[Music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC, and for the ninth year in a row, a group is lobbying for the New York state legislature to pass the Medical Aid in Dying Act, which would allow physicians to prescribe life-ending medication to terminally ill adults. In previous years, the legislature has declined to take up a vote on the bill, but there seems to be more momentum for it this year before the legislature adjourns for the year next month. Both the New York State Bar Association and the Medical Society for the State of New York, that's the big medical group that represents around 20,000 doctors, have announced their support for it just in the last few months. If it passes, New York would become the 11th state to allow for Medical Aid in Dying. As many are aware, it's been legal in Oregon for 25 years. Closer to home, Vermont passed a similar bill in 2013, and New Jersey in 2019. It's looking more likely than ever that the legislature might vote on it before the session ends next month.

Here to take us through the bill and make their case are David Leven, executive director emeritus and senior consultant to the End of Life Choices New York organization, and Corinne Carey, senior campaign director for the group Compassion & Choices. David and Corinne, thanks very much for joining us. Welcome to WNYC Today.

David Leven: Thank you for having us, Brian.

Corinne Carey: Thanks for having us.

Brian Lehrer: Just to get some language straight at the beginning, Corinne, the publicist for your organization wrote that they implore us to not introduce the segment with the term assisted suicide or physician assisted suicide, the negative connotation as it was described, unless also using the term death with dignity, the positive connotation. For people who have heard this over a period of years as physician assisted suicide, why is that out? Is there a distinction between that and what you're calling death with dignity?

Corinne Carey: Sure. Thanks for asking this question. We see describing this measure as suicide, no matter how you put it, physician assisted suicide or assisted suicide, as very polarizing language. We concede that the term death with dignity is also polarizing language. What we're asking the media to do is just simply describe what this bill would do, and that is Medical Aid in Dying. There are several reasons why this is not at all suicide, and I'll just speak to two of them. One, it's not physician assisted suicide because the physician is not assisting someone. From start to finish, it is the terminally ill person who's in charge from the initial request to actually ingesting the medication on their own without the assistance of a physician. Then, second, I think it's really important to understand that people who ask for Medical Aid in Dying and ultimately use it are not suicidal. They would do anything to continue living much longer, but it is a terminal illness that's taking their lives, not a suicidal thought.

Brian Lehrer: David, do you want to continue on that and continue, maybe, with the distinction between physician assisted and medical aid? Because you don't like to say physician assisted, but the bill is called Medical Aid in Dying.

David Leven: Yes, there are significant stark differences between those who die by suicide and those who die by Medical Aid in Dying. Corinne has mentioned a couple of them, but people who die by suicide usually have a mental illness. They could continue to live, but they choose not to. Oftentimes, they die impulsively and violently, and those deaths are generally tragic. In contrast, Medical Aid in Dying is only available to those who are terminally ill, as Corinne mentioned, those who have six months or less to live, as determined by two different doctors and who also have decision-making capacity, as also determined by two different doctors. The process usually takes at least several weeks from the time that a request is made for a prescription of these life-ending medicines, which the patient has to take him or herself, if they're taking at all. About 35% of those who get the prescription never take them. Also, Medical Aid in Dying almost always occurs where there is family support and loved ones are surrounding the dying person either at the time of death or just before the time of death.

The term assisted suicide is rejected by numerous organizations, including the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, as well as in all of these state laws which authorize Medical Aid in Dying.

Brian Lehrer: When you say the individual has to be of sufficiently sound mind to make the decision, that I guess would preclude anybody with a dementia diagnosis from making that decision, and I guess it would also preclude family members from making that decision for anybody else.

David Leven: That is correct.

Corinne Carey: That's right. From start to finish, as I mentioned, the request has to be made by the person who is dying. This is not a decision that can be made by a health proxy or guardian, a family member, or a healthcare professional.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we want you to help us report this story, and you're also invited to share your opinions on this. Doctors, have you provided Medical Aid in Dying? Any physician listening right now who's done this? New Jersey, obviously in our listening area, as New York and New Jersey public Radio, New Jersey has it since 2019, New York is still debating it, or if you've done it in any other state, or if you've done it, let's say, not officially under the law, even in New York state, because it was the most compassionate way that you thought you could help one of your patients. Doctors, tell us your stories. 212-433-WNYC. We know there are some doctors who would not do this. You can tell us your objections or the choice that you want preserved for yourself under this law if it does pass. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Or any family members of people who have chosen this in states where it's legal. We also want to hear from people who are against. Tell us why. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692.

