Massachusetts Supreme Court to Consider Challenge to Euthanasia Ban

On March 9, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in Kligler v. Healey, which asks “whether a physician may be prosecuted for manslaughter for prescribing medication used by a competent, terminally ill person to commit suicide.”

Doctor Roger Kligler, who was diagnosed with stage four prostate cancer, wants the ability to access medication that will allow him to end his life. Doctor Alan Steinbach, Kligler’s partner in the case, wants the ability to prescribe such medication. In a brief before the Court, they argued that what they called “Medical Aid in Dying,” was different from “Physician-assisted Suicide.”

“MAID is defined narrowly as a practice where a doctor, who determines, according to accepted medical standards, that her adult, terminally ill patient who is mentally competent, may, at her patient’s request, prescribe medication that her patient can self-ingest to hasten the time of their death,” the brief reads. “‘Assisted suicide,’ on the other hand, is a much broader term, defined as ‘suicide committed by someone with assistance from another person.’”

This is not Dr. Klinger’s first time in court. According to the Associated Press: “The state Superior Court in 2019 rejected Kligler’s argument that people have a constitutional right to die, ruling in part that state lawmakers should decide the legality of the practice.

“Massachusetts voters in 2012 rejected a ballot question allowing terminally ill patients to receive a lethal dose of drugs, and state lawmakers have not passed proposals to legalize the practice in recent years.”

Assistant Attorney General Maria Granik, who represents the Commonwealth, made the case that the legislature, rather than the courts, should decide the issue. 

“There is no fundamental constitutional right to assistance in suicide, and the policy discussion about the pros and cons of legalization properly belongs in the legislatiure, where it is currently taking place,” she said. 

While the practice is allowed in ten states and Washington, D.C., Granik argued “it was legalized by statutes.” 

Another representative against Medical Aid in Dying is Chris Schandevel. He currently serves as senior counsel for faith-based legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom. He stood by his arguments, saying, “any practice that abandons healing and turns to killing puts patients at risk and corrupts and degrades the practice of medicine,” he told Catholic News Agency. “Massachusetts’ law protects all human life until natural death; the government should not give out licenses to kill the most vulnerable.”

“After today’s oral argument at the state’s High Court,” he concluded, “we are encouraged and optimistic that the terminally ill and disabled will continue to be protected against life-ending procedures.”

According to the Catholic News Agency, the “ADF filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA, a national network that opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide.

“Several others filed amicus briefs against physician-assisted suicide and assisted death from a diverse set of backgrounds, including an atheist, Dr. Kevin Yuill, and four Catholic bishops in Massachusetts.”

“Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley of Boston, Bishop Robert Joseph McManus of Worcester, Edgar M. da Cunha of Fall River, and Bishop William D. Byrne of Springfield warned that, if the physicians succeed, ‘Massachusetts common law would act to lessen the value of human life—along with the other interests identified above—having grave, long-lasting, and far-reaching negative effects for society.’”