Analysis of MN 2015 doctor-prescribed suicide bill

S.F. 1880 Analysis

An individual with a controllable medical condition could be considered to have a terminal illness, making him or her eligible for doctor-prescribed suicide.

To be eligible for a suicide prescription, a patient is considered to have a terminal illness if he or she has “an incurable and irreversible medical condition that an attending physician anticipates, within reasonable medical judgment, will produce a patient’s death within six months.”[1] There are many conditions (diabetes, certain types of leukemia, disabilities requiring ventilator support, etc.) that, without medical treatment, would result in death within six months.  However, with medical treatment, individuals with those conditions could live for many years.  Yet those individuals would be eligible for doctor-prescribed suicide.

Why is the definition of “terminal illness” so broad?

Severely depressed or mentally ill patients can receive doctor-prescribed suicide, without having any form of counseling.

 Even if the patient is severely depressed or has a mental illness, a physician does not need to refer the patient for counseling unless the physician believes the patient has “impaired judgment”[2] that prevents the patient from making an informed decision.  If the depressed or mentally ill patient understands and acknowledges the relevant facts related to the request for doctor-prescribed suicide, he or she is considered able to make an informed decision and would not be referred for counseling.

A health care facility could not prevent deaths from doctor-prescribed suicide on its premises.  Furthermore, a facility willing to permit assisted-suicide deaths could require nurses, physician assistants, and certain other individuals to facilitate such deaths.

The bill states that a health care facility may have written policies that prohibit providers from “participating in the provision of medication to a patient for aid in dying” if notification is provided.[3]

It also states that “a health care facility shall not require a health care provider to participate in the provision of medication to a qualified patient for aid in dying.”[4]

However, the phrase “participate in the provision of medication” is very narrowly defined in the bill.[5]  It refers only to performing the duties of the attending physician, the consulting physician, the pharmacist who would dispense the lethal drugs or one who would be carrying out the counseling, if performed.  It does not include nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, social workers, and other individuals.  Therefore, facilities permitting doctor-prescribed suicide could require such individuals to provide assistance in obtaining the drugs, etc. since such activities would not constitute “participation” as defined in the proposal.

Likewise, facilities would not be able to ban others from bringing a lethal drug prescription to a patient, would not be able to prevent the witnessing of the written requests for doctor-prescribed suicide at the facility, and would not be able to prevent nurses or others from bringing them to a patient for self-administration.

If the bill is approved, doctor-prescribed suicide would become a “medical treatment.”

This would give insurance programs the opportunity to cut costs by denying payment of more expensive treatments while approving payment of the less costly prescription for a lethal drug overdose.

This has already been documented in Oregon – the state with the law upon which the Minnesota  proposal is based.  The Oregon Health Plan (OHP) has notified some patients that medications prescribed to extend their lives or improve their comfort level would not be covered, but that the OHP would pay for a lethal drug prescription.[6]

 Referring to payment for assisted suicide, the Oregon Department of Human Services explains, “Individual insurers determine whether the procedure is covered under their policies, just as they do any other medical procedure.”[7]

If the Minnesota bill is approved, will health insurance programs do the right thing – or the cheap thing?

A person “familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating”[8] could convey (translate)  patient information to the attending physician and counselor (if counseling is performed).

How would anyone know if the translation is accurate?  How would it be possible to know if the patient is really making an informed decision?

The two required written requests for doctor-prescribed suicide could be witnessed by someone who would gain financially from the patient’s death.

The written requests, which could be signed in the patient’s residence, must be witnessed by two individuals,[9] only one of whom may not be someone who would be entitled to any portion of the patient’s estate.[10]  Thus, one witness may be a potential heir who is pressuring the patient to sign the request.  The second witness could be the “best friend” of the potential heir.

This places victims of elder abuse and domestic abuse in great danger since they are unlikely to share their fears with outsiders or to reveal that they are being pressured by family members to “choose” doctor-prescribed suicide.[11]

The bill permits a person who would benefit financially from the person’s death to pick up and deliver the lethal prescription.

The drugs can be dispensed to “an expressly identified agent” of the patient.[12]  A potential heir could encourage the patient to authorize him or her to pick up the drugs for delivery to the patient’s residence.

All of the “safeguards” in the bill cease the moment the prescription is received.

The bill contains numerous references to the fact that the prescription is to be “voluntarily” requested.  However, nothing in the proposal states that the drugs, once prescribed, must be knowingly or voluntarily taken.

Why are there no safeguards at the most important part of the process – at the time the patient takes the drugs that will cause death?

[1]  S.F. 1880, Sec. 1, Subd. 2 (t).

[2]  S.F. 1880, Sec. 1, Subd. 9.

[3]  S.F. 1880, Sec. 1, Subd. 15 (d).

[4]  S.F. 1880, Sec. 1, Subd. 15 (b).

[5]  S.F. 1880, Sec. 1, Subd. 15 (a).

[6]  KATU Television, “Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions” (interview about one such case and the response of the Oregon Health Plan). Available at:  (last accessed 1/29/15).

[7]  Oregon Dept. of Human Services, “FAQs about the Death with Dignity Act.”  Available at: aspx (last accessed 12/30/14).

[8]  S.F. 1880, Sec. 1, Subd. 1 (e). (See definition of “competent.”)

[9]  S.F. 1880, Sec. 1, Subd. 4 (a).

[10] S.F. 1880, Sec. 1, Subd. 4 (b).

[11] For example, a recent report indicates that elder abuse affects about five million Americans a year and that just one in 24 cases is reported to authorities.  Kathryn Alfisi, “Breaking the Silence on Elder Abuse,  Washington Lawyer, February 2015, pp. 35-39.

[12] S.F. 1880, Sec. 1, Subd. 10 (a) (6) (ii) (B).