A Connecticut woman, Lynda Bluestein, who had been terminally ill, passed away in Vermont on Thursday in a manner that she had long desired. Her husband, Paul, described the event as “comfortable and peaceful.” Bluestein, a lifelong activist from Bridgeport, had terminal cancer but did not wish to wait for the prolonged illness to take her life. Instead, she dedicated years to advocating for expanded access to a Vermont law that allows terminally ill individuals to choose to end their lives through the use of lethal medication.
Surrounded by her family, Bluestein took the prescribed medication and peacefully ended her life. Her husband shared that her last words were, “I’m so happy I don’t have to do this (suffer) anymore.” Bluestein had expressed that her decision empowered her in the face of her terminal illness. She had also expressed her preference to pass away in the presence of her loved ones rather than in a hospital bed, waiting for the cancer to claim her life at an unknown time and potentially alone. Bluestein firmly believed in having agency over when her illness became unbearable.
During an interview last year, Bluestein shared that her mother had passed away in a hospital after a prolonged battle with an illness. She expressed her desire for a meaningful death that did not drag on indefinitely. Bluestein’s advocacy extended beyond Vermont, as she had also pushed for similar legislation in Connecticut and New York, though without success.
Bluestein’s death followed a lawsuit filed by Compassion & Choices in 2022 against Vermont on her and physician Diana Barnard’s behalf. The lawsuit challenged Vermont’s residency requirement for using the state’s end-of-life law, claiming it violated the U.S. Constitution. The state settled in March 2023, allowing Bluestein, who was not a Vermont resident, to utilize the law to die in Vermont. Bluestein’s advocacy continued until the end, with Barnard emphasizing the need for broader access to these laws closer to people’s homes.
While medically assisted suicide remains a controversial topic, critics argue against it on moral grounds and express concerns about potential coercion of vulnerable patients. However, supporters assert that the law includes stringent safeguards, such as multiple requests to a physician over time and the presence of unbiased witnesses.
Bluestein’s story serves as a reminder of the ongoing debate surrounding end-of-life choices and the importance of individuals having agency in determining their own paths.
