Arthur L. Caplan, PhD 

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I think we’re all aware that Alabama has put itself and the rest of the country into a moral bind when it comes to abortion and the status of human embryos. Back on February 16, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case called LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, in which the court said that cryopreserved embryos in frozen nitrogen were legally equivalent to children.

They basically said they’re granted the same rights, meaning you certainly can’t destroy them. You certainly could not be in a situation where somebody said, “I’m going to not use them,” because once you create them, you seem to have some duty to make sure they end up in an environment where they can become full-fledged adults.

This decision that embryos in frozen nitrogen — but literally embryos anywhere — are the equivalent of full-bore children put Alabama in a terrible situation if you were a person or a couple seeking in vitro fertilization (IVF).

IVF requires the creation of many eggs. Women have to undergo drug treatment so that they superovulate. It’s too expensive to just go one egg at a time, egg procurement costs too much, and a cycle of IVF could cost as much as $15,000. There are some people who don’t make many eggs, so you want to get as many as you can.

When you get them, you freeze them, as happened in this Alabama case. By the way, what triggered the court case was that somebody in the lab dropped the tray with embryos in it, and they were basically accused not just of a mistake but of murder.

It’s pretty serious when you see this decision and you realize that if you make a multitude of embryos and then you had a child after two tries, but you have six more, you can’t destroy them. What are you going to do with them? Will they be under the governance of the utility company? What’s going to happen?

Many women in Alabama were outraged by the court’s opinion because they want to do IVF. In fact, politically, proponents of thinking that life begins at conception — or fetal personhood as it’s called, and the view that human embryos are children from the minute of conception — were stuck. It’s hard to argue that IVF is not pro-life. It’s hard to argue that people who desperately want to have children should find it difficult to use the technique.

The state has tried to pass a law that exempts IVF clinics from liability if they’re trying to use human embryos to make babies. I do not think this will stand. The court decision is fundamentally wrong, in part because human embryos are not children. They are potential children. They are possible children, but outside of implantation in the environment of a woman’s uterus, they’ll never become anything.

In fact, the court decision is a version of what used to be called preformationism, which sees a tiny baby inside a human embryo. That’s not true. We know today that you’ve got sets of genes that need messages from the mom in order to begin the process of division and development. It isn’t just expanding a tiny, miniature baby into a full-bore baby, as the court in Alabama seems to think.

Dr. Caplan, director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I think we’re all aware that Alabama has put itself and the rest of the country into a moral bind when it comes to abortion and the status of human embryos. Back on February 16, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case called LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, in which the court said that cryopreserved embryos in frozen nitrogen were legally equivalent to children.

They basically said they’re granted the same rights, meaning you certainly can’t destroy them. You certainly could not be in a situation where somebody said, “I’m going to not use them,” because once you create them, you seem to have some duty to make sure they end up in an environment where they can become full-fledged adults.

This decision that embryos in frozen nitrogen — but literally embryos anywhere — are the equivalent of full-bore children put Alabama in a terrible situation if you were a person or a couple seeking in vitro fertilization (IVF).

IVF requires the creation of many eggs. Women have to undergo drug treatment so that they superovulate. It’s too expensive to just go one egg at a time, egg procurement costs too much, and a cycle of IVF could cost as much as $15,000. There are some people who don’t make many eggs, so you want to get as many as you can.

When you get them, you freeze them, as happened in this Alabama case. By the way, what triggered the court case was that somebody in the lab dropped the tray with embryos in it, and they were basically accused not just of a mistake but of murder.

It’s pretty serious when you see this decision and you realize that if you make a multitude of embryos and then you had a child after two tries, but you have six more, you can’t destroy them. What are you going to do with them? Will they be under the governance of the utility company? What’s going to happen?

Many women in Alabama were outraged by the court’s opinion because they want to do IVF. In fact, politically, proponents of thinking that life begins at conception — or fetal personhood as it’s called, and the view that human embryos are children from the minute of conception — were stuck. It’s hard to argue that IVF is not pro-life. It’s hard to argue that people who desperately want to have children should find it difficult to use the technique.

The state has tried to pass a law that exempts IVF clinics from liability if they’re trying to use human embryos to make babies. I do not think this will stand. The court decision is fundamentally wrong, in part because human embryos are not children. They are potential children. They are possible children, but outside of implantation in the environment of a woman’s uterus, they’ll never become anything.

