By Margaret Dore
On June 2, 2010, the Connecticut Superior Court dismissed Blick v. Connecticut, an "aid in dying" case. "Aid in dying" is a euphemism for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.[1] As used in the case, aid in dying refered to physician-assisted suicide.
Case History
In Connecticut, assisting a suicide is prohibited by two statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a, which prohibits intentionally causing a suicide "by force, duress or deception"; and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-56, which prohibits intentionally causing a suicide "other than by force, duress or deception." Neither statute contains an exception for physician-assisted suicide.
On October 7, 2009, the former Hemlock Society, now known as Compassion & Choices, announced the lawsuit. The claim was that § 53a-56 does not reach a physician who provides "aid in dying" because aid in dying is not "suicide." See Verified Complaint, ¶ 40. The complaint also implied that the patients at issue would be "dying." This would not necessarily be the case. See Opinion letter here: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/ConnMemo02.pdf. On June 2, 2010, the Court dismissed the case. The Court specifically disagreed with the claim that "aid in dying" is not "suicide." The Court stated:
"[T]he legislature intended the statute to apply to physicians who assist a suicide and intended the term "suicide" to include self-killing by those who are suffering from unbearable terminal illness.
The language and legislative history of § 53a-56 compel the conclusion that the defendants [state’s attorneys] would not be acting in excess of their authority if they prosecuted the plaintiffs under § 53a-56 for providing 'aid in dying.'"[2]
The Court also stated that the claim was not justiciable and that any change in the law would be a task for the legislature.[3] The Court said that the legislature's participation was particularly important given "significant . . . concerns" about physician-assisted suicide.[4] These concerns include whether assisted suicide "threatens . . . the poor, the elderly and the disabled."[5]
The Court also found that the lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.[6] The Court concluded: "The case is hereby dismissed because it is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and, as stated above, it presents a nonjusticiable claim, one which must be decided by the Connecticut legislature, and not by the court."[7]
Not Dead Yet’s running commentary on the case can be viewed here. The verified complaint, the parties’ briefing and the Court’s decision can be viewed below as indicated:
This document is a shorter and more formal version of my presentation at the Caring About Everyone Conference in Hartford Connecticut, on October 15, 2022. The conference was generously sponsored by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Family Institute of Connecticut.