County board takes stand against Illinois’ assisted suicide law

In December, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed an assisted suicide bill into law after it lawmakers passed it in October as an amendment to a completely unrelated food safety preparation bill. It was a move that even the Daily Mail called an "absurd tactic."

Now, one Illinois community is bringing attention to the terribly written, terribly passed law.

Key Takeaways:

• The Effingham County Board recently passed a resolution opposing Illinois' End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act, which legalized assisted suicide.

• There are numerous problems with the bill beyond devaluing life; it contains few safeguards, including no requirement for mental health evaluations prior to assisted suicide and lethal drugs dispensed to individuals without oversight.

• The board hopes that, though the resolution is not legally binding, "this puts pressure on legislators to make hospice and other palliative care and comfort options readily available.” 

The Details:

Josh Douthit, county board Chairman for Effingham County in Illinois, told Live Action News why the board decided to pass a resolution formally opposing SB1950, the End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act, which legalized assisted suicide:

“We saw a bad bill, that’s really what our driving force was behind it. County boards are liaisons to the state senators and representatives, and this is one way we communicate to the legislators that our constituents want change….

It was necessary because the bill isn’t merely about medical choice, it’s a major change in Illinois law and public policy. It’s a statewide public policy change that will alter medical practice, legal standards, and protections for vulnerable citizens.” 

The bill is slated to go into effect in September of 2026, making Illinois the 12th state to allow assisted suicide. 

County board resolutions are not legally binding documents, but Douthit explained to Live Action News why he believes this resolution matters, and why the Effingham County Board hopes other counties pass similar resolutions against the assisted suicide bill.

The resolution is viewable online here.  

What the resolution finds problematic

Douthit spelled out specific flaws in the law as written, and how the board wants to see them rectified.

A person requesting to die doesn't have to receive a mental health evaluation

“Number one, a mental health evaluation should be absolutely mandatory and it must be done by a licensed mental health medical provider, not a licensed counselor but actual doctors, psychiatrists that deal with mental health on a daily basis,” the resolution states. 

A formal mental health evaluation, not just a judgment call about whether the person is capable of making decisions, as the law currently stipulates, could help individuals grappling with a terminal diagnosis by slowing down the process.

At present, the law only requires five days to pass from a patient’s first request for assisted suicide until ingestion of the medicine, even though this is the definition of a life-or-death matter.

Naturally, when faced with challenging news, every person is inclined to look for an escape, an exit. But hundreds of thousands of patients are discharged from hospice alive each year, according to a 2022 study, because they outlived doctor estimates that they had less than six months to live. 

Lethal drugs are dispensed with no oversight

The resolution takes issue with the fact that "The current bill allows for this pill to be taken home and swallowed at will, with no oversight.” 

It points out that issuing these drugs through a pharmacy or by mail is allowed by the law, and is not "administered directly by a medical provider."

An innocent victim could accidentally ingest the drugs (if, for example, a child or another adult in the house found it in a medicine cabinet or bedside table), or bad actors could coerce a terminally ill person to take the medicine. 

Healthcare professionals who don’t want to participate are still accomplices

Douthit said that, according to the law, physicians who want to opt out “are still required to make a referral. If they don’t want to participate, they have to make a referral to another physician that will do it for them. In and of that referral, you’re participating, furthering the act of medically assisted suicide.” 

The board has legitimate reason for concern, since the law reads:

A health care entity shall not engage in false, misleading, or deceptive practices relating to its policy around end-of-life care services, including whether it has a policy that prohibits affiliated health care professionals from practicing aid-in-dying care; or intentionally denying a patient access to medication pursuant to this Act by intentionally failing to transfer a patient and the patient's medical records to another health care professional in a timely manner.

Intentionally misleading a patient or deploying misinformation to obstruct access to services pursuant to this Act constitutes coercion or undue influence. 

In the upside-down language of the law, an individual or healthcare entity could be guilty of “coercion” for refusal to support an assisted suicide. 

The law forces physicians to lie about the cause of death

Inexplicably, “[SB1950] puts our physicians and coroners at risk because they have to put down misleading and untruthful information on official documents," said Douthit. "[Physicians] are not able to accurately describe on the death certificate what actually occurred because they’re forced to ignore the medication as the proximate cause of death and they have to list the underlying terminal illness instead of stating that it was assisted suicide.” 

And while coroners always investigate suicides, unexpected deaths, and sudden deaths, they will not investigate assisted suicides as a matter of course under the law. 

Answering naysayers

Douthit addressed pushback on the resolution, noting that even though those who oppose it acknowledge that modifications should be made to the bill, “some people think it’s not necessary for the board to get involved in personal decisions. And that’s what they believe, those opposed to this resolution, that this a personal decision that doesn’t affect local government." 

But Douthit disagrees:

“I say that’s incorrect. To say that the resolution was unnecessary is to say that the local government should remain silent when the state of Illinois, a government entity, authorizes doctors to prescribe these life-ending medications and not have appropriate safeguards in place.”

He added that it's important to speak out:

“That’s exactly when local government should speak and we acted within our role to, number one, put our county on record of our stance, and to make it clear that our county believes in dignity at the end of life, and we should encourage care, support and protection, including comfort care, palliative care, and hospice. 

Individuals believe we should stay out of it and not speak when it comes to personal decisions such as this. But they have to recognize that the state government has put their nose into something that we should never have gotten into at all.” 

Why It Matters:

Douthit cited multiple reasons the resolution is valuable, even though it is not legally binding.

“It’s really proper and appropriate for us to do this, especially on a topic this big and especially with these glaring issues," he said. "Even if you take away the ethical and moral stuff, if you focus on the wording and how this is going to be implemented, it’s dangerous. We’re hoping this puts direct pressure on Springfield to repeal it and if not, they need to modify it and put in the proper safeguards.” 

Douthit continued, “We also hope this puts pressure on legislators to make hospice and other palliative care and comfort options readily available.” 

He summed up:

“At the end of the day, it reinforces our values in Effingham County and encourages our providers to be firm and confident in their right to refuse participation and opt out as well. We show support for those providers who do not want anything to do with this.” 

What's Happening:

Douthit noted that a House bill (HB4381) has been introduced to repeal the bill altogether, and a Senate bill (SB3795) has been introduced to amend the bill substantially by adding in specific safeguards like the mental health evaluation mentioned above.

Currently, both bills are awaiting further action.