Judge shields Catholic ministries from New York assisted-dying law
A federal judge has ordered New York not to enforce parts of its new Medical Aid in Dying Act against four orders of Catholic nuns and several Catholic health care ministries while their lawsuit challenging the law proceeds, after the state agreed not to apply the disputed provisions to them for now.
The Catholic plaintiffs argue the law would force them to take part in end-of-life practices that violate their faith, including counseling patients about assisted suicide, helping them qualify for lethal drugs and directing them to providers willing to prescribe the drugs. State officials and supporters say the measure gives terminally ill adults another option in their final days and includes safeguards to protect patients.
The law, signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul on Feb. 6 and scheduled to take effect Aug. 5, allows eligible New York residents who are terminally ill, mentally capable and expected to live six months or less to request medication they may self-administer to end their lives. The governor’s office said the legislation includes additional safeguards, including a five-day waiting period, a recorded oral request, an in-person initial physician evaluation in most cases and a mandatory mental health evaluation.
Medical aid in dying is already authorized in several other U.S. jurisdictions, including California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Washington, D.C. Montana’s authorization stems from a state Supreme Court ruling rather than a detailed statute, and some recently enacted laws have separate effective dates.
The lawsuit, filed July 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, was brought by four orders of Catholic nuns, the Diocese of Rockville Centre and several Catholic health care ministries. The plaintiffs include the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, the Missionary Sisters of St. Benedict and the Little Sisters of the Poor. They say their ministries have long provided medical care, prayer and accompaniment for sick, elderly and dying New Yorkers and contend the law places them in conflict with their religious mission.
Becket, the religious-liberty law firm representing the plaintiffs, said New York agreed the state would not apply the law to those ministries while the court considers their request for a preliminary injunction. A federal judge entered a temporary order reflecting that agreement, and a hearing previously scheduled for Aug. 3 on Becket’s motion for a preliminary injunction is expected to be rescheduled.
The plaintiffs say the law would require them to counsel patients about assisted suicide, help determine whether patients qualify for lethal drugs and direct patients to providers willing to prescribe them. Becket said ministries that refused to comply could face fines and possible criminal penalties.
Supporters of the law describe it as a limited option for terminally ill adults seeking control over suffering at the end of life.
In a statement announcing her signature, Hochul said New York would protect “the right for the terminally ill to peacefully and comfortably end their lives with dignity and compassion,” citing her experience watching her mother suffer from ALS.
Fr. Thomas Massaro, a Jesuit priest and moral theologian at Fordham University, said in a Straight Arrow interview that Catholic teaching clearly prohibits assisted suicide.
“In the Catholic understanding, it’s not a human prerogative to end life; it’s God’s prerogative,” Massaro said. “So only God can decide when you should die, so to interfere with that, to hasten death, is against Catholic teaching.”
Massaro said the dispute reflects a broader pattern in which Catholic leaders continue to argue for church teaching even after losing public-policy debates. He said Catholic bishops have consistently opposed laws allowing assisted death and are likely to counsel Catholics against using them.
“We think it’s misguided,” he said of laws contrary to Catholic teaching. “But if it’s on the books, people are free to do it.”
Kelly Gillespie, a professor and director of the Center for Health Law Studies at Saint Louis University School of Law, said in a Straight Arrow interview that the New York law contains conscience provisions allowing individual providers and religious institutions to refuse to participate. She said the law also appears to let religious organizations prohibit the practice within their institutions and include such limits in physician contracts.
But Gillespie said disputes may arise over whether transfer or information requirements amount to participation.
“We’ve got conflicting rights and duties and obligations that the law is trying to sort out,” she said. Gillespie added that courts have become more receptive to religious-liberty claims in recent years, meaning the Catholic plaintiffs may have a stronger chance of prevailing than they might have had a decade ago.
Under the law, patients must be adults, New York residents and capable of making informed decisions. A terminal diagnosis must be medically confirmed, and the patient must be expected to die within six months. The law requires review by an attending physician, a consulting physician and a mental health professional before medication may be prescribed. Patients may rescind the request or choose not to take the medication at any time.
The New York State Department of Health says medical aid in dying will be available beginning Aug. 5 and has published guidance and forms for patients and health care providers. A federal judge on July 30 temporarily barred enforcement of disputed provisions against the Catholic ministries while the lawsuit proceeds, according to court reporting and the public docket.
The case also comes amid opposition from Catholic bishops and disability-rights advocates. The New York State Catholic Conference has said physician-assisted suicide conflicts with Catholic teaching on the dignity of human life from conception until natural death. Some disability-rights advocates have warned that the law could create pressure on people who are seriously ill or disabled, while supporters say eligibility limits and safeguards are designed to protect against coercion.
Gillespie said those concerns are part of the public debate but noted that available data from states with similar laws has not shown runaway use. “Most people typically still don’t choose this,” she said. Still, she said, opponents’ concerns about the value placed on people with disabilities and those nearing death are “not an unreasonable concern.”
Round out your reading
- What does low water at the Hoover Dam mean for power in the American West?
- Could GLP-1 drugs become the first longevity medications? Scientists think it’s possible.
- ChatGPT told him he wouldn’t face charges. Then came the arrest warrant.
- How one small city built a second act as a bio hub inside empty cigarette factories.
- If permanent Daylight Saving Time is so popular, why is it dead in the Senate?
Ella Rae Greene, Editor In Chief
