Gary Blick v. Division of Criminal Justice.

AuthorBostrom, Barry A.
PositionNota Bene

HELD: The plaintiffs' claims for declaratory judgment and injunction protecting them from prosecution for criminal actions constituting physician-assisted suicide of terminally ill patients are not justiciable because they must be decided through the legislative process, not by the Court.

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief by two Connecticut physicians who asked the Court to allow them to engage in physician-assisted suicide. Specifically, they asked the court to order the defendant State's attorneys not to prosecute them, or any other physician, for manslaughter under Connecticut General Statutes [section] 53a-56 if they provide "aid in dying" by prescribing lethal mediation to competent, terminally ill patients to enable those patients to kill themselves. The defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) the plaintiffs' claims are not ripe; (2) the plaintiffs lack standing; and (3) the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The plaintiffs, Dr. Gary Blick and Dr. Ronald M. Levine, were physicians licensed to practice medicine in Connecticut. Dr. Blick was the Medical and Research Director of CIRCLE Medical, LLC, in Norwalk, and he specialized in infectious disease and the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Prior to forming CIRCLE Medical in 2002, Dr. Blick spent fifteen years practicing internal medicine and treating HIV/AIDS patients in Stamford, and was an attending physician at several area hospitals. Dr. Levine is currently a primary care internist with a practice devoted to providing medical care to the residents of Fairfiled County, and was an attending physician at Greenwich Hospital.

In the course of their medical practices, both doctors regularly treated patients approaching death due to terminal illness. Such patients had no chance of recovery and could expect, at best, only a small degree of symptomatic relief from medication. In some cases, even symptomatic relief was impossible to achieve without the use of terminal sedation, a pharmacological technique that renders the patient unconscious during the days or weeks prior to his or her death. The professional opinion of each of the plaintiffs was that aid in dying would be a medically and ethically appropriate option for those patients who requested it.

The criminal statute at issue, Conn. Gen. Stat. [section] 53a-56 states: "(a) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when ... (2) he intentionally causes or aids another person, other than by force, duress or deception, to commit suicide. (b) Manslaughter in the second degree is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT