Medical Aid in Dying: Residency Restrictions

In 2021, Compassion & Choices filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Dr. Nicholas Gideonse that challenged the constitutionality of the residency restriction contained in Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. In this case, Gideonse v. Brown, et al., Dr. Gideonse explained that he regularly treats patients from neighboring Washington State and that medical aid in dying was the only type of care that he was unable to provide to these individuals. The residency restriction required these patients to either find a new doctor during the dying process or to not have the option of medical aid in dying. Dr. Gideonse argued that the residency restriction violated the United States Constitution because it unlawfully discriminated against his out-of-state patients.

On March 28, 2022, Dr. Gideonse and the State of Oregon defendants reached a settlement in the case. As a result of this settlement, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), Oregon Medical Board, and the Multnomah County District Attorney have all agreed not to enforce the residency restriction. Further, the OHA agreed to initiate a legislative request to permanently remove the residency restriction from the law.

Learn more at the Gideonse v. Brown case page.

On August 25, 2022, Compassion & Choices filed a lawsuit on behalf of Lynda Bluestein, a terminally-ill Connecticut resident, and Diana Barnard, a Vermont physician specializing in hospice and palliative care and associate professor of family medicine at University of Vermont. Both Ms. Bluestein and Dr. Barnard’s non-Vermonter patients were unable to access medical aid in dying in Vermont, due solely to a provision of The Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act (the Act) that restricted the option to Vermont residents.

The lawsuit alleged that the residency requirement contained in the Act is unconstitutional. Filed on the heels of the State of Oregon agreeing to suspend enforcement of its residency requirement as a result of the settlement reached in the Gideonse v. Brown suit, the lawsuit was the most recent challenge to a residency restriction contained in a medical aid-in-dying law.

On March 14, 2023, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement 

Learn more at the Bluestein v. Scott case page.

On August 29, 2023, Compassion & Choices filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Judith Govatos, a Delaware resident with stage-4 lymphoma; Andrea Sealy, a Pennsylvania resident with metastatic breast cancer; Dr. Paul Bryman, a New Jersey physician, geriatrician, and hospice medical director; and Dr. Deborah Pasik, a New Jersey physician. The lawsuit challenges a requirement that restricts access to the state’s medical aid-in-dying law to only New Jersey residents.

Both Govatos and Sealy would like the option of medical aid in dying, but are currently ineligible for a prescription because they are not New Jersey residents. Both Drs. Bryman and Pasik regularly treat patients at the end of life, but are unable to offer their out-of-state patients the same end-of-life options as their in-state patients. If not for New Jersey’s residency restriction, Drs. Bryman and Pasik would be able to offer qualifying terminally ill patients the option of medical aid in dying.

Compassion & Choices believes New Jersey’s residency restriction is unconstitutional and impermissibly limits a person’s ability to access health care and a doctor’s ability to offer health care to their patients. Compassion & Choices is hopeful that, like Oregon and Vermont, New Jersey will soon remove the residency restriction from their medical aid-in-dying law.

In December 2025, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal.

Learn more at the Govatos v. Murphy case page.

On May 22, 2025, Compassion & Choices filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Jeff McComas, a Minnesota resident with terminal cancer; Dr. Barbara Morris, a Colorado physician and geriatrician; and Dr. Jennifer Harbert, a Colorado family medicine physician and hospice medical director. The lawsuit challenges a requirement that restricts access to the state’s medical aid-in-dying law to only Colorado residents.

McComas would like the option of medical aid in dying, but is currently ineligible for a prescription because he is not a Colorado resident. Both Drs. Morris and Harbert regularly treat patients at the end of life, but are unable to offer their out-of-state patients the same end-of-life options as their in-state patients. If not for Colorado’s residency restriction, Drs. Morris and Harbert would be able to offer qualifying terminally ill patients the option of medical aid in dying.

Compassion & Choices believes Colorado’s residency restriction is unconstitutional and impermissibly limits a person’s ability to access health care and a doctor’s ability to offer health care to their patients. Compassion & Choices is hopeful that, like Oregon and Vermont, Colorado will soon remove the residency restriction from their medical aid-in-dying law.

On November 4, 2025 Compassion Legal made the decision to voluntarily dismiss this case after the death of our patient plaintiff, Jeff McComas. Plaintiffs have the option to refile the case at a later date.

Learn more at the McComas v. Polis case page.