tourism among the dying from other countries. This government’s proposal was more
restrictive than some proponents of legal assisted suicide had sought. It does not include
provisions for minors who may be capable of making decisions about their own medical care
to choose to end their lives, nor does it allow for people in the early stages of illnesses like
dementia to request an assisted death while they are still competent. (For more info:
WorldRTD, Canadian Governement presents new Bill on medical assistance in dying)
Requirements
https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/4040/ontario-court-clarifies-reasonable-foreseeabi
lity-of-death-in-medically-assisted-dying-law
Psychiatric disorders
The legislation, known as Bill C-14, only allows adults with select advanced physical
disabilities or ailments to commit suicide with the help of a willing doctor or nurse
practitioner.
38
https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/mb9dba/young-canadian-who-fought-for-assisted-suic
ide-for-mentally-ill-has-died
Euthanasia
Initially, euthanasia was punishable in Canada, as ‘acceleration of death’: “Where a person
causes to a human being a bodily injury that results in death, he causes the death of that
human being notwithstanding that the effect of the bodily injury is only to accelerate his
death from a disease or disorder arising from some other cause.” (Section 226 of the
Canadian Criminal Code.)
Since 2016, euthanasia is excepted from punishment. This is declared in section 227 (1) of
the renewed Criminal Code: “No medical practitioner or nurse practitioner commits
culpable homicide if they provide a person with medical assistance in dying in accordance
with section 241.2.”
Assisted suicide
After legalisation of suicide, the Criminal Code Section 241 left open for prosecution the
person who assisted in the suicide, whether the suicide was successful or not.
Section 241(1): “Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term of not more than 14 years who, whether suicide ensues or not, (a) counsels a person
to die by suicide or abets a person in dying by suicide; or (b) aids a person to die by suicide.”
Since the Carter case and the following steps by the legislature, assisted suicide is no longer
a crime when it happens in the context of ‘medical assistance in dying’. This is declared in
section 241(2) of the renewed Criminal Code: “No medical practitioner or nurse practitioner
commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if they provide a person with medical assistance
in dying in accordance with section 241.2.”
Palliative sedation
Palliative sedation is legal in Canada.
Palliative interventions - End of Life Law
Caselaw
The Carter case (2012-2015)

The Supreme Court of Canada stayed its decision in the Carter Case for twelve months (until
February 6, 2016) to allow federal and provincial authorities to regulate physician assisted
dying should they wish to do so. The provision of physician assisted dying to persons who
qualify under the terms of the Court’s declaration is decriminalized in Canada on February 6,
2016.
39
In addition, because of the division of powers in Canada between federal and provincial
governments, the decriminalization of physically assisted dying does not mean that this new
right will be made available immediately across the country. Health care is a provincial
matter, and each jurisdiction has its own guidelines and regulations. The ten provinces and
three territories in Canada may take different paths in regulating the practice, and
conditions of access to assistance to die may vary across the country. It is hoped that there
will be high levels of compatibility among the various jurisdictions, but this is not certain at
this time.
There are also provincial human rights code provisions to protect the disabled. A case has
not been brought under this legislation. Although one could argue that persons physically
unable to take their own life are being discriminated against, it would be a difficult
argument to make because of a division of powers in Canada between federal and provincial
laws. The principles of discrimination on the basis of disability were integrated into the
argument that was part of the Carter Case.
Law proposals
An act to amend the criminal code

