For a summary of the recent legislative session by board member Kate McEvoy, click here.  The last section provides an overview of the amended anatomical gifts act that was recently enacted by the CT legislature. 

Kate has also written a brief summary of the Blick Decision (see below) regarding the question of the legality in Connecticut of "aid in dying". 

To read the full decision go to:  http://www.compassionandchoices.org/documents/memorandum-%20of-dismissal-decision.pdf

Summary of Blick Decision:

In 2009, two Connecticut physicians with extensive experience in caring for individuals with terminal illnesses filed a complaint, Blick v. Office of the Division of Criminal Justice, in Superior Court seeking a judgment “declaring that Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 53a-56 does not provide a valid statutory basis to prosecute any licensed physician for providing aid in dying because the choice of a mentally competent terminally ill individual for a peaceful death . . . does not constitute ‘suicide’ within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 53a-56(a)(2), and further declaring that any such prosecution is void as a matter of law.” (Complaint , Prayer for Relief, 1).[1]

Connecticut criminal statutes provide the following:

• (a)    A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when: (1) He recklessly causes the death of another person; or (2) he intentionally causes or aids another person, other than by force, duress or deception, to commit suicide.[2]
• (b)    Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

On June 2, 2010, Judge Aurigemma dismissed the complaint on the basis of having concluded that it presented a nonjusticiable claim, as well as that it was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.[3]  The decision to dismiss was based upon the following:

• ·                                 that the manslaughter statute, as well as its associated commentary, legislative history, and unsuccessful attempts to amend the statute, make it clear that assisting an individual to commit suicide, even in “situations as aiding . . . the suicide of one inflicted with a painful and incurable disease”[4], is a crime;
• ·                                 that the claim did not meet two of the requirements to demonstrate a justiciable claim; notably, 1) that there be an actual controversy between or among the parties to the dispute; and 2) that the claim represent a controversy capable of being adjudicated by judicial power;
• ·                                 that considerations including the needs of vulnerable populations, role of physicians in end-of-life care, integrity of the medical profession, potential slippery slope to euthanasia, and procedural requirements (e.g. assessment of capacity, definition of “terminal illness”, proxy decision-making) would most appropriately be evaluated by the legislative branch; and
• ·                                 that the defendants would not be acting in excess of their statutory authority if they were to prosecute the plaintiffs for violating the manslaughter statute by assisting a terminally ill individual in committing suicide.

[1] Available at: http://www.compassionandchoices.org//documents/Blick-Complaint.pdf

[2] C.G.S.A. § 53a-56

[3] Blick v. Connecticut, Docket No. CV-09-5033392 (J.D. Hartford, June 1, 2010); available at: http://www.compassionandchoices.org//documents/memorandum-%20of-dismissal-decision.pdf

[4] Commission to Revise the Criminal Statutes, Commission Comment, C.G.S.A. § 53a-56, p. 164 (West 2007)