Earlier this year, Delaware became the most recent jurisdiction to authorize medical aid in dying when it enacted the Ron Silverio/Heather Block End of Life Options Act, also known as the EOLOA. The new law has been billed as an expansion of choice, and in many ways, it certainly is. But for one disabled man, it looks more like a dangerous fork in the road. He’s now suing the state over the law. Why? Let’s take a look at what the law does before we dive into the litigation.
A Two-Track System for Suicide
Delaware’s EOLOA authorizes medical aid in dying for certain terminally ill adults in the state. It makes Delaware one of a small number of U.S. jurisdictions where eligible patients can legally request and self‑administer medication prescribed for the purpose of ending their life.
For adults who meet EOLOA’s criteria for a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less and who voluntarily request medical aid in dying, the law establishes a separate clinical process: these patients may be evaluated for and, if all statutory conditions are met, offered a prescription for life‑ending medication. The process includes mandated assessments of decision‑making capacity and informed consent, but with mandatory referral for mental‑health evaluation only when a clinician questions capacity, which differs from traditional suicide‑prevention pathways that aim to prevent any self‑inflicted death.
But for everyone else, it’s pretty different. For Delaware residents who are not seeking care under the EOLOA, suicidal intent is addressed through the state’s general mental‑health and crisis‑response system. This includes hotlines, mobile crisis services, and clinical standards that treat expressions like “I want to die” as serious indicators requiring risk assessment and appropriate intervention.
Sean Curran is a Delaware resident and quadriplegic who relies on nursing assistance for daily living and uses a wheelchair. He maintains that for him, the system does more harm than good.
A ‘False Choice’
Curran claims that EOLOA endangers people with disabilities and strips them of the protections others receive. His experience has been that, because he lives with a long‑term, life‑threatening disability, health‑care providers often view him through assumptions about a poor quality of life and a shortened life expectancy. This is true even though he has built a full career, raised a family, and stayed deeply involved in his community.
Curran describes living for decades with a severe spinal cord injury, relying on nursing support for basic daily activities, using a wheelchair, and frequently dealing with medical professionals and insurers. Yet he repeatedly encounters a sense that his life is more fragile and less worth preserving than that of non‑disabled peers. He alleges that EOLOA locks those attitudes into law by encouraging clinicians to treat him as “terminal.” In his view, it makes an early death seem like a reasonable option precisely when he may be most vulnerable because of depression, pain, or gaps in services.
From Curran’s perspective, EOLOA does not operate in a fair or even‑handed system. He feels that the system is “rigged” for people with life‑threatening disabilities, where they face a “false choice” between inadequate care and assisted suicide. This is especially true because people with disabilities already struggle to secure adequate home care, accessible housing, and timely medical treatment. On top of that, financial and institutional pressures often push toward cheaper, short‑term solutions.
Curran fears that if he expresses despair, he will not receive more suicide‑prevention services, mental‑health care, or practical supports. Instead, he will be met with a legal, state‑sanctioned pathway to lethal medication that nondisabled patients in similar psychological distress would never be offered. In his view, that makes EOLOA feel less like an expansion of “choice” and more like a message from the state that some lives—especially disabled lives like his—are more expendable than others.
Lawsuit Launches
Curran and six disability and patient‑rights organizations filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in federal court against the Delaware Attorney General and other state and professional licensing officials responsible for implementing EOLOA. At the heart of it is the claim that the two‑track system created by EOLOA violates disability‑rights laws and the U.S. and Delaware constitutions. The plaintiffs claim that this law violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (and parallel provisions of Delaware’s constitution).
The plaintiffs’ equal protection theory focuses on how the law “irrationally” singles out people with life‑threatening disabilities for a faster, state‑facilitated path to death, while people who are not labeled “terminal” are routed into suicide‑prevention measures instead. In their view, relying on a “terminal illness” category that overlaps heavily with disability, and on fallible six‑month prognoses, creates a disability‑based classification that lacks a rational basis and devalues disabled lives.
The due process theory centers on the alleged lack of safeguards needed to protect life. Plaintiffs contend that EOLOA does not include adequate procedures, such as mandatory mental health evaluations for all requesting patients. They also point to the absence of meaningful oversight at or near the time of ingestion of the life-ending medicine. In their view, this leaves people vulnerable to wrongful deaths caused by impaired judgment, coercion, untreated depression, or gaps in care and support. From that perspective, the state is not just permitting a risky process; it is structuring one that may end the lives of disabled people without the level of protection that due process requires.
The complaint also alleges violations of federal statutes. Specifically, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. Under all three of these laws, the plaintiffs claim that EOLOA’s structure discriminates “on the basis of disability.” The legal theory here is similar to the Equal Protection claims: public entities and federally funded health programs are allegedly offering a separate, less protective, and more dangerous response to suicidality precisely for people with life‑threatening disabilities, rather than providing them the same preventive care and safeguards available to everyone else.
What to Expect
In light of those theories, the plaintiffs are asking the court for concrete orders that would stop it from taking effect. They seek a declaration that EOLOA violates the U.S. Constitution, the Delaware Constitution, and the three federal disability‑rights statutes. They also ask for preliminary and permanent injunctions that would bar state officials and professional boards from implementing or enforcing the law. This would effectively prevent providers from prescribing life‑ending medication under EOLOA at all.
For now, the broader debate around the lawsuit is unfolding just as fast as the case itself. Supporters of EOLOA continue to defend the statute as a carefully regulated expansion of autonomy and choice. The case looks poised to become a test not only of how disability‑rights law applies when the state itself helps open a path to death.
Related Resources
- Who Pays Funeral Costs After a Relative's Death? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Human Composting Is Now a Thing (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- The Most Common Estate Planning Mistakes with Cryptocurrency (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