In 2014, Senator Nancy Ruth introduced Bill S-225 - An Act to amend the Criminal Code,
saying: “Honourable senators, most Canadians don't like to suffer. I don't like to suffer. Most
Canadians don't want a debilitating and terminal illness. I don't either. Most Canadians don't
want to be sick, beyond the reach of treatment or medication, nor do I. Eighty-four per cent
of Canadians want the right to physician-assisted death, and so do I. That's why I'm
introducing this bill.” (Bill to Amend—Second Reading—December 4th of 2014)
South-America
Colombia
Hhh
Falkland Islands
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22338524
40
Asia
China
Newsarticles
March 2019 - Sixthtone - Why China Should Start Planning for Legal Euthanasia
April 2019 - Hindustantimes.com
Hong Kong
Newsarticles
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201612/14/P2016121400657.htm
https://www.law.hku.hk/faculty/staff/Files/Ah%20Bun%20and%20Euthanasia%20HKLJ%20(
2009).pdf
https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2101724/hong-kong-must-first-i
mprove-its-elderly-care-euthanasia-can
Israel
Public information sheets, Advanced Directives etc. The law extends the right to refuse or
agree to life prolonging treatment, but forbids any action or omission that might lead to the
ending of life (euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc.).
There probably are actions behind closed doors. Some people travel to Switzerland.
41
Proposals
There have been two attempts to pass a law for death by physician’s prescription (Oregon
law). Both attempts didn’t go far in the process of legislation in the Knesset (Israeli
parliament), because of changes in the Government coalition.
A Ministry of Health commission was working on changes in the present law to permit
chronically ill people to have the benefits of refusing life prolonging treatment, without
being terminally ill. This too was discontinued after the last elections.
Japan
In Japan guidelines exist for terminal care in which various conditions of not starting /
discontinuing / minimizing / stopping artificial life prolonging measure are stated. Advance
directives are a possibility: these must be respected but are not obliged.
Proposals
Since founded in 1975, JSDD has been struggling with legalization of Living Will for 40 long
years. Though the citizen’s view and social situation toward “end of life” has changed from
taboo to open-talk, legalization is far long journey. The reason of this may be a matter of
difference in national character. In japan, it shows little tendency to go to the next step in
case national agreement are not obtained. But as stated above, the public opinion is
positive these days, so we hope a law come into force near future.
42
Africa
South Africa
In South Africa euthanasia and assisted suicide are forbidden by law. People do have the
right to refuse treatment and the possibility to put this on paper in advance directives.
Further: a bill to regulate euthanasia is waiting for introduction since the 1990’s and in 2015
a very progressive judgment is given by a South African High Court.
Law
It is possible for people to draw up a declaration of will that describes when they no longer
want to be treated. This must be drawn up in triplicate: 1 for the family, 1 for the person
himself and 1 for the state. The advance directive is legally valid.
Law proposals
Since the 1990s, a bill to regulate euthanasia for people who are terminally ill is waiting for
political debate. However, still it hasn’t been introduced. The reason: people are still
searching where and how to place this law in current laws and regulations.
Lawsuits
Stransham-Ford (2015-2016)
In 2015, the South African High Court of Pretoria (North Gauteng) delivered an impressive,
progressive and very principle verdict in the court case brought by Robert James
Stransham-Ford. The judge in this case found that Stransham-Ford was competent,
voluntarily arrived at his request, was incurably ill and had only a few weeks left to live. The
judge then ruled that the claimant was therefore entitled to assistance in ending his life. He
judged that this help consisted of administering or providing drugs by a doctor. No doctor
can be obliged to do this, but with this judgment a doctor can perform this help with suicide
or euthanasia without being prosecuted. In fact, the prohibition of suicide assistance, to the
extent that this is an absolute prohibition, violates Stransham-Ford's rights (human dignity,
physical and mental integrity) under the South African Bill of Rights.
In 2016, the Supreme Court delivered a decision that made the previous decision undone:
Stransham-Ford Supreme Court.
43
Australia
Federal Australia
The federal parliament has power over laws in the two territories.
Three states have life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, while in others the maximum
penalty varies from five to 25 years.
Dying for choice

Neil Francis
neilfra@me.com
Human rights
It is also at odds with the fact that we have both a fundamental and legal right to choose
whether we wish to continue living.
Proposals
After the passage of a VE law in the Northern Territory in 1996 the federal parliament
passed a law overturning the law a year later. Since then other bills have been introduced to
overturn the repeal act.
In 2014 Senator Di Natale has released an exposure draft of a bill providing for VE under the
commonwealth’s health powers and it has been reported on by the Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Legislation Committee:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constituti
onal_Affairs/Dying_with_Dignity
In October 2015, Senator David Leyohjelm gave notice that he intends to introduce a repeal
bill: ADJOURNMENT Assisted Suicide
South Australia
Law
Starving & dehydrating to death are not against the law. Self deliverance devices: plastic
bags, helium, illegally obtained Nembutal, poison, hanging etc. Acts are based partly on
human rights, as in the underlying principles.
44
Palliative care
Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act (1995):
To make certain reforms to the law relating to consent to medical treatment— to allow
persons of or over the age of 16 years to decide freely for themselves on an informed basis
whether or not to undergo medical treatment; and to provide for the administration of
emergency medical treatment in certain circumstances without consent; and to provide for
the medical treatment of people who have impaired decision-making capacity; and to allow
for the provision of palliative care, in accordance with proper standards, to people who are
dying and to protect them from medical treatment that is intrusive, burdensome and futile.
The NATURAL DEATH ACT, 1983 is an Act to provide for, and give legal effect to, directions
against artificial prolongation of the dying process. This Act is based partly on human rights,
as in the underlying principles.
In 1995 the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act

