Attorney O's Midnight Musings: Connecticut Law » General Stuff

If A Physician Aids a Terminally Ill Patient in Dying, Is It Assisted-Suicide or Not?

Administrator — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:41:08 +0000

Under current Connecticut law, “A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when … he intentionally causes or aids another person, other than by force, duress or deception, to commit suicide.” Two Fairfield County doctors who have been asked by their terminally ill patients to prescribe medications to help them die peacefully, are asking the court if doing so would make them guilty of a crime if they did so. The core of the doctors’ lawsuit is to ask the court interpret the word “suicide.”

The issue of physicians aiding terminally ill patients in dying has been under debate for many years in other states across the country. Oregon, Washington and Montana currently have “Death with Dignity” laws allowing physicians to prescribe medication for terminally ill patients who wish to die peacefully. Connecticut has thus far resisted passing such a law.

On one side of the argument is the belief that aiding anyone in dying, whether they are terminally ill and in excruciating pain or not, amounts to assisted suicide. Some opponents of “Death with Dignity” laws have claimed that allowing physicians to prescribe medications to aid people in dying will open the floodgates for scores of elderly, disenfranchised, lonely or depressed people to obtain such prescriptions to commit suicide with the assistance of their doctors.

Those on the other side of the debate argue that if a person is terminally ill — and is going to die with or without the help of a physician — then aiding that person in dying without having to endure excruciating pain is not assisted suicide. The physician’s role in such cases is to aid a patient in dying with dignity and without having to endure unbearable pain.

And there is a difference. According Denver-based Compassion and Choices, an end-of-life advocacy group:

“Those facing a terminal illness do not want to die but—by definition—are dying. They are facing an imminent death and want the option to avoid unbearable suffering. Terminally ill patients who legally access the Death with Dignity Act find the word ’suicide’ offensive and inaccurate. Many have publicly expressed that the term is hurtful and derogatory to them and their loved ones.”

A Connecticut Court will have an opportunity to weigh in on the debate. It will be interesting to see which turn this case takes.

For your information, I have posted links to the “Death with Dignity” laws in other states:

The Washington Death with Dignity Act

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act

Baxter v. Montana (the court decision that allowed “Death with Dignity” in Montana)

Personal Identifying Info to be Omitted or Redacted from Court Records in Civil and Family Matters

Administrator — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:30:41 +0000

Effective January 1, 2010, The Honorable Lynda B. Munro, Chief Administrative Judge of the Family Division has issued the following standing order:

All information required on Judicial Branch Superior Court Family and Family Support Magistrate Court forms that constitutes personally identifying information as defined by Connecticut Practice Book section 4-7(a) is deemed by this order to be within the section 4-7(b) exception to redaction requirements as information “…otherwise required by law or ordered by the court.”

The text of Connecticut Practice Book section 4-7, which also becomes effective on January 1, 2010, states:

(a) As used in this section, personal identifying information means an individual’s date of birth, mother’s maiden name, motor vehicle operator’s license number, Social Security number, other government-issued identification number, health insurance identification number, or any financial account number, security code or personal identification number (PIN ). For purposes of this section, a person’s name is specifically excluded from this definition of personal identifying information.

(b) Persons who file documents with the court shall not include personal identifying information, and if any such personal identifying information is present, shall redact it from any documents filed with the court, whether filed in electronic or in paper format, unless otherwise required by law or ordered by the court.

(c) The responsibility for omitting or redacting personal identifying information rests solely with the person filing the document. The court or the clerk of the court need not review any filed document for compliance with this rule.

[Source: Connecticut Judicial Branch website]

Will Connecticut Allow the Sale of Alcohol on Sundays?

Administrator — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 05:13:26 +0000

On Thursday, a Connecticut legislative committee reopened the issue of whether or not to allow the sale of alcohol in package stores and supermarkets on Sundays. The decision would be based upon supposed tax revenue the State believes it would collect — some $7.5 to $8 million is the projection. However, the Connecticut Package Stores Association has been against the move, claiming that the extra day of sales would not generate extra revenue. Instead, it would merely spread sales over seven days instead of six.

