Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker on Friday signed a bill authorizing a strictly regulated form of medical assistance in dying for certain terminally ill adults. The option will be available in September 2026, allowing time for the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and state healthcare systems to establish safeguards.
Senate Bill 1950, known as “Deb’s Law” by supporters, sets a narrowly defined process. Eligible patients must be adults diagnosed with a terminal illness expected to cause death within six months, with the prognosis confirmed by two physicians. The request must come directly from the patient and must have the mental capacity to make medical decisions, with referral to a mental health professional if capacity is uncertain. The process requires both oral and written requests, witnesses for the written request, and the patient must be able to self-administer the medication.
Pritzker framed the measure as enabling personal autonomy with medical oversight. In announcing the signing, he said he was moved by stories of Illinois residents facing “devastating terminal illness.” He emphasized that the law will be implemented deliberately so physicians can guide patients through “deeply personal decisions” with “authority, autonomy, and empathy.”
Some see the measure as an expansion of compassion at the end of life, while others view it as a breach of a moral boundary the state should not cross. Supporters argue the guardrails are the point. Participation is voluntary, and no physician, pharmacist, or provider is required to take part. The law makes coercion a felony, along with forgery of a request. It also requires reporting to IDPH after a patient’s death and treats those submissions as confidential and privileged.
The backlash has been just as direct. The Catholic Conference of Illinois condemned the bill, calling it “dangerous and heartbreaking,” and urged the state to invest in palliative and hospice care instead. Illinois built opt-outs into the structure, including allowing healthcare entities to prohibit staff from providing aid-in-dying care. These protections are meant to reduce the risk that objecting clinicians or religion-affiliated systems could claim they are being compelled by the state to facilitate conduct they oppose.
The US Supreme Court has already held that there is no federally recognized fundamental right to assisted dying under the Due Process Clause. In Washington v Glucksberg, the court upheld a state ban on assisted suicide against a substantive due process challenge. In Vacco v Quill, the court rejected an equal protection challenge to New York’s prohibition on the practice, and accepted the state’s distinction between refusing treatment and assisting suicide. The practical result is that the main constitutional questions in Illinois are less about whether SB 1950 is “allowed” in the abstract and more about whether the law’s line-drawing and implementation operate fairly in practice.
SB 1950 limits eligibility to those who can self-administer medication and personally complete the request process, restrictions meant as anti-coercion safeguards. Critics, especially disability-rights advocates concerned about vulnerability and pressure, have previously argued that these same guardrails can act as exclusions, denying access to terminal, competent, and suffering patients who cannot self-administer or navigate the request structure. Advocates on the other side respond that the eligibility criteria and layered assessments are what keep the program from becoming a tool of abuse. These debates are likely to become equal protection litigation if families can point to real-world disparities in how capacity assessments, referrals, or institutional policies play out.
