House Bill 140, known as “The Ron Silverio/Heather Block End of Life Options Law,” passed Thursday after a long debate.

The bill was named in memory of Ron Silverio and Heather Block, who were passionate advocates of “End of Life Options” laws.

Silverio and Block passed away without an end of life option available to them.

HB 140 is also referred to as physician-assisted suicide and medical aid in dying. The bill only required 11 votes to pass, a simple majority. 

The vote was 11 for and 8 against. Three Democrats joined five Republican senators in voting against the bill. One Democrat senator and one Republican senator were absent on the day of the vote.

The bill also passed last year with 11 votes, but then governor John Carney vetoed the bill.

Gov. Matt Meyer has previously suggested support for the bill.

I offered two amendments for HB 140, but both failed along party lines.

The first amendment would have required that a patient seeking to utilize the end of life option be evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist for purposes of confirming decision-making capacity.

The second amendment would have required the Department of Health and Social Services provide information and a statistical report to the Division of Professional Regulation to ensure proper oversight.

Both of these amendments were suggested by Dr. Anthony Policastro of Seaford. I had asked Dr. Policastro to review HB 140 and offer suggestions for additional safeguards from abuse.

Dr. Policastro said the state already has a law on the books that addresses end of life health care decisions. 

He said the law addresses patients with terminal conditions and patients with permanent unconsciousness. 

“For the latter the requirement is that of the two physicians affirming the diagnosis, one must be a neurologist,” Dr. Policastro said.

“Perhaps the need for a mental health professional evaluation is warranted,” he said.

“Another possibility to consider is making sure that someone does not become a ‘suicide doctor.’ This would be someone that patients can go see who would be known to provide the needed documentation,” Dr. Policastro added.

HB 140 states, “The Department [of Health and Social Services] may share information collected under this section with the Division of Professional Regulation if the Department suspects that a health-care provider has failed to comply with the requirements under this chapter.”

I simply asked that the “may” be changed to “shall.”

The reason was to protect those in our society who may fall victim to some of the doctors who may be the “bad actors.”

Changing just this one word and making sure that this is a requirement that someone is overseeing what’s taking place in regards to the bill is not unreasonable.

Here is a sample of the emails I received regarding HB 140:

My own brother because of his loving family acting as his advocates, continued to live his happy and fulfilling life. Confused by his medication when staying in a rehab facility, he was questioned in such a way as to confuse him and mask their intentions. 

If not for his oldest son and loving siblings I worry what would have been his fate. 

I worry for those who are not as lucky and are without good family and friends to explain what is taking place in these conversations.

Medical persons, with soft and caring voices but no regard for the person’s true desires and only thinking of themselves, can be everywhere.

Please do not support HB 140 that is a threat to the very lives of Delaware’s elderly, disabled, and those struggling with mental illness.  

Government and insurance companies should not have influence over our healthcare decisions.

Claudia Austin, Laurel

I will be writing to the U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and asking her if HB 140 is a violation of substantive due process rights of the disabled and infirm.