[Maureen] Glynn [described as “the lawyer who co-chairs the coalition that pushed for the law”] said there was no major opposition to the MOLST law when it came up in Rhode Island. But in Connecticut, a similar proposal failed after a disability-rights group objected. Two members of that group, Second Thoughts Connecticut, shared their concerns with me via email.
Some people with disabilities fear that MOLST laws, already in place in several states, could result in denial of life-saving treatment to those who want it. Although MOLST is supposed to be voluntary, these activists say some nursing homes have presented it as mandatory. And when emergency personnel see that pink sheet tacked to the wall, will they read all its details or will they assume it means “do not resuscitate”?
Cathy Ludlum, of Second Thoughts Connecticut, says that “many people with severe disabilities feel personally threatened” by the law’s definition of “terminal illness” as “an incurable or irreversible condition that, without the administration of life-sustaining procedures, will, in the opinion of the attending physician, result in death.”
“By definition,” Ludlum said, “we have incurable and irreversible conditions, and many of us use life sustaining procedures every day of our (hopefully long) lives.”