Terminally ill people in Illinois may soon be able to end their lives with medical assistance.

State lawmakers recently passed the controversial medical aid in dying bill, but now heads to the governor's desk.

Supporters of the measure say it gives those who are already dying a compassionate way to go.

But opponents say the measure would worsen longstanding health care disparities, particularly for individuals with disabilities and people who live below the poverty line.

Joining us now with more on the bill are Bennett, the director of advocacy and intergovernmental affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and Amber Smock, vice president of advocacy at Access Living.

Thanks to both for joining us.

So starting with you, this bill has passed both houses in the General Assembly.

Governor Pritzker says that he is considering it.

He's reviewing before signing it into law.

We're not signing it into law.

>> Why do you think this law is needed?

>> It's needed because of people like dead with this bill is named after people who are terminal 6 months or less to live who want to live.

But they know that they're going to die.

There are people who've tried every kind of clinical treatment trial and they know that at some point they're going to die.

pretty painful death.

So this will bring Illinois in line with 10 other 11 other states and the District of Columbia to add another end of life option for people who are terminal and briefly, you named dead for whom this law's who is dead.

So Deb Robertson, she an advocate who's been working on the spill, sit in the last year and a half 2 years.

She's somebody who was diagnosed with a pretty rare form of cancer and it's been her mission to make sure that this bill becomes a law Illinois.

And, you know, as of right now, we don't know if that will make it to when this bill is signed it to 9 months before it goes into effect.

But it's so important for her because one of the things she worries about in and the networks that she's a part of with other people this kind of cancer is the knowledge that at the end, it is very, very painful.

There's no kind of medical breakthrough.

Pain is something that is real and this would give her a peace of mind knowing that this could be an option.

>> Amber, your group, though, you all have said that this bill would hurt those with disabilities.

People who are lacking health care access.

How so so.

>> Right now something like 82% positions actually have reported that they'd go people with significant disabilities as having to a quality of life a good deal of this bill's discussion is about whether or not people having quality of life.

Now the bill was technically designed to.

So people who have 6 months or to that.

The problem with that is that you put a casing a bill on something that is actually not viable.

Medical diagnosis of having 6 months or that's of actually not good.

A predictor to what will actually happen to people are plenty of people to pass a diagnosis, put new people that the you know, but best time to that.

What we're trying to get a class for people with disabilities is that?

To say it got it?

Yeah.

Yeah.

trying to get across for people with disabilities just out.

We really don't know.

The day-to-day existence of tape, a client what we are, what we deal with when we go to the doctor.

So when I say that, go to doctor can't know for sure if your doctor is going to give the best possible recommendation because maybe a doctor actually has a disability problem.

How can you count on that being really health care right now?

This bill is offering suicide as a health care measure, the metal thinking about because that's help cope.

Can just say I think for people like dead who've talked about what option would mean for them, they're very clear that this is not suicide.

These are people who want to live and you know that they're going to die.

>> They're part of her doing every single clinical trials because she really wants to live.

But, you know, set the end is going to happen and she wants that control.

And we see this is a type of bodily autonomy.

People who are facing a terminal illness should have the right to make the best decision for them.

And for some people that may mean using medical aid in dying and for some people, just the idea that they have access to this medication can be all that the need for them to feel comfortable at the end and for people with disabilities, that kind of choice just doesn't actually exist.

>> So a lot of people do want to be certain about that at the end of their life, they want to know what's going to happen with them.

But for a lot of people with disabilities, choice on how to live their lives is actually a day by day process.

Right now, though, a lot of people who don't actually experience real choice because there's so much out of the 5 that is outside the control.

They may not have access to housing.

They might not have access home and community-based services.

They may not have access to pain medication.

Those are the things that we should looking at.

Not often get another way to that.

>> Could some lawmakers have raised concern about there not being enough.

Safeguards are enough guardrails in place to ensure that the people are being basically coerced into into life ending treatment.

What are those guardrails?

So a lot of the law is patient directed.

So if you're a terminal person, your have the capacity to give informed consent or an adult.

So over 18 and you have a prognosis of 6 months or less to live, then you can start the process.

So that means that you would have to speak to an attending doctor confirm your terminal diagnosis.

There has to be consulting doctor to confirm your terminal diagnosis to make sure that you are not simply depressed, that you give an oral request, a written request, another oral requests.

There's a five-day waiting period before the first or look west and the second request.

>> Their car drills and the language that makes it clear somebody that you can't be course, if anyone were to course you it if they could be civilly or criminally prosecuted for that.

There's language that says that an insurance company can't condition care somebody using medical aid in dying.

So if this became law, then your insurance company can see what happened to those other end of life options where they have to continue to provide the care that they already provide.

There.

There's language that says that for the written request, there has to a statement and witnesses to one of those witnesses can be somebody who any way benefits from the law.

So we have a lot of protections in place so Amber, what what's what are your thoughts on some of those guardrails not enough?

Yeah, thing that could was listing a lot of guardrails.

But every single one of those God will govern how work around.

>> Thank And I point out specifically the insurance industry.

We know that the insured insurance industry's bottom line is money is not human interest.

And that is really big problem.

When you have instances night such of what happened in California, there was a case where woman needed covers for chemo, but the insurance company wouldn't cover it.

They said and Sen, you know, will cover only medication if you want to come stuff.

So if you cannot control insurance companies, to the extent that you might like to, in addition, I would also say that this if the governor signs and I certainly hope he doesn't because it can create a problem if the cover sciences, what is going to happen?

Is this now a law?

And you know the thing about laws that you can come back with amendment and there certainly people who are significant components and going even further than what the small towns they want to shorten the time takes to get to.

They want to make sure that people from out of state can access it.

And ultimately we're going to see what happened in Canada when people come back and say that's opening up to groups of people that when it comes up.

So what what potential to that point, though?

I think the first in Oregon was passed in 1994.

It went into effect in 1997.

>> And there it, as I said before, 11 states and DC that have the law on the books, thus the priest argument hasn't played out in the U.S.

and that's what we're talking about.

A law that will be hopefully will become a lot of the U.S.

what's happening in Canada has nothing to do with this conversation about terminally ill people want to be able to choose for themselves and end of life option that has been proven to be medically, OK, we've not seen some of these concerns that's been raised other seconds.

What happened in Canada has everything to do with that.

Happening to People are human.

The move more for assisted death is a global movement.

And so we are very concerned about what happened in Canada.

What people should understand.

>> They Canada opened up that this is suicide to people with disabilities.

It is as simple as going online, filling out a form like at the DMV and 5% of all deaths in Canada nationwide the medication.

That's where we'll have to leave Still awaiting the