In fact, the court decision is a version of what used to be called preformationism, which sees a tiny baby inside a human embryo. That’s not true. We know today that you’ve got sets of genes that need messages from the mom in order to begin the process of division and development. It isn’t just expanding a tiny, miniature baby into a full-bore baby, as the court in Alabama seems to think.

Dr. Caplan, director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I think we’re all aware that Alabama has put itself and the rest of the country into a moral bind when it comes to abortion and the status of human embryos. Back on February 16, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case called LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, in which the court said that cryopreserved embryos in frozen nitrogen were legally equivalent to children.

They basically said they’re granted the same rights, meaning you certainly can’t destroy them. You certainly could not be in a situation where somebody said, “I’m going to not use them,” because once you create them, you seem to have some duty to make sure they end up in an environment where they can become full-fledged adults.

This decision that embryos in frozen nitrogen — but literally embryos anywhere — are the equivalent of full-bore children put Alabama in a terrible situation if you were a person or a couple seeking in vitro fertilization (IVF).

IVF requires the creation of many eggs. Women have to undergo drug treatment so that they superovulate. It’s too expensive to just go one egg at a time, egg procurement costs too much, and a cycle of IVF could cost as much as $15,000. There are some people who don’t make many eggs, so you want to get as many as you can.

When you get them, you freeze them, as happened in this Alabama case. By the way, what triggered the court case was that somebody in the lab dropped the tray with embryos in it, and they were basically accused not just of a mistake but of murder.

It’s pretty serious when you see this decision and you realize that if you make a multitude of embryos and then you had a child after two tries, but you have six more, you can’t destroy them. What are you going to do with them? Will they be under the governance of the utility company? What’s going to happen?

Many women in Alabama were outraged by the court’s opinion because they want to do IVF. In fact, politically, proponents of thinking that life begins at conception — or fetal personhood as it’s called, and the view that human embryos are children from the minute of conception — were stuck. It’s hard to argue that IVF is not pro-life. It’s hard to argue that people who desperately want to have children should find it difficult to use the technique.

The state has tried to pass a law that exempts IVF clinics from liability if they’re trying to use human embryos to make babies. I do not think this will stand. The court decision is fundamentally wrong, in part because human embryos are not children. They are potential children. They are possible children, but outside of implantation in the environment of a woman’s uterus, they’ll never become anything.

In fact, the court decision is a version of what used to be called preformationism, which sees a tiny baby inside a human embryo. That’s not true. We know today that you’ve got sets of genes that need messages from the mom in order to begin the process of division and development. It isn’t just expanding a tiny, miniature baby into a full-bore baby, as the court in Alabama seems to think.

Dr. Caplan, director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There’s never been anything like the revolution in the treatment of obesity that we are now living through. Historically, there’s always been calorie counting and diets. Now, after a burst of interest in gastric bypass surgery, we have the amazing world of injectables. We all have heard about Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Wegovy.

These are being used by millions of Americans at this point, some on prescription for conditions like diabetes and some to bring about weight loss in prediabetes, or in some instances — as is often seen on American television — weight control or weight loss by people who just want to look better. Celebrities getting behind these injectables has really powered an explosion of use.

There still are ethical issues out there for practitioners. For one thing, there are some forms of semaglutide, a key ingredient in some of these injectables, that are made by compounding pharmacies. They’re not the name-brand prescription injectables made by large companies. They’re brewed up, if you will, by a specialty pharmacy trying to mimic the ingredient.

What we’ve seen in recent weeks is an explosion of overdoses. When a person uses one of these compounding pharmacies, usually in association with a spa or sometimes online sales of weight loss injectables, they’re not always certain about how to dose themselves, how much to give, and what to take. They could misread the instructions. The more that it’s up to them to determine the dose, the more there’s risk for error. Reports show as much as 1500% increases in poisoning of people who took, instead of a 10th of a milliliter, 10 mL of these compounded versions of the injectable drugs.

Everybody needs to be alert, and not only for adverse events from the prescription injectables. It is important to track that, make sure that people aren’t getting into trouble, and have contact with the FDA if you have a patient who reports some kind of adverse event they attribute to injectables.