Has anybody had a bad experience with it in New Jersey or Vermont or Oregon or anywhere else? 212-433-9692, as New York decides whether to become the 11th state with such a bill being called in the legislature, the Medical Aid in Dying Act. Call or text 212-433-9692. You are invited in for our two guests, activists for the bill, Corinne Carey, senior campaign director for the group Compassion & Choices, and David Leven, executive director emeritus and senior consultant to End of Life Choices New York. I mentioned in the intro, Corinne, that there is more broad support for the bill than there has been in years past. In February, the group Death with Dignity, another advocacy group, came out with a poll saying that more than 70% of New Yorkers support it, and as I mentioned specifically in the intro, both the New York Bar Association, and I don't know what lawyers have to do with it. You could tell us why we care what lawyers think.

The Medical Society for the State of New York, the big doctors group that represents 20,000 doctors, they also released a statement of support this year, which they have not done in the past. What changed, especially with regard to the doctors?

Corinne Carey: Well, I think that, as you mentioned, we're approaching year 10 of this campaign, and the evidence could not be more clear. I think it's difficult sometimes for people to wrap their minds around the absence of evidence, but you had asked callers to call in if there had been any problems with accessing this law in New Jersey or in any other state. The fact is, after nearly a quarter of a century of experience with these laws in other jurisdictions across the country, there's not been a single instance where a doctor has been prosecuted or brought to court. No one has been denied life insurance. There simply haven't been any problems because these bills are carefully crafted to protect vulnerable people and to put the autonomy in the hands with whom it belongs, and that's the dying person. You mentioned something else about doctors that may not be willing to participate, and that's one of the strongest safeguards in the bill, is that it is truly voluntary for everyone. No patient, no doctor, no hospice, no facility has to participate in this law.

When it passes, and I believe it will, it's just a matter of how much more suffering we're willing to tolerate in this state, nothing changes for people who don't agree with medical aid in dying, but everything changes for a person who's suffering at the end of life. You also mentioned why are lawyers important here, why did they decide to weigh in? Well, the New York State Bar Association convened a task force last June, and they studied the issue for more than six months, talking to people with experience in other states, talking to the experts, and they issued a report on their findings several months ago. I think that's why this is important here, is that this is a group that took a deep dive, studied the issue, heard from opponents and supporters, and came out and supported this bill.

David Leven: Within the New York State Bar Association, there was overwhelming support for the resolution to support the Medical Aid In Dying Act. Also, speaking of doctors, Brian, you should know that doctors across the nation support medical aid in dying by a two-to-one margin according to yearly Medscape polls. In New York when doctors studied the Medical Aid In Dying Act, they supported it by a three-to-one margin, some 67% in favor, only 19% opposed. The bill has overwhelming support, as you mentioned, from the public, from doctors, from lawyers, and when you talk about the public being overwhelmingly supportive, that cuts across virtually all demographics from race to religion to political affiliation to age. It just doesn't matter. There is just widespread support for medical aid in dying once people understand what it does and what it doesn't do. Of course, we already have in this country and in New York state laws that allow people to accelerate their deaths by other means, people can decide never to start or to stop what are considered to be life sustaining or life prolonging treatments.

Those could include ventilators, feeding tubes, dialysis, antibiotics, pacemakers. Patients can decide whenever they want, if their suffering becomes unbearable, to, again, never start or to stop those treatments. This is just another option along the continuum of options that already exist for people to make their own decisions as a matter of bodily autonomy as to when their suffering becomes so intolerable, they feel that they can no longer go on living.

Brian Lehrer: This is interesting. As I look at our caller board, we've been talking in the last few minutes about the Medical Society of New York changing its position this year and coming out for it, the group that represents doctors, and we have on our phone lines, Dr. Charles Lopresto, who says he's the chair for the Medical Society of New York Queens Chapter. Let's hear what he has to say. Dr. Lopresto, thank you for calling in. You're on WNYC.

