By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
Michigan’s law that blocks pregnant women from refusing life-sustaining treatment through a patient advocate is unconstitutional, a lawsuit filed this week argues.
Currently under Michigan law, a patient advocate designated by someone to make decisions for them in the event they are incapacitated cannot refuse life-sustaining treatment for the patient if they are pregnant. An advance directive, which allows a person to outline what treatment they would like if they become incapacitated. names a patient advocate who can voice these wishes if necessary.
“The pregnancy exclusion calls into question the effectiveness of all advance directives of individuals capable of becoming pregnant and causes them to live in a state of uncertainty as to whether their highly personal decisions regarding end-of-life care and pregnancy-related care will be honored in the event they are incapacitated,” the lawsuit says.
The law violates the reproductive freedom amendment of the Constitution and the rights to due process, privacy, autonomy and bodily integrity, the lawsuit argues.
“Our plaintiffs are simply asking for the same rights the Michigan Constitution guarantees all Michiganders,” Jess Pezley, senior staff attorney at Compassion Legal, said in a statement. “Denying individuals the right to refuse treatment because they are pregnant is fundamentally at odds with the Michigan Constitution.”
The Senate in April passed SB 33 as part of its maternity health package, which would repeal the law being challenged in Koskenoja v. Whitmer, which was filed Thursday.
Plaintiffs in the suit include patients, doctors and patient advocates. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Health and Human Services Director Elizabeth Hertel and Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Director Marlon Brown are named defendants.
More than 30 states have advanced directive laws containing a pregnancy exclusion, but in recent years, states like Colorado and Washington have taken action to repeal these laws, a statement from those filing the lawsuit said.
“The pregnancy exclusion is an anachronism that seriously harms pregnant individuals and is incompatible with Michiganders’ fundamental right to bodily integrity,” attorney Ken Mogill of Mogill & Lemanski said in a statement. “It’s long past time for it to go.”
Gongwer News Service
Michigan’s law that blocks pregnant women from refusing life-sustaining treatment through a patient advocate is unconstitutional, a lawsuit filed this week argues.
Currently under Michigan law, a patient advocate designated by someone to make decisions for them in the event they are incapacitated cannot refuse life-sustaining treatment for the patient if they are pregnant. An advance directive, which allows a person to outline what treatment they would like if they become incapacitated. names a patient advocate who can voice these wishes if necessary.
“The pregnancy exclusion calls into question the effectiveness of all advance directives of individuals capable of becoming pregnant and causes them to live in a state of uncertainty as to whether their highly personal decisions regarding end-of-life care and pregnancy-related care will be honored in the event they are incapacitated,” the lawsuit says.
The law violates the reproductive freedom amendment of the Constitution and the rights to due process, privacy, autonomy and bodily integrity, the lawsuit argues.
“Our plaintiffs are simply asking for the same rights the Michigan Constitution guarantees all Michiganders,” Jess Pezley, senior staff attorney at Compassion Legal, said in a statement. “Denying individuals the right to refuse treatment because they are pregnant is fundamentally at odds with the Michigan Constitution.”
The Senate in April passed SB 33 as part of its maternity health package, which would repeal the law being challenged in Koskenoja v. Whitmer, which was filed Thursday.
Plaintiffs in the suit include patients, doctors and patient advocates. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Health and Human Services Director Elizabeth Hertel and Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Director Marlon Brown are named defendants.
More than 30 states have advanced directive laws containing a pregnancy exclusion, but in recent years, states like Colorado and Washington have taken action to repeal these laws, a statement from those filing the lawsuit said.
“The pregnancy exclusion is an anachronism that seriously harms pregnant individuals and is incompatible with Michiganders’ fundamental right to bodily integrity,” attorney Ken Mogill of Mogill & Lemanski said in a statement. “It’s long past time for it to go.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