To make certain reforms to the law relating to consent to medical treatment—
to allow persons of or over the age of 16 years to decide freely for themselves on an
informed basis whether or not to undergo medical treatment; and
to provide for the administration of emergency medical treatment in certain circumstances
without consent; and to provide for the medical treatment of people who have impaired
decision-making capacity; and to allow for the provision of palliative care, in accordance
with proper standards, to people who are dying and to protect them from medical
treatment that is intrusive, burdensome and futile. This Act is based partly on human rights,
as in the underlying principles
Proposals
In 1995 the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill was presented to the House of Assembly by John
Quirke (Labor) but rejected without debate 13-31.
Later the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill (which had been drafted by SAVES) was presented by
Hon. Anne Levy (Labor) in the Legislative Council; had a substantial second reading
debate, being referred to a Social Development Committee which finally in 1999 tabled
its recommendation that active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide
remain criminal offences.
More than 5 years later the Dignity in Dying Bill was presented in the Legislative Council and
the House of Assembly in November 2000 by Hon Sandra Kanck (Australian Democrats) and
Hon Dr Bob Such (Independent) respectively. In March 2001 the Bill in the Legislative
45
Council was voted into committee stage ten votes to nine, but was then dismantled by a
strategy of voting against the ‘Objects of the Act’ by 12 votes to 9.
In 2002 the Dignity in Dying Bill was presented in the Legislative Council by Hon Sandra
Kanck. It was voted into the committee stage nine votes to eight where the first three
clauses were accepted, but the Bill was then ‘railroaded’ and defeated by 8 votes to 13 in
2004. In 2003 it was presented to the House of Assembly by Hon Dr Bob Such, and
withdrawn in 2005 due to the pending election; members of parliament in 7marginal seats
are reluctant to vote on controversial issues near an election.
The Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2006 / 2007 / 2008 / 2010 / 2012 was first presented by Hon
Bob Such into the House of Assembly. Parliament prorogued, thus requiring Hon Bob Such
to present his Bill again; now entitled the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2007. Parliament again
prorogued and Hon Bob Such presented his Bill once again, now entitled the Voluntary
Euthanasia Bill 2008. Hon Mark Parnell (Australian Greens) presented a different bill into the
Legislative Council, entitled Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care (Voluntary
Euthanasia) Amendment Bill 2008.
These Bills were carried through into 2009. The Parnell Bill failed by 2 votes, the Such
Bill lapsed. In 2010 the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2010 presented to the House of Assembly
(only change being the title) by Hon Bob Such. In 2012 the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2012
was presented to the House of Assembly (some changes in content to his 2010 bill) by Hon
Dr Bob Such. Failed to pass into the Second Reading June 14th 22 votes to 20.
In 2010 the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care (End of Life Arrangements)
Amendment Bill 2010 was presented (together with the VE Bill 2010 as Joint Bills) into the
House of Assembly by Hon Steph Key (Labor) and Hon Mark Parnell. November 24th the Bill
failed on the voices in the Legislative Council. The Bill lapsed in the House of Assembly.
In 2011 the Criminal Law Consolidation (Medical Defences-End of Life Arrangements)

Amendment Bill 2011 was presented into the House of Assembly by Hon Steph Key.
In 2013 the Ending Life with Dignity Bill 2013 was presented to the House of Assembly by
Hon Dr Bob Such. Did not reach a Second Reading vote.
Northern Territory
The Northern Territory ‘Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1996 was the first voluntary
euthanasia law in the world in force for just 9 months before being vetoed by Federal
Parliament. Territories no longer have the authority to pass such laws. Movement toward
illegal importation of Nembutal becoming more common. Suicide using gas also becoming
popular. Human rights law exists at Federal level and covers the Territories.
46
Law
The 2014 Advance Personal Planning Act provides for individuals to determine the care and
treatment they receive in the event they cannot communicate. It is a recognition of
individual rights to determine their health care. It does not extend to self directed or
assisted death.
Victoria
In Victoria, euthanasia and assisted suicide are allowed by law, via the Voluntary Assisted
Dying Bill 2017. This law will come into force the 19th of June 2019.
Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017
History of the bill