Dr. Charles Lopresto: Yes. Hi, Brian, and hi to your guest. I'm a frequent listener, so happy to be on. I saw the topic here and I said I might as well call in. I have some experience with this. Just a slight correction, so I'm presently the President of the Medical Society of the County of Queens. That's our county Medical Society, and I was the chair of the Reference Committee for Public Health and Education on the Medical Society of the State of New York. That was the reference committee that reviewed the policy that was the Medical Aid In Dying policy that was passed by the State Medical Society last month. In my role as the chair, I oversaw the debate of the physicians throughout the state on this issue and was ultimately responsible for offering a recommendation for this policy to pass within our state medical society. I just wanted to-- [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: I'm very grateful that you called in with that context. My first question to you, and obviously, you can say whatever you want, but what people may be wondering out there in radioland is what changed from last year to this year.

Dr. Charles Lopresto: Right. This is a great question. From my perspective as the chair of the reference committee overseeing this debate, what I heard was frankly, very little debate on this issue based on how it was presently written and presented to our state medical society. I maybe heard one or two voices that were the old-school way of thinking about medicine, back from the time of Hippocrates, first do no harm, that type of train of thought. The thing I think that stood out this year in terms of its introduction before the State Medical Society was the clause that physicians can choose to opt in or opt out of this practice. I think when it comes to a policy-making body, like a state medical society, sometimes it's hard to please everyone, and things get tossed aside to different committees to study and so on and don't get passed through as policy. When we see a clause like that included in the language, which we understand is also included in the legislation pending before the state Senate and Assembly, we're more likely to support it.

I think it went through this year a lot easier because of the inclusion of that type of idea.

Brian Lehrer: Let me throw at you one of the criticisms that's out there that comes from the disability community or maybe aspects of the disability community groups within the larger disability community about coercion and abuse. Some worry that people with disabilities may be pressured by family or even insurance companies to choose medical aid in dying to end the hardship of the family members who are taking care of them or in the case of the insurance companies to stop having to pay their medical bills. What's your response to that concern?

Dr. Charles Lopresto: Well, I won't speak as an individual, but based on what I've heard from the debate that I oversaw, I think the critical element here is that the patient has to make their own decision. They have to be able to understand this decision and have to be in a state to make it theirself. There's no caregiver or a surrogate that makes a decision for them. Additionally, they have to have a grim prognosis, six months or less. The idea that somebody's going to be going on and on and taking up medical resources for a prolonged period of time, I don't see that happening. These are very narrow circumstances where this type of procedure would be provided. I think, again, the physicians for the State of New York have seen that this year. Whereas in the past, we had policy dating back to 1992, I believe it was, on this issue that was very different in its language. It was that other type of language that you discussed in your introduction. It was euthanasia and physician assisted suicide that we were against at that time, that policy that was reversed.

The fact that this is a much more narrower type of idea and a more modern approach to it I believe was what allowed us to change our policy.

Brian Lehrer: Dr. Lopresto, thank you for weighing in as a newsmaker on this. We really appreciate it. We'll continue in a minute. Brian Lehrer on WNYC.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we continue to talk about the Medical Aid In Dying Act. It's not an act yet, it's a bill that's before the New York State Legislature. This is the ninth year in a row that it's come up. It obviously has not gotten passed or we wouldn't still be talking about it as a proposed piece of legislation. Some people are saying it has a better chance this year before the season ends for the New York State legislature next month, partly because as we heard from our previous caller, the Medical Society of New York, which represents 20,000 doctors in New York, has changed its position this year and come out for it, so has the New York Bar Association. We're talking with two advocates for this bill. They are David Leven, Executive Director Emeritus and Senior Consultant to End of Life Choices New York, and Corinne Carey, senior campaign director for the group Compassion & Choices.

Brian Lehrer: Let me read you a text, David, that came in from an opponent of the bill, or at least someone who isn't convinced. It says, problems with the bill, transparency around valuation for hospitals to push for people to close their lives out [inaudible 00:19:10] six months, vecause you can do this if you have a diagnosis of six months or less to live, six months will produce funds which are lost in caring for firing people. Then, we can discuss the patient's decision power. I have a number of texts coming in that use the word transparency. Do you understand what the transparency claim is from opponents of this bill?

David Leven: I'm not sure if I-- [crosstalk]

Corinne Carey: Actually-- [crosstalk]

David Leven: Go ahead, Corinne.

