Woman diagnosed with major depressive disorder say stronger safeguards needed before tragedy is disguised as choice

—A new federal lawsuit claims Colorado’s End-of-Life Options Act is failing the very people it promises to protect — especially those struggling with mental illness.

Filed in U.S. District Court in by disability-rights advocates, the complaint argues the state’s assisted-suicide law allows lethal prescriptions without adequate mental-health safeguards. Under current rules, a mental-health evaluation is only required if a physician suspects a patient lacks capacity to make an informed decision. Critics say that threshold is dangerously low.

The plaintiffs say the law discriminates against people with disabilities and psychiatric conditions by denying them protections routinely offered to others experiencing suicidal thoughts. While Colorado invests heavily in suicide-prevention programs, the law simultaneously permits some patients — often those with overlapping mental-health diagnoses — to end their lives through medication, critics argue.

One example in the lawsuit is Mary Gossman, a woman diagnosed with anorexia and major depressive disorder. Advocates say that if she had been deemed terminally ill during a severe depressive episode, she could have qualified for assisted suicide — a decision she might not have survived to reconsider. Gossman later stabilized with treatment and community support.

Opponents of the law warn that many people who request assisted suicide may actually be signaling treatable despair. Depression and hopelessness can mimic rational choice, but they often fade with therapy, medication, or improved circumstances. Without mandatory mental-health screenings, the complaint argues, Colorado risks turning temporary suffering into permanent solutions.

Supporters of the statute say that the law includes sufficient safeguards and respects personal autonomy for terminally ill patients seeking control at the end of life. But the lawsuit presses a deeper question: Are we offering compassion — or capitulation — when we accept a suicidal wish from someone whose judgment may be clouded by illness?

As courts weigh the claims, Colorado faces a moral test. Safeguards designed for terminal disease may not translate to the unpredictable landscape of mental illness. Without stronger protections, the line between mercy and neglect could blur — and the state’s promise to protect its most vulnerable could become another casualty of the law.

Sources: