Jewish Orgs Sound Alarm on Assisted Suicide Bill as NY Governor Considers Signing in Coming Days

Governor Kathy Hochul will make a decision on New York State’s controversial assisted suicide bill, known as the “Medical Aid in Dying” act, which critics slam as a euphemism for legalized,institutional killing, askanim tell Belaaz.

While the bill passed the State Legislature in June, Hochul has yet to decide whether or not to sign it into law, or to make amendments to the legislation. Following a Wednesday meeting between askanim, including Rabbi Nosson Leiter of Help Rescue Our Children, based in Monsey NY, and senior administration officials, it remains unclear which path the Governor will choose, though opponents warn that any enactment of the legislation would create immediate and unfixable dangers for New York’s most vulnerable.

Representatives from the Governor’s office, including Patrick Kwan of Legislative Affairs and Eva Wyner, Director of Jewish Affairs, met with activists on Wednesday but offered no definitive signal on the Governor’s stance. Helaine Jagust of the organization Save Our Sick (S.O.S.), who also met with the Governor’s staff, was instrumental in obtaining the meeting.

According to attendees, the administration presented three distinct possibilities for the coming weeks: the Governor might veto the bill, sign it into law as is, or sign it with a “chapter amendment” agreement to make changes. Although such “chapter amendment” changes generally only take effect later – leaving the original bill in effect in the interim – the staffers claimed that the Governor could potentially render them effective immediately.

Yonasan Teleky, an askan who has been working with various Rabbonim and activists on this and other Klal issues for over a decade, in an interview with Belaaz, described the demeanor of the Governor’s representatives during the meeting as “non-committal and non-inquiring.”

According to Teleky, the officials stated clearly that “she [Hochul] might sign as is, might veto, or might sign with amendments,” noting that specific safeguards rumored to be under consideration, such as videotaped requests or residency requirements, are currently just “rumors” shared from other sources.

Teleky warned that the “chapter amendment” route, where the bill generally becomes law immediately with a promise to fix it later, is fraught with peril. “Without the exact text of the governor’s changes it’s impossible to know what loopholes she left in,” Teleky said.

Rabbi Leiter, a leading advocate against the legislation, for well over a decade, argued that the very fact that amendments are being discussed is revealing of the danger of this bill.
“The fact that Gov. Hochul allegedly considered these amendments suggests that she is at least partially cognizant of the deeply flawed nature of any such legislation,” Rabbi Leiter told Belaaz.

However, Rabbi Leiter emphasized that no amount of additional safeguards could resolve the  dangers inherent in state-sanctioned suicide. “The primary purpose of the meeting was to demonstrate that it is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion, that this it is impossible to render such legislation anything less than inherently and irreconcilably lethal – both for those who wish to die and for those who do not,” he emphasized.

He argued that this applies even under the logic of the bill’s defenders: “Even according to the views of proponents of the bill – who accept the notion that one may assist in killing people who wish to die – this bill is impossible to fix – to the extent that people that do not truly want to die would be protected. Thus, this bill perpetrates the ultimate subversion of autonomy – the autonomy over the choice to remain alive – in the very name of autonomy itself”.

Critics point to specific, “gaping” holes in the legislation that remain unaddressed by proposed fixes. Teleky provided a detailed critique of the operational failures that would likely persist even if amendments were signed.

No Retrieval Process: “Even with the changes it is rumored the governor will make, once the patient has been approved for the poison, there is no process by which the poison can be taken away from them even if the original doctors, and mental health professional who originally deemed the patient fit to request poison currently deem the patient mentally unfit”.

Redefining Capacity: The bill’s definitions fail to address mental illness. “The bill’s official stated definition of ‘decision making capacity’ would not include depression, thus the ‘hechsher’ of the psychiatrist wouldn’t cover the most important areas,” Teleky said.

Silencing Patients’ Doctors: Teleky noted a disturbing lack of recourse for the patient’s personal psychiatrist. “There is no way for a patient’s long-term psychiatrist – or, for that matter, the family – to voice their objections to the evaluating psychiatrist’s psychological evaluation of the mental status of the patient who likely only met the patient once, or voice their concerns of the patient being coerced.”

The AI Threat: Proposals to require video evidence of a request were dismissed as obsolete and dangerous. “Videos only show what is in front of them and won’t show coercion. Additionally, AI video fakes look very realistic today, and will look better in the future.”

Fraud and Pharmacy Oversight: Teleky highlighted that “This bill carries no specific counter-measures against fraud, despite its life-ending consequences,” and criticized the lack of checks at the final stage. “This bill has zero oversight, in any way – whatsoever – for the pharmacists. For example, it does not even demand the pharmacist consult with the doctor prior to  dispensing the poison”.

Beyond the technical flaws, opponents argue the bill represents a fundamental corruption of the medical profession.

“This bill redefines the word ‘medicine,’” Teleky stated. “Medicine always means a drug that lessens the disease or symptoms. This bill calls the poison ‘medicine’ – warping not only the role of the doctor – but also the drugs they prescribe.”

This sentiment was echoed in an open letter to Governor Hochul penned by Rabbi Shlomo Brody of Ematai and Rabbi Dr. Aaron Glatt, MD. They urged a veto, stating, “Physician-assisted suicide is a distortion of this great calling… Healthcare professionals did not enter this great field for the sake of actively helping people die.”

The uncertainty in Albany comes amid a wave of opposition from Jewish and other religious organizations.

Agudath Israel of America warned that “financial pressures can lead patients to make irreversible decisions,” noting that misdiagnoses are common and family influence can be deadly.

The Orthodox Union called the bill a “moral and practical failure” that violates the sanctity of life.

The Vaad HaRabbonim of Queens had also urged the public to oppose this legislation, prior to passage in the State Senate, for similar reasons.

The Rabbinical Alliance of America stated that “No individual, physician, or legislative body has the moral right to intentionally end a human life,” warning that the state risks “redefining medicine in ways that fundamentally contradict its healing mission”.

The dangers of a medical system oriented toward death were highlighted by Rabbi Benzion Lesser of Chayim Aruchim at an Agudah event earlier this year. He recounted a case where a non-observant Jewish woman’s family sought to remove her from life support. An observant Jewish doctor initially refused to intervene to save her, citing halachic misconceptions that she was a “treifah.” Only after extensive counseling did the physician agree to treat her. The woman eventually recovered and was able to thank visitors for the “miracle” of her survival; a survival that opponents of the MAID bill say might not have occurred under a legal framework that allows assisted suicide.

Decades ago, Rabbi Aaron D. Twerski warned that the “right to die” would eventually devolve into a duty to die. “Today, it’s a free choice issue,” he said. “Tomorrow, Blue Cross will refuse to pay for it… and hospitals will refuse to provide the beds.”