Corinne Carey: Yes, I've never heard that before. I'm not really sure what the question is. There's a lot of reporting that's attached to this bill. If someone requests medical aid in dying, there needs to be a note in the medical record, and then there's a report sent to the legislature by the Department of Health, physicians participating need to report to the Health Department, and then that data is consolidated and given to the legislature as an annual report like every other state that has authorized this through the legislature. I'm not sure what the claim of lack of transparency might be here.

David Leven: I'm not either, Brian. However, the bill has so many safeguards and guardrails to ensure that the process works smoothly just from the start where the patient must ask a doctor orally and also put something in written request for the medications. The written request has to be witnessed by two different witnesses, neither of whom can be a relative of the patient or someone who might benefit by the patient's estate or a healthcare agent or anyone else that's involved in the care of the patient. There is a lot of transparency in the bill and a lot of requirements, and those don't really exist statutorily for other ways in which death may be accelerated, as I mentioned before, the stopping or never starting life sustaining treatments, or also voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, which is an alternative to medical aid in dying, but not a great option generally for people who would prefer to have medical aid in dying because the process can take 10 days to two weeks.

Whereas medical aid in dying, which has been proven to be a safe, effective, and ethical medical option for people who are dying, usually can be done pretty quickly where people die within hours or even a half hour after they've taken the medication.

Brian Lehrer: As we talk about the Medical Aid in Dying Act before the legislature now in New York, a version of it already passed five years ago in New Jersey. Here's Donald in Manhattan, who has some personal experience with this. Donald, you're on WNYC. Thank you so much for calling in.

Donald: Yes, hello. I enjoy your show very much.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you.

Donald: Such a law has been legal in Canada all across the country, I believe at least two years, maybe three. I have had two cousins who-- is the phrase take advantage? Anyway, I just think it's the best thing. I think it's the way things should be to have that law. It's very simple.

Brian Lehrer: Can you-- [crosstalk]

Donald: That's what we do with our German shepherds that are sick. Is it not? Anyway-- [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Gee, I don't know if that analogy is going to be convincing or off putting.

Donald: No, probably not. [chuckles]

Brian Lehrer: Can you describe anything more about how your cousins in Canada went or how that procedure, if procedure is the right word, went at the end of their lives, whether or not you were at their bedsides? Maybe some loved ones who were described it in some way.

Donald: I was here, Helen was in British Columbia, and yes, her two daughters were with her, and I talked to Helen every week pretty much. She was just going downhill fast. I think intelligent woman, she was a university professor, and it was a relief. It was just horrible to hear her suffering. I think it's a good thing to do, to have as a law.

Brian Lehrer: Donald, thank you very much for sharing your experience. I think we have an opponent on the phone. Dan in Bridgewater, you're on WNYC. Hi, Dan.

Dan: Hi. This is really crazy. The insurance companies decide what treatments you're going to get, so the hospital has to get the approval of the insurance companies. The insurance companies don't approve it, and you can't pay for it, you don't get it. Really, let's look at what is the essence of this thing, is that physicians don't want to be caught up in a situation where they keep sending patients to hospice and they're left with a burden that could have, should have, would've, something else could have possibly changed the situation. The situation in hospice is deplorable. I don't know if any of you know what that's like and the limitations that they have. I don't think any patient ever wants to die unless somebody's convinced him, usually a medical professional, that there's absolutely nothing that can be done for him or her. Very often, that decision is stupidly made and economically made.

I think before you start looking at this as an emotional release and so on, be a little more real and realize that when most people die, because the insurance company didn't think it was worth doing the procedure, and the hospital was not going to get stuck with the procedure, so the person ends up in hospice.

Brian Lehrer: Dan, thank you very much. Corinne, do you want to respond to any of that? I guess the core of his theory there is that more people could be having their lives prolonged with decent quality of life if only insurance companies would cover the cost of the treatments.