It’s important to realize that there’s this generic, cheaper path, but it’s a more dangerous path. People need to know this if they’re going to try that route. Doctors should be aware of it. People should be ready to call the poison control center number in their area to make sure that they know what to do if they overdose on this stuff.

My own inclination is to try to discourage its use. I think it’s still too dangerous to have people self-dosing with ingredients that really are not yet FDA approved in terms of knowing that they’ve been tested in clinical trials.

The other big issue, aside from this Wild West world outside of prescribed injectables, is what to say to people who are obese or trying to manage their weight. I think people need to know all their options. It’s pretty easy to just say, “Let’s put you on one of these injectables” and prescribe it. For one thing, they may not be able to get it; there’s such huge demand that there are some shortages out there.

People may be better off trying to manage weight with diet, calorie counting, or lifestyle changes. After all, you could stay on these drugs forever to maintain your weight, but it’s not cheap. We don’t really know the long-term consequences of decades-long use of these drugs.

I think people should hear their options and maybe try something less invasive to begin with. If that doesn’t work, then move on to the injectables. It isn’t so clear to me — given the cost, some of the unknowns of long-term use, and some of the dangers of people sneaking around and trying to get things cheaper on the side — that going straight to injectables is our best answer.

I do think doctors should talk about weight with their patients, carefully, with the patient’s consent. Make sure there’s no stigma. Make sure we’re not doing anything to raise anxiety as we talk about this condition. After all, it is seen as a disease.

Then, maybe enter your way gradually into interventions, seeing if lifestyle change is possible. It’s cheap and easier to implement: better diet, better exercise, or calorie counting. Some people succeed. When they don’t, we should move on, but realize that we’ve got the equivalent of a black market. We need to encourage patients, if they use injectable weight loss drugs, to tell doctors so that they can be on alert about the dangers and risks of overdose.

Dr. Caplan is Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed an unpaid position with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use, and serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There’s never been anything like the revolution in the treatment of obesity that we are now living through. Historically, there’s always been calorie counting and diets. Now, after a burst of interest in gastric bypass surgery, we have the amazing world of injectables. We all have heard about Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Wegovy.

These are being used by millions of Americans at this point, some on prescription for conditions like diabetes and some to bring about weight loss in prediabetes, or in some instances — as is often seen on American television — weight control or weight loss by people who just want to look better. Celebrities getting behind these injectables has really powered an explosion of use.

There still are ethical issues out there for practitioners. For one thing, there are some forms of semaglutide, a key ingredient in some of these injectables, that are made by compounding pharmacies. They’re not the name-brand prescription injectables made by large companies. They’re brewed up, if you will, by a specialty pharmacy trying to mimic the ingredient.

What we’ve seen in recent weeks is an explosion of overdoses. When a person uses one of these compounding pharmacies, usually in association with a spa or sometimes online sales of weight loss injectables, they’re not always certain about how to dose themselves, how much to give, and what to take. They could misread the instructions. The more that it’s up to them to determine the dose, the more there’s risk for error. Reports show as much as 1500% increases in poisoning of people who took, instead of a 10th of a milliliter, 10 mL of these compounded versions of the injectable drugs.

Everybody needs to be alert, and not only for adverse events from the prescription injectables. It is important to track that, make sure that people aren’t getting into trouble, and have contact with the FDA if you have a patient who reports some kind of adverse event they attribute to injectables.

It’s important to realize that there’s this generic, cheaper path, but it’s a more dangerous path. People need to know this if they’re going to try that route. Doctors should be aware of it. People should be ready to call the poison control center number in their area to make sure that they know what to do if they overdose on this stuff.

My own inclination is to try to discourage its use. I think it’s still too dangerous to have people self-dosing with ingredients that really are not yet FDA approved in terms of knowing that they’ve been tested in clinical trials.

The other big issue, aside from this Wild West world outside of prescribed injectables, is what to say to people who are obese or trying to manage their weight. I think people need to know all their options. It’s pretty easy to just say, “Let’s put you on one of these injectables” and prescribe it. For one thing, they may not be able to get it; there’s such huge demand that there are some shortages out there.

People may be better off trying to manage weight with diet, calorie counting, or lifestyle changes. After all, you could stay on these drugs forever to maintain your weight, but it’s not cheap. We don’t really know the long-term consequences of decades-long use of these drugs.

