Connecticut aid-in-dying bill fails to get out of committee: ‘A death sentence of pain and suffering’

Connecticut’s controversial aid-in-dying bill failed to pass the Judiciary Committee Wednesday, stalling advocates’ hopes for a floor vote on the legislation that would allow terminally ill adults to end their lives with medication.

Tears rolled down Co-Chair Sen. Gary Winfield’s face as he announced that the Judiciary Committee would take no action on S.B. 1076.

“It hurts not to be able to get to a point where we can vote on this,” Winfield said before speaking of his mother’s painful passing that Winfield said converted him into a supporter of aid-in-dying. “One day we’re going to get this bill. That day is not today, but it will get done.”

While the Public Health Committee approved S.B. 1076 last month, passage from the Judiciary Committee is a prerequisite for a full vote before the General Assembly.

This is the second year that the Judiciary Committee has declined to vote on aid-in-dying proposals that have gripped Connecticut in an emotionally charged debate since the legislation was first introduced to the state legislature in 1994.

The inaction was met with anguish from the bill’s supporters, and celebration from opponents.

“We’re very glad that this bill is dead, and we’re especially happy for our allies in the disability and progressive community who opposed assisted suicide and were completely ignored by the Public Health Committee. We feel like the Judiciary Committee listened to them when the Public Health Committee refused to,” said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut.

Tim Appleton, senior campaign director of the Compassion and Choices Action Network, said the failure to pass S.B. 1076 will be “devastating” to the Connecticut residents still suffering from terminal disease.

“This legislative inaction is a death sentence of pain and suffering for the people desperate for this option,” Appleton said. “They don’t have another year of debate to allow lawmakers to get comfortable on an issue that 75% of people in the state support. … We’re certainly not going to turn our back.”

Public Health Committee Co-Chairs Sen. Saud Anwar and Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey consoled a dismayed group of aid-in-dying proponents who attended the Judiciary Committee meeting to support the memories of their loved ones who desperately wanted, but did not have the option for aid-in-dying.

“This is a movement, it’s not a bill,” Anwar told them.

Anwar, a medical doctor who is a key advocate for aid-in-dying in the legislature, said that if the Judiciary Committee could see and hear the painful end-of life stories, he believes the outcome of S.B. 1076 would have been different.

“It is sad that the Judiciary Committee has never had a public hearing on this topic. It is sad that they have never seen the human part of what happens,” Anwar said. “It’s a very difficult bill. We are not hardwired to say yes to a bill like this unless you are actually seeing and interacting and learning from the people who have had the difficulties. We need to give the space to the people who are (saying) ‘no’ to perhaps look at it in a more in-depth way and turn around slowly and gradually at their own pace to come to a ‘yes.’ And I hope nobody has to experience a painful death of their loved one to come to that conclusion.”

If it passed, the guardrails in S.B. 1076 would have made Connecticut’s aid-in-dying law the strictest in the country. In addition to other provisions, patients seeking aid-in-dying medication must be over the age of 21, competent and a resident of Connecticut for at least one year. They also must have a life expectancy of less than six months, attend at least one session with a counselor, see a doctor every 30 days until their death, and submit two written requests for aid-in-dying signed by two witnesses. S.B. 1076 additionally assigns felony penalties for abusers of the law.

Despite the stringent requirements, lawmakers still had reservations over the legality of aid-in-dying, which is already established law in 10 states and the District of Columbia.

“The struggle and concern on this bill, I think for many of us, does come down to endorsing a policy where there are still, even despite the language changes, a lot of outstanding questions,” Judiciary Co-Chair Steven Stafstrom said. “I think I struggled less with it earlier in the session, before we saw legislative efforts and litigation efforts in other states to undo many of the protections we tried to put in this bill. … Maybe I’m in agreement with some that this legislation’s day may come but I think that there are still still some outstanding issues we are right to be cautious on.”

Stafstrom said after caucusing, that the votes needed to pass S.B. 1076 did not come down to “one or two people” in the committee.

Stafstrom said one of his biggest frustrations is the perception that religion influenced the outcome. Other statements from showed how aid-in-dying continues to put lawmakers at odds with their moral beliefs.

“I have to look at this from the advantage point of what is good public policy,” Ranking Member Sen. John Kissel said. “I’m going to take away my faith in Jesus and religion because that shouldn’t enter into my analysis.”

Despite Kissel’s assertion that it was policy and not religion that contributed to his opposition of S.B. 1076, his comments before the Judiciary Committee were sprinkled with statements such as “fundamentally, I believe in miracles,” and references to the Book of Job.

Rep. Jillian Gilchrest said at the end of the day, aid-in-dying should come down to personal choice.

“S.B. 1076 provides an option at the end of life. It’s an option. If you don’t want to take that option, you don’t need to take that option. But we would be making a statement here in Connecticut by passing the bill that would allow people to make that choice for themselves,” Gilchrest said. “The common theme I see from the people who support this policy is that they love life. And when life is no longer an option for them, and they know it is coming to an end, they want to be able to have this option…I think we’re at a point in this state where we owe it to those whose lives are coming to an end to give them the respect to have this option. And so I am sorely disappointed that we can’t pass this after this year.”