Corinne Carey: Well, look, a lot was said by that previous caller about the state of hospice and many other things, but I'll address the health insurance question this way. We do have a broken healthcare payment system in this country right now. There's no question about it. If the caller is talking about New York, it happens every day that people are denied the cost of coverage for treatment. The fact is this issue is a total red herring because first of all, everyone dies. None of us are getting out of here alive, as it were. The idea that we can [unintelligible 00:26:25] death by providing treatment always and everywhere, it's just not the case. People are dying, and this bill is for the dying. The bill has several safeguards built into it that prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for the cost of care that they would have covered absent a Medical Aid in Dying law. No insurance company can look at the availability of medical aid in dying and say, because this other option exists, we're not going to pay for the cost of your treatment.

Just a reminder and to underline something that David spoke about a few minutes ago, someone has to be terminally ill. That is defined under the bill as an illness that is incurable and irreversible. We're talking about people for whom there are no treatment options left, and sadly, that is the case, that will happen to all of us.

David Leven: If I may add to what Corinne said about hospice, about those who die by medical aid in dying are far more likely to receive hospice care than others. Over 90% on average in Oregon who die by medical aid in dying are actually enrolled in hospice and are getting what's considered to be the gold standard of end of life care, the best care possible, but as stated by Anne Jackson, who was the former CEO of the Oregon Hospice Association, she came to realize that, and what she said was that I came to realize that hospice and palliative care professionals could not meet all the needs of the dying. Oregon is consistently rated among the best states for providing hospice and palliative care, yet even with the best care, she said, some patients still suffer intolerably and want the option to take prescription medication to die painlessly, peacefully, and quickly in their sleep.

Brian Lehrer: I don't know what the caller's criticism of hospice was based on. That would probably have to be a whole other separate segment, but another thing that comes up is worries that a doctor might steer poorer or uninsured patients, we talked about insurance, but poorer patients who are disproportionately non-white away from more expensive care options. That's-

Corinne Carey: Well, first of all, the Hastings Center-- [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: -something that comes up-- [crosstalk] Corinne, go ahead.

Corinne Carey: Yes. I was going to say the Hastings Center, which is a leading center of ethics based right here in New York, put out a report several years ago about this idea and that there is no evidence from any other state that people who are disadvantaged economically or in any other way have been steered towards medical aid in dying. In one way, the sad fact is that the vast majority of people who use medical aid in dying are people with college degrees, people who are well-resourced, and that somehow correlates with health literacy. If you are already a healthcare advocate for yourself, you're more likely to be aware of the option of medical aid in dying. No doctors are steering people towards medical aid in dying, in part because once someone dies, there is no money to be made. There's no economic incentive for a doctor to steer someone towards medical aid in dying because providing continued treatment, even if that treatment is doing nothing to help the person's quality of life, ensures that someone continues to get paid.

There's no evidence [inaudible 00:30:18] [crosstalk], and it's also counterintuitive-- [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Right. I guess the argument when it comes to lower-income patients is that there's not so much money to be made as money to be spent on that person by the medical institutions and the insurance company, so the incentive might be different.

Corinne Carey: Well, we're not seeing it happen in any other state.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, listener writes, "Regarding the German Shepherd analogy, it is a good one, as the vast majority of humans who choose euthanasia for animals do so to spare their loved furry family members continued suffering and are legally unable to do the same for their human family members. As for the subset of humans who put their animals down out of reasons other than love and compassion," and this listener does not mention Kristi Noem by name, "this law we are talking about for humans effectively has safeguards to prevent a corollary from happening to human patients," so they're a supporter of the law. One more caller who has personal experience with this, Sue in Bergen County, you're on WNYC. Hi, Sue. Thank you for calling.

Sue: Hi. Good morning. Yes, I had this experience with my mother. She was 94 years old. Contrary to a lot of the comments you're getting, she was very well-resourced, and she chose this on her own, but we had a hard time getting all the information that we needed. It was right after COVID. She had congestive heart failure and she wasn't going to get any better. She couldn't walk. She just didn't have the quality of life. She was extremely sharp mentally, but she didn't have the quality of life that she wanted. She'd been getting the very best care at her local hospital. In fact, the care was so good that they probably prolonged her life longer than she really wanted. She researched this on her own. She found an article in a magazine about the woman that wrote the book who took her husband to Europe to go through this process, and she started making multiple copies of the article and sharing it with her friends and family. Finally, one of us said, "Okay, we'll look into this for you." That was actually after she had already had a hospice team.

