Judge denies disability groups' motion to block Illinois medical aid in dying law from taking effect Saturday
A federal judge denied a motion to block the start of Illinois' medical aid in dying law from taking effect this weekend from a lawsuit filed by disability right advocates.
Illinois' End of Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act takes effect Saturday, Sept. 12. It allows some terminally ill patients to seek medical help to die on their own terms.
Also known as Deb's Law, it requires patients to be examined by two doctors to determine they have a terminal illness and will die within six months. In order to get life-ending medications, the patient must request them orally and in writing, and the medications must be self-administered. Patients also must be informed of all end-of-life care options including comfort care, hospice, pain control and palliative care.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit argued the law discriminates against people with disabilities, as it would be part of the "standard of care" for doctors. People with disabilities, they said, would feel pressured if it goes into effect.
In his 25-page ruling, the judge wrote the plaintiffs failed to stablish they had a "concrete and imminent future injury" that can be traced directly to any action or inaction by the state, Illinois Department of Public Health, Gov. JB Pritzker or others named in the lawsuit.
Judge John Tharp found in the case of Payne, et al. v. Pritzker, et. al., Ebony Payne does not have standing to sue because "her asserted risk of injury is too speculative and conjectural to satisfy the injury requirement of standing." Payne is paralyzed from the neck down from a spinal injury and has severe asthma.
Payne's attorneys argued doctors would have to abandon their legal and ethical obligation to "do no harm" and recommend medical aid in dying because her condition means she would die within six months without ongoing medical intervention. The judge ruled their argument was "too speculative and conjectural to satisfy the injury requirement of standing."
"The Act mandates that the standard of care remain unaltered," Tharp wrote, "and requires that doctors proceeding under the Act must explain all medical options for patients at the end of their lives and explain their risks and benefits."
He also noted that among all the end-of-life options the law requires doctors to discuss with patients seeking medical aid to die are hospice care, comfort care and palliative care, which are not "life-extending" treatments.
Alongside Payne, two organizations – United Spinal and Progress Center for Independent Living – argued the law effects their "core business activities" of helping people with disabilities "overcome the prejudices of medical providers and medical care systems that devalue them based on misguided notions of their quality of life" as well as helping people with new disabilities learn how to live with them instead of "giving into societal prejudices that their lives are not worth living."
They also argued the assisted suicide law will require them to increase their counseling services and take other measures to provide suicide prevention programming.
The judge again found their claims of injury, especially in regards to suicide prevention programing, were "wholly speculative, not immediate or imminent" and noted there is nothing to confirm plaintiffs' claims the State of Illinois reducing or changing their state-run suicide prevention programs.
The organizations also argued they feared penalties if they counseled their members against medical aid in dying, but the judge noted the Act does not impose any penalties.
Tharp wrote the plaintiffs' claimed injuries "depend on doctors choosing to violate the Act's provision requiring the standard of care to remain unchanged" but the text of the act itself doesn't change the fiduciary duty of doctors to patients, and so the plaintiffs again lacked standing to sue.
While Tharp's ruling that all plaintiffs lack standing for a preliminary injunction, he also considered the merits of their cases. He found that Payne's claim of emotional distress to justify the need for a preliminary injunction remains "conjectural." He noted that by her own testimony she is not a qualified patient for the act as she has not been told by two doctors that she has six months to live, and "so no doctor, hospital, or insurer could press her into the Act's end-of-life measures." He also noted that by the law's own design, only she could start the process to pursue medical aid in dying, which she has plainly stated she does not intend to do.
Likewise he found United Spinal and PCIL's organization claims to be too hypothetical and speculative to require an injunction.
Tharp also dismissed Gov. Pritzker as a defendant because he does not have the kind of enforcement powers subject to the enforcement of this law in particular. The Illinois Department of Public Health was also dismissed as a defendant outside of statutory claims. The sole defendant in the lawsuit remains IDPH Director Dr. Sameer Vohra, who is tasked with enforcing and overseeing the law when it is in effect.
Tharp denied the motion for an injunction and gave the plaintiffs 30 days to show cause for why the entire lawsuit should not be dismissed for lack of standing.
There is another lawsuit filed by a pharmacist, two orders of nuns and Cardinal Blase Cupich seeking to stop the medical aid in dying law from taking effect on religious grounds. A ruling has not yet been issued in that lawsuit.
Illinois is the first Midwestern state to legalize medically assisted death. Twelve states nationwide have already legalized assisted suicide; eight more states are considering similar legislation.