2017, Oktober 24: Victoria has passed with 47 to 37 in its lower house, a Voluntary Assisted
Dying bill. In a marathon 26 hour sitting of parliament on Thursday and Friday, opponents of
the legislation proposed more than 150 amendments, all of which were rejected by the
government. The Bill passed on Friday morning with a majority of 47 to 37. The bill then was
referred to Victoria's Legislative Council of the Upper House for more debate and dissection.
2017, November 4: The Legislative Council agreed with 22 to 18 to take the bill for detailed
consideration: 141 (!) clauses were put forward for debate - clearly a filibustering exercis.
2017, November 17: The council sat for another 28 hours before it adjourned
the considerations.
2017, November 21: The Upper House finally, passed the bill with 22 to 18 with a number of
amendments, reason why the bill has to pass the Lower House again: the main amendment
being halving the timeframe for eligible patients to access the scheme, from when they are
deemed to have 12 months to live, to when they only have six months or less of life. This
shorter timeframe brings it into line with the timeframe under the Oregon law, on which the
Victorian bill is modelled. It is expected this time to be a mere formality for the Lower
House, which passed the original bill with a 10 votes majority.
2017, December 2: Victoria approved the final amendments in last session in the Lower
House.
2019, June 1: The law will be effective, 18 months after approval.
Neil Frances of Dying for Choice, published a readable article in Living Now on the
developments of euthanasia legalisation process in Australia: why assisted dying law reform
has taken so long, and why it will accelerate from here. Read it here.
47
Content of the bill
The law allows assisted suicide and euthanasia for terminally ill patients with less than 12
months to live.
Comments on the bill

The bill has been fiercely criticised by parliamentarians from all sides of politics, and even
faced a scare from Deputy Premier James Merlino, who on the first evening unsuccessfully
attempted to put the legislation on an indefinite hold.
Analysts believe that the result of the Victorian bill will have a massive impact on the
outcome of euthanasia debates currently occurring in other Australian States and
territories. New South Wales is currently debating very similar legislation to that proposed
in Victoria, and Western Australia has convened a parliamentary committee to examine
“end of life choices”.
In 1988 the MTA allows a patient to write a ‘refusal of treatment’ certificate, but only for a
current illness which need not be terminal. The MTA preamble recognises that it is desirable
to ensure that dying patients receive maximum relief from pain and suffering. DWDV has
evidence suggesting that patients’ wishes in this latter matter are not always respected. In a
Victorian court case in 2003 the Supreme Court of Victoria held that artificial feeding is
‘medical treatment’ that a state-appointed guardian can refuse under the MTA. In practice,
although there is clear evidence that the practice of VE and AS occur, the current law (MTA,
1988) is largely unenforceable and unenforced, but its ambiguity leaves medical
practitioners liable for prosecution. Dr Rodney Syme has been interviewed by police several
times but not charged despite publicly disclosing the fact that he has assisted patients to
die:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/euthanasia-advocate-rodney-syme-interviewed-by-poli
ce-over-death-drug-confession-20141022-119t9b.html
Proposals
There is a current inquiry into End of Life Choices being conducted by the Legal and Social
Issues Committee of the Victorian Legislative Council. Over 1000 submissions have been
received and wide-ranging public hearings have been held. DWDV made a substantial
submission covering all aspects of the issue. And the DWDV President and Vice-President
appeared as witnesses before the Committee. The Committee is due to report by the end of
May 2016. As for the possibility of law reform within 5 years, DWDV is optimistic about a
positive report emerging from the current inquiry when the Committee reports next year.
48
Assuming that a reform model is recommended, legislation would then need to be
introduced and passed by the Victorian parliament.
Assisted suicide
In May 2008 the Medical Treatment (PAD) Bill was introduced into the Victorian Parliament but the
bill failed to pass. In 2015 Submission 625 - Inquiry into end of Life Choices and the Greater say for
Victorians.
Other options
Illegal practices certainly occur but prosecutions are rare even when a doctor has disclosed
his involvement. Nevertheless, medical practitioners remain very wary because of the
uncertainty of the legal situation. The common law Doctrine of Double Effect plays a part
but it is not a solution because it is impossible to ascertain or prove a doctor’s intention and
the lack of clarity in the DDE means there is considerable legal uncertainty and ambiguity
about how this common law principle applies. Apart from doctors, people do obtain
Nembutal over the internet. Not all of them are caught by customs and obviously there is
uncertainty about what is being supplied.
Human rights
There are no laws based on human rights. DWDV has argued in a submission to a Review of
Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and responsibilities that there are similarities with the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it was applied in Carter v Canada in February
this year. This is discussed in detail in our submission to the Victorian Legal and Social Issues
Committee Inquiry into End of Life Choices (see below).
Further Oceania
New Zealand
As well euthanasia as assisted suicide (Article 179 of the Crimes Act 1961) are prohibited in
New Zealand. Two attempts to legalise euthanasia failed to get through Parliament. A third
one is still in process. Three court cases have passed. The last one, about Lecretia Seales, still
gains attention. Patients are able to withhold treatment if it may shorten their life and
advance directives are recognised by law.
Attempts at legalisation
Two attempts to allow legal euthanasia in New Zealand have failed to get through
Parliament. A third one is withdrawn and a fourth one is still going on.
49
Death with Dignity Bill (1995)
In 1995 Michael Laws championed the Death with Dignity Bill, which aimed to legalise
voluntary euthanasia. The terminal illness of Cam Campion, a colleague in Laws' first term in
Parliament, prompted this advocacy. It failed by 61 votes against and 29 for the Bill.
Death with dignity bill (2003)