The hospice team was excellent. They were making her comfortable at home. They were totally excellent. When we inquired about MAID, they said, "No, we can't. The hospital policy is that we can't help you with that. We can't," but I was given the name of somebody to call. I'm a licensed social worker, and my husband is a physician. None of my three siblings really wanted to pursue this or get too involved. Out of kindness and care for my mother, I had to look into it. I found that I really had to educate the people in New Jersey because it went in right before COVID, and during COVID, there really wasn't that much education being done. When I called her doctors to get certification, there's a lot of paperwork. She was interviewed three times by two different, very, very kind, compassionate doctors, who took an extensive history and made sure this is really what she wanted. First, she had to get written permission from her internist and her heart doctor and everybody that had been treating her.

For the most part, I had to educate about what this was all about and that this was what she wanted. She had a very good relationship with them, so they pretty much agreed to if this is what she wanted. She's a very strong-willed person, so when she made up her mind,-- [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: I think you're giving people evidence as to how difficult it would be to make this as any kind of snap decision,-

Sue: Exactly.

Brian Lehrer: -even the possibility for regrets. Let me ask you one follow-up question about the story you just told, that your siblings weren't interested in getting involved in this. I don't know that that means that they were opposed to it as opposed to it was too cringey for them to personally help take the lead. Would you care to say anything about that? Because it could be weird if the children of the person disagree as to whether it's a good thing. I guess under the law it would be irrelevant, it would only be up to the person if they went through that whole procedure.

Sue: That's right. None of us could speak for her. They made sure it was coming from her. I think your description of my family was the latter, where they just didn't think that they could handle it, but they realized that she was in so much discomfort and pain and just this is what she had made up her mind, that they were not going to fight it at all. No, in fact, two out of four of us were with her. I have to add one thing that really, really helped us. We had an absolutely terrific end-of-life doula, D-O-U-L-A, which is a new thing now. They have it for new mothers, but now there are end-of-life doulas. We found one who was totally excellent. She was a former nurse, and she made the process really good.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Kind of like a social worker with an end-of-life counseling and guide specialty?

Corinne Carey: Yes, more than that. She just was so compassionate. The other thing that they do, the doulas and even somewhat the hospice team, is, emotionally, they help the patient walk through like, "Do you want to write letters to your family for after you're gone? What's your list of priorities before you pass on?" They were just very excellent. Going back, I have to reiterate that there hasn't been enough medical education out to the doctors in New Jersey because I had to be the one to educate them on the process.

Brian Lehrer: Really interesting. Sue, I'm going to have to leave it there for time, but thank you for telling us your story and sharing what might, I'm sure, be still very hard to talk about. We're almost out of time. We just have two minutes left, but Corinne, let me just ask you about the one piece of political opposition that we haven't touched on yet, which might be the politically most powerful in the years leading up to this year on the Medical Aid in Dying Act, and that's the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Dolan, in particular, has been vocal in disavowing it. Aside from the religious arguments, "Only God can take a life," part of what Dolan and others claim is that the quality of end-of-life care should be so good that no one would choose medical aid in death. Give me 30 seconds and then we're out of time of political analysis of how much influence the Catholic Church has, and to address the Cardinal's concern.

Corinne Carey: Well, I think you'd find few people that would disagree with the fact that the Catholic Church has had undue influence over the legislature on a number of key issues and that Cardinal Dolan, while I respect his opinion, his opinion is out of step with the majority of people in the pews at mass on Sundays because about 70% of Catholics, like me, like our bill sponsor and our governor in New Jersey, and like so many of our supporters in the legislature, are Catholic. What we recognize, though, is that what we might believe for ourselves and our own family is we shouldn't impose those beliefs on everyone else. There are a variety of faith traditions among New Yorkers, and we need to respect all of them. The fact is this bill allows everyone to die in a way that's consistent with their faith, and their values, and their beliefs.

Brian Lehrer: Well, this is before the New York state legislature for the ninth year in a row, with the new endorsements from the Medical Society of New York and the Bar Association of New York. Maybe this is going to be the year that it passes. We will find out before the legislature ends at season next month. David Leven is a senior consultant to End of Life Choices New York, Corinne Carey is a senior campaign director for the group Compassion & Choices, both advocating for this bill. Thank you very much for joining us today.

David Leven: Thank you for having us, Brian.

Corinne Carey: Thanks, Brian.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.