REGIONAL- It’s been languishing in the Minnesota Legislature for a decade, but is this the year the Minnesota End-of-Life Options Act finally gets through the legislative logjam and becomes law?
The End-of-Life Options Act, modeled after a 26-year-old Oregon law and those of ten other states, would legalize physician-prescribed life-ending medication for terminally ill, mentally capable adults.
It was first introduced in 2015 by chief author State Rep. Mike Freiberg, DFL-Golden Valley, but has never mustered enough support to make it through a politically divided Legislature. With the DFL now holding slim majorities in both the House and Senate and the governorship in the hands of DFL’er Tim Walz, the upcoming session represents the best chance for passage of the bill since it was first introduced. A companion bill in the Senate is authored by Sen. Kelly Morrison, DFL-Deephaven, a physician.
Key provisions of the bills include:
To be eligible, a person must be 18 or older, be terminally ill with a prognosis of six months or less to live and be mentally capable of making an informed healthcare decision.
An individual must administer the provided medication themselves, and it cannot be administered by injection or intravenously, and a family member or healthcare provider cannot administer the drug.
Information about alternative end-of-life care options including comfort care, hospice care and pain control must be provided to the patient.
Authorized health care providers include a doctor of medicine, a doctor of osteopathy, and advanced practice registered nurses.
Two health care providers must confirm that the person is terminally ill with a prognosis of six months or less to live, is mentally capable and is not being coerced.
A terminally ill person can withdraw their request for medication, not take the medication once they have it or otherwise change their mind at any point.
If either health care provider has concerns about the patient’s capacity to make an informed health care decision, a mental health evaluation is mandated before a prescription can be written.
Anyone attempting to coerce a patient will face criminal prosecution.
Life insurance payments cannot be denied to the families of those who use the law.
No health care provider or pharmacist is required to participate.
House hearing
Last Thursday, House Health Finance and Policy Chair Tina Liebling took the unusual step of holding a pre-session committee hearing on the bill, a hearing that lasted about five hours and required an extra room to accommodate the overflow of testifiers and observers. One hundred and three written statements were filed with the committee before the meeting, and 75 people provided oral testimony during the proceedings.
Freiberg noted at the outset of the hearing that the original bill had been amended to emphasize the exclusion from eligibility of those under guardianship or conservatorship and to clearly provide criminal penalties for coercion.
Nancy Uden, of Corcoran, who was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer in late 2022, testified in favor of the bill, emphasizing her dire prognosis and treatment limitations.
“This bill has been in front of the Minnesota Legislature for ten years already. It’s time to act,” she said. “As I imagine the end of my life, I would like to be able to say my goodbyes and go peacefully. I’m thankful that we have hospice as an option. I will use it for the maximum comfort I can. But if it’s not enough, in the end, I want the option to die gently in my sleep.”
Dr. Cory Carroll, a Colorado physician with the organization Compassionate Choices, shared his insights on medical aid in dying, highlighting how patients control the process by noting that a third of eligible patients opt not to use the prescribed medication.
Kevin Bradley, representing the Libertarian Party of Minnesota, spoke on the bill’s alignment with principles of bodily autonomy and reduced governmental control over individual choices.
Opponents voiced concerns about the bill’s implications. Jean Swenson, living as a quadriplegic, expressed gratitude for not having assisted suicide as an option during her depression. Charles Dennis O’Hare, a doctor in assisted living and memory care, and Karin Charron, a nurse, opposed the bill on moral and ethical grounds.
The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, a nonprofit health policy organization said the bill would result in a lowered standard of care for patients, corrupt the practice of medicine and pressure patients who feel they have become a burden to end their lives.
The marathon hearing concluded with Dr. Lisa R. Mattson clarifying the bill’s applicability only to terminally ill, mentally competent individuals, not affecting those with chronic illness, mental health issues, or disabilities.
The bill is set for further discussion in the House Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy when the legislative session resumes on Feb. 12.