At present, Connecticut is the state in New England that bans liquor sales on Sundays. It is joined by 13 other states.

Read: Issue Of Sunday Alcohol Sales Rises Again In Legislature

[Source: Hartford Courant]

State Budget Cuts May Force Courthouse Closings

Administrator — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:08:29 +0000

The Governor’s veto of one of the bills approved by the legislature will cut the Judicial Branch budget by $7.8 million over the next two years, which may force the closing of at least three courthouses in Connecticut.

Read “Budget Cuts Likely Will Force Courthouse Closings“ for more information.

[Source: Connecticut Law Tribune]

Lawyers Must Know The Identities of Their Clients

Administrator — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:04:52 +0000

It’s par for the course in this ever-changing world of ours that people will find ways to scam other people. I’m providing a link below to an article in the Connecticut Law Tribune detailing two forged signatures on mortgages that landed the attorney in hot water for not checking the IDs of his clients prior to allowing them to sign on the dotted line at closing time.

Lesson to all: Lawyers should check the IDs of all clients prior to signature time. Clients should not be offended when an attorney asks for an ID. Checking IDs benefits everyone.

Please follow this link to read the full article:
Imposter Clients Land Attorneys In Hot Water

[Source: Connecticut Law Tribune]

Occupational Tax for Lawyers and Court Fees Increase!

Administrator — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:18:13 +0000

Yikes! The annual occupational tax for private sector attorneys was just raised from $450 to $565! Public sector attorneys (such as Public Defenders) are still exempt from the tax. Court fees were increased in July but the legislature recently added some new increases to the mix. For more information, please see the Connecticut Law Tribune article.

[Source: Connecticut Law Tribune]

Proposed Law in Honolulu Would Ban Bad Odors on Public Transit

Administrator — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:07:00 +0000

I happened upon this story quite by accident and couldn’t resist passing it on.

Two members of the Honolulu City Council, Rod Tam and Nestor Garcia, co-sponsored a transit bill that includes an anti-odor section that would make it illegal to “bring onto transit property odors that unreasonably disturb others or interfere with their use of the transit system, whether such odors arise from one’s person, clothes, articles, accompanying animal or any other source.” [Bill 59-09, Sec. 13-3.1 (13)].

Just how “smelly” is smelly? The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is concerned that the bill is too broadly worded. “Vague laws — like the proposed ‘odor’ ban — open the door to discriminatory enforcement based on an officer’s individual prejudices,” said Daniel Gluck, of ACLU Hawaii.

Under the proposed bill, a person found in violation the ordinance may be ordered to leave transit property and issued a summons or citation by a police officer. Persons convicted of such an offense could be fined up to $500, spend up to six months in jail, or be both fined and jailed.

[Source: honoluluadvertiser.com]

I’ve Arrived!

Administrator — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:19:54 +0000

Hello and welcome to the debut of Attorney O’s Midnight Musings. At the behest of several of my friends and colleagues, I decided to venture into the world of blogging. They all figured that because I don’t sleep at night, I might as well make productive use of my time. Personally, I think it’s because they’ve grown tired of my 3 a.m. e-mails.

The intent here is to discuss legal issues as they pertain to Connecticut law, the state in which I currently practice. I should mention that I probably won’t be able to resist posting about legal issues from other states (even if it’s only to complain). Sometimes the news is just too irresistible to ignore.

I’m reasonably sure that I’ll also post about things that have absolutely nothing to do with law (meaning that I’ll vent or rant or rave once in a while and hope you’ll indulge me). Perhaps I’ll throw in an aside or two for good measure, just to see who happens to be paying attention. Actually, I’m likely to post about whatever happens to interest me at any given moment.

While I’d love to post every day, the reality of life and a law practice means that I will likely not meet that goal. So please forgive me in advance if I fall silent for a few days (especially during summer vacation). I haven’t fallen off the planet, I’ve probably just fallen asleep.