Vermont's Residency Requirement has been Removed from Act 39
House Bill 190, passed into law May 2, 2023 eliminated the in-state residency requirement from Act 39, effective immediately.
Lawsuit Settlement - March 14, 2023: Patient Choices Vermont (PCV) is pleased to announce the settlement of the lawsuit filed last August challenging the constitutionality of the Vermont residency requirement in our medical aid in dying law (Act 39). The settlement means that Connecticut patient Lynda Shannon Bluestein, who is terminally ill, will now have access to medical aid in dying in Vermont if and when she decides to pursue this option. The settlement also stipulates that the state will support removal of the residency requirement from the law. The following video describes the lawsuit and the overall the goal of making all medical services available regardless of a person's residency.
|
Lawsuit: On August 25, 2022, Patient Choices Vermont (PCV) Board Member Dr. Diana Barnard and her patient, Connecticut resident Lynda Bluestein, in collaboration with the national organization Compassion & Choices, filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the residency requirement contained in Vermont's Act 39.
Act 39, like similar laws in other states across the country, makes end-of-life choice available only to residents of Vermont. Lynda Bluestein has terminal cancer, and yet cannot choose medical aid in dying because it is not legal in her home state of Connecticut. Medical aid in dying is the only medical service that is subject to such a residency restriction. |
Dr. Diana Barnard
|
Lynda Bluestein
|
As explained by Vermont lawyer Ron Shems, “Three different provisions of the United States Constitution prohibit a state from discriminating against residents from other states. They are the Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. These three provisions boil down to prohibiting Vermont from discriminating against residents from out of state. That is why we brought a civil rights case here in Vermont to declare invalid the residency requirement in the medical aid in dying statute.”
A recent lawsuit settlement in Oregon creates an important precedent for deleting the residency requirement in Vermont. The Oregon settlement requires officials there to 1) issue directives halting enforcement of the unconstitutional residency provision, and 2) initiate a legislative request to permanently remove the residency language from the law.
Settlement of the Vermont lawsuit means that Ms. Bluestein will be able to request medical aid in dying in Vermont. It also meant that state officials advocated for removal of the residency requirement during legislative consideration.
Eliminating the residency requirement has made Act 39 fundamentally more fair. It has the potential to influence how aid in dying can be accessed nationwide. We look forward to to the day when all individuals seeking end-of-life choice can access the services they want.
Listen to more about this case on Vermont Edition.
A recent lawsuit settlement in Oregon creates an important precedent for deleting the residency requirement in Vermont. The Oregon settlement requires officials there to 1) issue directives halting enforcement of the unconstitutional residency provision, and 2) initiate a legislative request to permanently remove the residency language from the law.
Settlement of the Vermont lawsuit means that Ms. Bluestein will be able to request medical aid in dying in Vermont. It also meant that state officials advocated for removal of the residency requirement during legislative consideration.
Eliminating the residency requirement has made Act 39 fundamentally more fair. It has the potential to influence how aid in dying can be accessed nationwide. We look forward to to the day when all individuals seeking end-of-life choice can access the services they want.
Listen to more about this case on Vermont Edition.