I think people should hear their options and maybe try something less invasive to begin with. If that doesn’t work, then move on to the injectables. It isn’t so clear to me — given the cost, some of the unknowns of long-term use, and some of the dangers of people sneaking around and trying to get things cheaper on the side — that going straight to injectables is our best answer.

I do think doctors should talk about weight with their patients, carefully, with the patient’s consent. Make sure there’s no stigma. Make sure we’re not doing anything to raise anxiety as we talk about this condition. After all, it is seen as a disease.

Then, maybe enter your way gradually into interventions, seeing if lifestyle change is possible. It’s cheap and easier to implement: better diet, better exercise, or calorie counting. Some people succeed. When they don’t, we should move on, but realize that we’ve got the equivalent of a black market. We need to encourage patients, if they use injectable weight loss drugs, to tell doctors so that they can be on alert about the dangers and risks of overdose.

Dr. Caplan is Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed an unpaid position with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use, and serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There’s never been anything like the revolution in the treatment of obesity that we are now living through. Historically, there’s always been calorie counting and diets. Now, after a burst of interest in gastric bypass surgery, we have the amazing world of injectables. We all have heard about Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Wegovy.

These are being used by millions of Americans at this point, some on prescription for conditions like diabetes and some to bring about weight loss in prediabetes, or in some instances — as is often seen on American television — weight control or weight loss by people who just want to look better. Celebrities getting behind these injectables has really powered an explosion of use.

There still are ethical issues out there for practitioners. For one thing, there are some forms of semaglutide, a key ingredient in some of these injectables, that are made by compounding pharmacies. They’re not the name-brand prescription injectables made by large companies. They’re brewed up, if you will, by a specialty pharmacy trying to mimic the ingredient.

What we’ve seen in recent weeks is an explosion of overdoses. When a person uses one of these compounding pharmacies, usually in association with a spa or sometimes online sales of weight loss injectables, they’re not always certain about how to dose themselves, how much to give, and what to take. They could misread the instructions. The more that it’s up to them to determine the dose, the more there’s risk for error. Reports show as much as 1500% increases in poisoning of people who took, instead of a 10th of a milliliter, 10 mL of these compounded versions of the injectable drugs.

Everybody needs to be alert, and not only for adverse events from the prescription injectables. It is important to track that, make sure that people aren’t getting into trouble, and have contact with the FDA if you have a patient who reports some kind of adverse event they attribute to injectables.

It’s important to realize that there’s this generic, cheaper path, but it’s a more dangerous path. People need to know this if they’re going to try that route. Doctors should be aware of it. People should be ready to call the poison control center number in their area to make sure that they know what to do if they overdose on this stuff.

My own inclination is to try to discourage its use. I think it’s still too dangerous to have people self-dosing with ingredients that really are not yet FDA approved in terms of knowing that they’ve been tested in clinical trials.

The other big issue, aside from this Wild West world outside of prescribed injectables, is what to say to people who are obese or trying to manage their weight. I think people need to know all their options. It’s pretty easy to just say, “Let’s put you on one of these injectables” and prescribe it. For one thing, they may not be able to get it; there’s such huge demand that there are some shortages out there.

People may be better off trying to manage weight with diet, calorie counting, or lifestyle changes. After all, you could stay on these drugs forever to maintain your weight, but it’s not cheap. We don’t really know the long-term consequences of decades-long use of these drugs.

I think people should hear their options and maybe try something less invasive to begin with. If that doesn’t work, then move on to the injectables. It isn’t so clear to me — given the cost, some of the unknowns of long-term use, and some of the dangers of people sneaking around and trying to get things cheaper on the side — that going straight to injectables is our best answer.

I do think doctors should talk about weight with their patients, carefully, with the patient’s consent. Make sure there’s no stigma. Make sure we’re not doing anything to raise anxiety as we talk about this condition. After all, it is seen as a disease.

Then, maybe enter your way gradually into interventions, seeing if lifestyle change is possible. It’s cheap and easier to implement: better diet, better exercise, or calorie counting. Some people succeed. When they don’t, we should move on, but realize that we’ve got the equivalent of a black market. We need to encourage patients, if they use injectable weight loss drugs, to tell doctors so that they can be on alert about the dangers and risks of overdose.

Dr. Caplan is Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed an unpaid position with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use, and serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.