Public Safety - Department of State Police - School Mapping Data Program
HB1328 creates Maryland’s End-of-Life Option Act, authorizing certain terminally ill adults to request and self-administer medication to bring about death. The bill sets out a detailed process for making an initial oral request, a written request, and a second oral request, along with waiting periods and witness requirements. It limits eligibility to adults with decision-making capacity, a terminal illness expected to result in death within six months, and the ability to self-administer the medication. The bill also requires physicians to provide information about diagnosis, prognosis, risks, alternatives, palliative care, and hospice, and it allows referral to a consulting physician and, when needed, a mental health professional assessment.
The bill would add a new subtitle to the Health-General Article governing aid in dying, amend the Criminal Law Article to clarify that health care professionals do not violate Maryland’s assisted-suicide prohibition when acting under the Act, and add insurance protections in the Insurance Article. It would also require the Department of Health to adopt regulations and publish annual statistical reports, establish recordkeeping and confidentiality rules, and create criminal penalties for forgery, destruction, coercion, or undue influence related to aid-in-dying requests. The measure further provides that a death under the Act is treated as death from natural causes for legal and insurance purposes, while preserving prohibitions on lethal injection, mercy killing, and active euthanasia.
The bill appears to reflect strong support among its many House sponsors for expanding end-of-life autonomy and patient choice. The text emphasizes safeguards, informed consent, voluntariness, and protections for providers and facilities, suggesting an effort to balance access with medical and ethical concerns. Because the bill was withdrawn by the sponsor and there is no committee transcript or recorded vote history in the provided material, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s broad sponsorship and its careful procedural design.
The main points of contention likely center on the moral and legal permissibility of physician-assisted dying, the adequacy of safeguards against coercion, and the role of health care institutions and providers who object to participation. The bill addresses these concerns by making participation voluntary, allowing facilities to prohibit participation on their premises under notice requirements, and imposing felony penalties for coercion or tampering. It also draws a sharp line between aid in dying and euthanasia, and it protects insurance and contract rights so that the decision to request or rescind aid in dying cannot be used against the individual.