Connecticut Senate Judiciary Committee: “Death with Dignity” Act

From a reader:

After all of the hubbub of this past week, I learned that this morning, the Connecticut Senate Judiciary Committee has raised Senate Bill 1138, or the "Death with Dignity" Act.  The bill is basically an assisted suicide bill.

Text of the legislation is available here

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. TJM says:

    There must be something in the water there. They go from bad to worse. Tom

  2. John Enright says:

    What is with these people n CN? I don’t understand it.

  3. Michael Shea says:

    Who introduced this bill?

  4. Ioannes Andreades says:

    Is it any wonder that this is taking place in a state in which the bishops threatened to close down Catholic hospitals if legislation passed requiring all hospitals to make available plan b to any and all rape victims who request it and then agreed to abide by the legislation once it passed? I’m not confident that the bishops can provide the necessary leadership here.

    I filter my water.

  5. Wyatt says:

    It’s even more dense than the last one. Hopefully those from the last rally will still be nearby to rally against this, as well. Also, I hope that they aren’t doing this as part of a plan- get everyone worn out from rallies, then sneak something through when nobody’s got the motivation to stop it. :(

  6. Tom A. says:

    It is my belief that this issue will not generate the level of interest that the last fiasco in CT did. I live here in the Nutmeg state and have never seen the average Catholic in the pew get so upset as they did last week over financial and administrative issues. When it comes to Church doctrine and teachings however, only a handful of Catholics get upset.

  7. DavidJ says:

    Don’t forget the same sex marriage bill:

  8. little gal says:

    “What is with these people in CT?”

    Perhaps an agenda driven by the numbers of gays in the state?

  9. John Enright says:

    little gal: you’re well informed.

  10. Tim says:

    CT already allows same sex civil unions. Now they want to call it marriage. I’m not sure what they feel the distinction is. They can already get benefits from employers and file state taxes jointly. Now it’s the actual ‘title’ of being married. I think part of the issue is that all unions performed by the state should be called civil unions while marriage should be left to religious bodies alone.
    Then again when only men and women were seeking that kind of relationship there wasn’t any reason to call it something different. I really hate being ‘red’ in a ‘blue’ state. It’s getting rather exhausting.

  11. John Enright says:

    Tim: I know exactly what you’re saying. You can call a rock a “rose,” but it’s still a rock.

  12. Frank says:

    A favorite tactic of terrorists is to perform a decoy attack before a major attack to see how the authorities react and to have the authorities waste resources responding to the first attack so they have less resources to respond to the real attack. Attention is also diverted. McDonald withdrew the Trusteeism bill so quickly that it may have been a decoy. And with insufficient time for the Church to call-off its troops it will be more difficult for the Church to respond to this real threat. Remember the boy who cried wolf?

  13. Frank says:

    Hey Tim, correction on your post — CT allows homosexual MARRIAGE — not “just” civil union. The State’s Supreme Court ordered it.

  14. Frank says:

    A favorite tactic of terrorists is to perform a decoy attack before a major attack. Not only is the attention of authorities and the public diverted, but the first attack is monitored closely by the terrorists.

    They watch to see how the authorities react. The first attack has the additional consequence of causing the authorities to waste resources responding to the first attack so they have fewer resources to respond to the real attack.

    Beyond that, those who responded to the first attack are often emotionally worn-out. And if the first attack was prevented, or a false alarm, there is the “boy who cried wolf” effect in place for the real attack.

    Could that be the tactic of those behind the newly-introduced Connecticut “Death with Dignity” or assisted-suicide bill, raised bill 1138, now before Stamford’s Senator Andrew McDonald’s Judiciary Committee?

    The Catholic Church in Connecticut just last Sunday issued a call to action from the pulpits to defeat another bill before the Judiciary Committee requiring priests and bishops to cede control of all Catholic Church assets to lay boards. Now they are alerting local pastors of the appearance of the assisted suicide legislation. The Church strongly opposes assisted-suicide and other forms of euthanasia.

    There is no “conscience clause” in this bill, so physicians and pharmacists who are morally opposed to suicide would nevertheless be required to prescribe the death drugs if a patient requests it. But isn’t the lack of such a clause a predictable outcome? The proponents of the assisted-suicide bill are aware of how the Catholic Church in Connecticut responded under similar circumstances.

    Remember, the terrorist in the opening to this essay who anticipate an opponent’s response based on past actions? Now, remember, the Church’s response last year to the legislation to force Catholic hospitals to administer a potential abortificant?

    Initially, the church threatened to close the Catholic hospitals in the state if the legislation became law. Then, in the opinion of many, the Church caved, by agreeing to a bill without an exception for Catholic hospitals. If the Church’s initial moral stance was abandoned in the “Plan B” matter, might it be a good assumption to think they could again let a law be enacted without a “conscience clause?”

    One would hope the Catholic Church in Connecticut was encouraged and emboldened by its recent success. The victory should bolster their resolve and rectitude to stand tall against this form of euthanasia. But they will likely have a harder time rallying the troops for this battle.

    First, there is the “cry wolf” factor. Several thousand Catholics, at the request of their priests, marched on Hartford last week to protest a bill, which the sponsors, in a tactical move, withdrew hours before. The Church was able to halt three-quarters of the buses planning to descend upon the capital, but the activation of the troops and intense but brief and successful lobbying effort did somewhat deplete a bit of the Church’s political capital, both with the soldiers in the pews and with the legislators.

    Also, the issue this past week was a direct frontal assault on the Catholic Church specifically. Many people will feel less vociferous about a moral issue not specific to the Catholic Church. And this bill is sure to be couched as a matter of choice. (It is only the doctors and pharmacists who will have no choice.) More cynically, the trusteeism bill was about “money” — something few in the Church disagree on.

    Catholics and social conservatives in the Nutmeg state should get used to these battles. Connecticut is becoming a hotbed of liberal activism. It is one of only two states to permit homosexual marriage (Massachusetts being the other). Were the bill to become law, Connecticut would be one of the two or three states to require doctors to prescribe drugs to assist patients in killing themselves. Oregon has an assisted suicide law and the state of Washington passed a referendum in November allowing such a law.

    Additionally, the Judiciary Committee this coming week is considering a “transgender rights” bill. Another bill the committee may pass is a “micro-coding” bill which will have the practical impact of making illegal in Connecticut every currently manufactured firearm now in existence. Face it, Connecticut is becoming a deep blue state. I now understand better the expression, between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Comments are closed.