Peter Brown, when he was an MP for the New Zealand First political party, introduced a
Death with Dignity Bill in 2003, but it was defeated by 59 to 58 votes. Brown became an
advocate for euthanasia after his wife died of cancer in 1984.
End of Life Choices Bill (2012)

On 11 March 2012, New Zealand Labour Party list MP Maryan Street announced that she
was forwarding another private members bill to the parliamentary ballot box to forward the
debate after witnessing the deaths of her mother and sister from incurable illnesses. The
proposed legislation was known as the End of Life Choices Bill. By mid-July 2013, there were
reports that her party colleagues were requesting that Street withdraw the bill, given the
possibility that it would distract from other issues during 2014 General Election campaign.
End of Life Choices Bill (2015)

On 6 June 2015, ACT New Zealand MP David Seymour confirmed that he was preparing a
private members bill that would legalise medical aid in dying after Seales v Attorney-General
found that only Parliament had the ability to address assisted dying laws. He entered the
End of Life Choice Bill into the ballot on 14 October 2015. The bill passed its first reading on
13 December 2017, with 76 votes in favour, 44 opposed.
Recent petitions to parliament asking for legalisation have been met with opposition from
16,000 submissions to a Health select committee inquiry from experts and members of the
public.
Parliamentary Enquiry
In 2015 there was a Parliamentary Enquiry underway, following a petition from our Society
(Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NZ Inc/End-of-Life Choice), the Health Select Committee
are conducting an enquiry. Petition name: Petition of Hon Maryan Street and 8,974 others
Petition wording: “That the House of Representatives investigate fully public attitudes
towards the introduction of legislation which would permit medically-assisted dying in the
event of terminal illness or an irreversible condition which makes life unbearable.”
- Submissions closing date: February 1, 2016
- Submissions received: http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/documents/evidence
- Keyword - Maryan Street Committee - Health
50
Court cases
Lecretia Seales (2015)

In 2015, lawyer and cancer sufferer Lecretia Seales put a case before the High Court to
challenge New Zealand law for her right to die. She sought High Court declarations to the
effect that her doctor would not be committing murder, manslaughter or assisting a suicide
if he assisted in her euthanasia. Seales also sought, as an alternative, a declaration that the
Crimes Act was not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (1990). The Court
declined to make any of the declarations sought by Seales. Seales died of her illness the day
after the judgment was delivered. In August 2016, Seales' widower Matt Vickers published a
memoir, Lecretia's Choice, detailing his relationship with Seales and her decision to take the
High Court case.
Sean Davison (2011)

In a similar case, professor Sean Davison wrote his memoir, The Last Waltz: Love, Death &
Betrayal, published in 2015, documenting the final days of his mother's life in 2006. A leaked
copy of an early manuscript of the book revealed that he offered his mother a dose of
morphine to help end her life. He was initially charged with attempted murder in 2011, but
later pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of inciting and procuring suicide. He was sentenced
to five months' home detention.
Lesley Martin (2004)

