State argues ban on assisted suicide is a matter for legislature, not courts

Hartford - During the first court hearing in a lawsuit challenging Connecticut's ban on assisted suicide, the state Monday sought to persuade a judge that the legislature, not a courthouse, is the proper venue to decide whether doctors should be prosecuted for helping patients end their lives.

The state is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, brought by Gary Blick and Ronald Levine, two Fairfield County doctors who are challenging the definition - or lack thereof - of "suicide" in state statute.

Backed by the national advocacy group Compassion & Choices, the doctors argue that "aid in dying" is a legitimate medical treatment when a mentally competent patient has exhausted all other avenues for getting well and for alleviating pain.

Oregon and Washington are the only two states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide.

The lawsuit names Connecticut's 13 state's attorneys, including Michael Regan in the New London judicial district, and Kevin Kane, the chief state's attorney. The state attorney general's office is representing the prosecutors.

Perry Zinn-Rowthorn, an associate attorney general, argued Monday that the court should not decide "by advisory opinion what the legislature has consistently refused to do."

Zinn-Rowthorn pointed to a bill introduced during last year's legislative session, with 14 pages of definitions and restrictions built in, that failed to make it out of committee.

"We don't have any of those safeguards," he said of what would happen should the court rule on the matter.

Zinn-Rowthorn said the ruling also would not provide any guidelines for doctors and prosecutors, as it does not include specific cases.

"It would be dangerous, from a public health policy (standpoint), to issue this type of sweeping public policy change by declaration," he said.

Zinn-Rowthorn said the state's second-degree manslaughter statute includes a common-use definition of suicide that refers to the "taking of one's own life voluntarily or intentionally, especially by a person of sound mind."

But attorney Daniel Krisch, representing the doctors, argued that they are seeking something different.

Suicide, Krisch said, represents "the choice whether or not to die," a decision terminally ill patients are not making.

Aid in dying, he said, is a decision "how and when to die if you are terminally ill and death is inevitable; how much pain and suffering to endure before death is inevitable." He said aid in dying should be a medical treatment option.

Judge Julia Aurigemma asked Krisch whether Connecticut's public policy is clear on the matter and reiterated the point regarding whether the court should act on the issue.

"Judges aren't supposed to legislate ... are we really asking the court to do that here?" she asked Krisch.

Krisch replied that the judge should not read too much into the legislature's failure to move the bill out of committee and said the court, by its ruling, could instead provide the legislature with guidance.

"There is some doubt about (the law's) scope and applicability," he said.

Aurigemma later asked Zinn-Rowthorn how he would respond to the notion that there shouldn't be too much weight given to the idea that the bill had not made it out of committee.

Zinn-Rowthorn said he took the inaction as an indication that "the legislature does consider this manslaughter" and doesn't seek to change the law. He repeated the assertion that a court ruling here would not properly define the limits.

"Where do you get terminally ill, but not chronically ill, mentally competent but not mentally incompetent?" he asked.

Aurigemma also heard from the Connecticut Catholic Conference, which is applying to be intervenors in the case should it move forward.

Krisch said he expects Aurigemma to issue a ruling on the motion to dismiss within a couple of months.