AB1164 would create a new Wisconsin chapter, titled the “Our Care, Our Options Act,” to authorize medical aid in dying for certain adults with terminal illnesses. A qualified individual would have to be at least 18, mentally capable, and diagnosed with a terminal disease expected to cause death within six months. The bill sets out a detailed process for requesting medication, including an oral request, a written request, a second oral request after a waiting period, witness requirements, and confirmation by both an attending provider and a consulting provider. It also requires providers to inform patients about prognosis, risks, alternatives such as hospice and palliative care, and the right to rescind the request at any time.
The bill would significantly affect health care practice and state law by establishing new duties, protections, and reporting requirements for providers, facilities, and the Department of Health Services. It would require DHS to create standardized forms, collect provider reports, and publish annual statistical summaries while keeping individual records confidential. The bill also changes how these deaths are treated legally: deaths under the chapter would not be classified as suicide or homicide, would be attributed to the underlying terminal disease on the death certificate, and would not alone trigger post-mortem inquiry. It further protects insurance coverage and benefits from being conditioned on a request for, or use of, medical aid in dying, and it creates a new exception in the probate code for deaths resulting from compliant use of the medication.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly procedural and protective of patient autonomy, with extensive safeguards intended to ensure informed consent, voluntariness, and medical confirmation. The bill also emphasizes provider conscience protections by stating that no provider is required to participate, while allowing facilities to prohibit participation by staff acting within the facility and requiring notice of such policies. At the same time, it creates immunity for good-faith compliance and penalties for coercion, forgery, or concealment of a rescission, indicating an effort to balance access with anti-abuse safeguards.
The main points of contention likely center on the legality and ethics of medical aid in dying, especially the bill’s treatment of self-administered life-ending medication as neither suicide nor homicide. Additional likely concerns involve the role of health care facilities in restricting participation, the scope of provider obligations to refer and document requests, and the potential for undue influence or pressure on terminally ill patients. The bill’s inclusion of insurance protections, death-certificate rules, and criminal penalties suggests it would draw debate from both end-of-life care advocates and opponents of assisted dying.
AB1164 would create a new statutory framework in Wisconsin for medical aid in dying, adding chapter 156 and a narrow exception in the probate code for deaths resulting from compliant use of the law. It would impose new duties on physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, and physician assistants; require DHS reporting forms and annual statistical reporting; protect insurers from discriminating based on a request for or use of aid in dying; and establish criminal penalties for coercion, forgery, or destruction of a rescission. It would also alter how certain deaths are classified and documented, including death certificates and post-mortem inquiry rules, while preserving civil liability for negligent or intentional misconduct.
The bill’s overall tone is supportive of medical aid in dying as an end-of-life option, but with substantial safeguards and procedural limits. The text reflects a policy choice to permit the practice only for terminally ill, mentally capable adults who follow a detailed consent process, while also protecting providers who opt out and facilities that prohibit participation. Because no committee discussion or vote record is provided, the available context does not show recorded legislative support or opposition beyond the bill’s introduction and subsequent failure to pass.
The most likely points of contention are the moral and legal status of physician-assisted death, the adequacy of safeguards against coercion, and the extent to which health care facilities may restrict participation by their staff. Opponents are likely to focus on concerns about vulnerable patients, the possibility of pressure from family members or institutions, and the bill’s explicit statement that compliant deaths are not suicide or homicide. Supporters are likely to emphasize patient autonomy, relief of suffering, and the bill’s layered requirements for informed consent, medical confirmation, and mental-capacity review. Insurance protections and the prohibition on using the request as a basis to alter benefits may also be disputed by insurers or critics concerned about broader policy effects.