Lesley Martin received nationwide media coverage over the trial of the attempted murder
of her mother. In her 2002 book To Die Like A Dog she revealed that she killed her mother
due to the pain that she was suffering and was arrested shortly after its release. Martin was
given a 15-month sentence of which she served seven and a half months. Ms Martin has
since retired from euthanasia reform activism and dissolved Dignity New Zealand.
Patients are able to withhold treatment if it may shorten their life and advance directives
are recognised by law. Articles 5 and 7 of the The Code of Health and Disability Services
Consumers' Rights (1996) state:
5) Every consumer may use an advance directive in accordance with the common law.
7) Every consumer has the right to refuse services and to withdraw consent to services.
This code is enshrined in law under the Health & Disability Commissioner Act (1994).
Peaceful pill handbook

It is also prohibited to inform people about lethal medication. The Peaceful pill handbook, a
book about dying in dignity, has been banned for a long time. Since May 2008 it has been
51
allowed for sale to readers over eighteen years of age, if it is sealed and an indication of the
censorship classification is displayed. In addition, author Philip Nitschke excised a section
that dealt specifically with methods of suicide, which might otherwise have fallen afoul of
Section 179. (Source: Wikipedia)
Landscape
The New Zealand Medical Association opposes voluntary euthanasia and doctor assisted
suicide maintaining that it is unethical regardless of whether the patient or relatives wishes
to have it carried out.
Two main organisations are lobbying for euthanasia in New Zealand: the Voluntary
Euthanasia Society and the New Zealand chapter of Exit International.
The main organisation lobbying against euthanasia in New Zealand is The Care Alliance, a
broad coalition of organisations from medical, family values, social, ethics, faith, disability,
and other areas of society that advocates for better conversations around dying and
improved access to palliative and other end of life medical and health practices. The Care
Alliance members, however, share an understanding that compassionate and ethical end of
life care does not include euthanasia and assisted suicide.
52

Legislation by Country

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legislation by Country

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of contents

Article L1110-2 guarantees the right to dignity to patients. ………………...

Refusal of treatment and palliative care

Bundesverwaltungsgericht 3 C 19.15 (02-03-2017)

And another one signed by the Senator Francesco Palermo:

The power of the legislative initiative is recognized by the Italian Costitution:

Euthanasia and assisted suicide

Constitution, articles 10 & 11

Civil code, article 7:450 and further

Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL] (2004-2006)

The Coroners and Justice Bill (2008–2009)

Assisted Dying Bill (2015)

Rob Marris Assisted Dying Bill (2015)

End of Life Assistance Bill (2010)

Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill (2015)

England & Wales

Superior Court (2016-2018)

Court of Appeal (2018)

Supreme Court (2019)

- Click here for the status: ​Supreme Court

Dick Magney (2016-2019)

Articles about this case

Attempts to legislation of maid

HB 5898, An Act Concerning Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill

Our care, our choice act

To watch the full traject of HB 2739, see ​here​.

Sources / More to read

First attempts (before 2000)

An Act Regarding Patient-directed Care at the End of Life (2013-2015)

In April 2015 Representatives Bobbi Beavers (D-South Berwick), Richard Campbell

Attempts to Ban Assisted Dying

Want to know more?

Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (2018-2019)

Read here the ​governor's statement upon signing​.

Content of the law

Earlier law proposals

Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (2016)

Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (2014)

New Jersey Death with Dignity Act (2012)

Morris v Brandenburg (2014-2016)

District court (2014)

Death with Dignity bill (1995 + 2009)

End of life options act (2017-2019)

Oregon Death with Dignity Act

1) Oregon House Bill 2232

2) Oregon House Bill 2217

3) Oregon Senate Bill 579

Criminal code - Medical Assistance in Dying

From 1 november 2018 onwards:

Scope and content of the bill

The Carter case (2012-2015)

An act to amend the criminal code

Dying for choice

In 1995 the ​Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act

In 2011 the Criminal Law Consolidation (Medical Defences-End of Life Arrangements)

Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017

History of the bill

Comments on the bill

Death with dignity bill (2003)

End of Life Choices Bill (2012)

End of Life Choices Bill (2015)

Lecretia Seales (2015)

Sean Davison (2011)

- Click here for the status: Supreme Court

To watch the full traject of HB 2739, see here.

Read here the governor's statement upon signing.

In 1995 the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act