Disability rights groups file lawsuit to stop Delaware assisted suicide law

Disability rights groups are fighting back against a new assisted suicide law passed in Delaware.

Key Takeaways:

• Delaware Governor Matt Meyer signed the assisted suicide bill into law in May of this year.

• The bill will take effect in January, and allows “terminally” ill individuals given under six months to live the ability to undergo assisted suicide.

• Disability rights and patient advocacy groups have filed a lawsuit saying the legislation is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The Details:

A group of disability rights and patient advocacy organizations has filed a federal lawsuit in Wilmington contesting Delaware’s recently-implemented assisted suicide law, also known as the “End of Life Options Act” (EOLOA), lambasting it as unconstitutional and discriminatory against people with disabilities and those with limited access to medical care. 

Plaintiffs Sean Curran, along with advocacy groups like Delaware ADAPT and Not Dead Yet, submitted the federal complaint on December 8, with the goal of stopping the bill from from taking effect in January.

The lawsuit contends that the state’s law — which would allow physicians to prescribe lethal medication to terminally ill patients who ask for it — breaches federal civil rights protections.

The plaintiffs state that the legislation unlawfully targets susceptible populations and conveys the impression that some lives are less worth living or protecting than others. Some excerpts from the text of the complaint stated: 

The Act — if allowed to go into effect — will steer people with life-threatening disabilities away from necessary lifesaving and mental health care, medical care, and disability supports, and toward death by suicide under the guise of ‘mercy’ and ‘dignity’ in dying. Throughout the country, a state-endorsed narrative is rapidly spreading that threatens people with disabilities: namely, that people with life-threatening disabilities should be directed to suicide help and not suicide prevention. This world view is being touted as a commonsense objective: people who have life-threatening disabilities should be able to readily obtain physician assisted suicide. At its core, this is discrimination plain and simple. With cuts in 3 healthcare spending at the federal level, persons with life-threatening disabilities are now more vulnerable than ever.

Assisted suicide under EOLOA violates federal disability rights laws and the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause which protect people with disabilities from discrimination, exclusion, and life-threatening state action. Under federal law, a public entity may not withhold services or make services available on unequal terms based on disability. EOLOA, however, does just that. EOLOA is offered to people with life-threatening disabilities. Not only is this facially discriminatory, it also places persons with disabilities in a much more vulnerable position.

The Big Picture:

The lawsuit’s legal arguments are premised on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The ADA “is an important federal law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in various aspects of life including medical treatment. The ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life functions.” 

The lawsuit also indicated that, in a 2019 missive to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Council on Disability portrayed this scenario as “a double standard in suicide prevention efforts” given that people with life-threatening disabilities “are not referred for mental health treatment when seeking assisted suicide, while people without disabilities receive such referrals.”

Curran, a Delaware resident who suffered a grave spinal cord injury at age 36 and is a quadriplegic, slammed the law: 

"The act devalues people like me. I have led a full life despite my disability. The act tells people like me that they should qualify for suicide help, not suicide prevention. I find such discrimination utterly repugnant." 

This lawsuit also showcases the potential ramifications of the law’s implementation, especially its applicability to individuals with non-terminal conditions like anorexia, spinal cord injuries, and other disabilities that may make them vulnerable in the eyes of health care providers. Once regulations of the law are finalized by January 1, 2026, the law would likely be enforced before any robust safeguards are in place, increasing risks for vulnerable patients’ lives. 

Observers caution that this law would set a dangerous precedent by empowering physicians to make life-or-death decisions in situations when patient health outcomes remain uncertain. As people diagnosed with anorexia or similar conditions have unpredictable prospects of recovery, classifying these individuals as “terminal,” or beyond treatment, effectively robs them of any opportunities to recover or heal.  

The Bottom Line:

The verdict for this lawsuit would have far-reaching implications. Should the plaintiffs prevail, it could impact how other states nationwide draft and enforce assisted suicide statutes.